A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think some players* could play 4Ed with Plot Driven Recharges as-is, but I get the feeling most wouldn't care for it, even with the adaptations you mention.



* esp. those who favored non-casters in previous editions.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure I understand Ron Edward's use of the term "reward system", but I think what he means is something really basic: a cycle of play that changes (and deepens the complexity of) the decisions that players make.

<snip>

I guess what I'm saying is that - in my opinion - they should have tied each swing of the sword, each Perception check to find secret doors, each skill challenge, to the "story" of the game that they were aiming for. Everything you do changes your character's relationship to whatever the game is about (probably heroic derring-do).

I don't know about literally "everything" - sometimes a skill check in my game is just a means to an end, and even the occasional combat is also - but I try and get something like what you describe happening in my game.

I like some aspects of your hack - especially the skills - but I don't feel that I need to depart from 4e's mechanics to get what I'm looking for. What would help me would be better guidance on the GM's side - on how to build and run scenarios, for example, and better guidance on the resolution of skill challenges.

To sum up what I would like: give me the right tools and guidelines as a GM, and I'll build encounters where "everything you do changes your character's standing as a hero in the gameworld." At the moment I feel that, to the extent that I'm doing this, it's because I've read other rulebooks (Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, not to mention many visits to the Forge) and not because of what I got out of the 4e books. They've given me the mechanical tools and the game elements, but not the techniques. And at least for me, these GMing techniques are crucial.

 

[shadzar]

Well flavour obviously is in the eye of the beholder. But after reading Worlds and Monsters I was very keen to run a points-of-light game.

Which section of the PHB, DMG, or MM is this Worlds and Monsters in so that a new player picking up one of these books has access to read it as part of the game?

 

[Dannager]

2.)For me personally I thought it lost its likeness to D&D. From info I have gathered from talking in casual conversations with other gamers the concensus seems to be the same. 4th edition was a good game system but it wasn't D&D.

Years after the game's release, this argument still annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.

 

[BryonD]

Years after the game's release, this argument still annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.

As someone who *doesn't* care whether the game I play feels like old school D&D, I still find your reply rather closed minded.

I like D&D Vancian(ish) magic. I can live without it perfectly fine.
But it clearly resonates as "in the key of D&D".

But if that is someone's taste, that should be respected.
It is not "inflexible" to have a preference.
Rather, I'd say it is much more a question of being closed minded if you call differing tastes "inflexible"

To put a different spin on a comment I already made to you, if you are so "mind-boggled" and annoyed at inflexibility, then why do you waste so much time converting material from one system to another. If you would simply be flexible and use the intended system, you could put all that time into other things. But you are so mind-bogglingly inflexible that this isn't an option.

Now, I'll immediately counter that last by clarifying that I do understand and respect that you get a lot more fun out of 4E and the effort is worth it to you. But that is giving you a fairer shake than you offered.

And the magic system is just a random example out of dozens available.

It is cool for people to like what they like.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Years after the game's release, this argument still annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.

Speaking as one who both holds that view of 4Ed and is surrounded by all kinds of tech...and who in my professional capacity often touts the virtues of being on the cutting edge, I can say my view of 4Ed has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with fear of change.

I currenly own 60+ RPGs (most of which have gone through their own edition revisions), and have played another 40 or so I didn't bother buying. I won't go into the litany of things that brought me to this conclusion, but the bottom line for me is this: while 4Ed is a fine FRPG, it has lost many things that (IMHO) set D&D apart from the other fine FRPGs out there; it's not D&D to me.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

There are (at least) two problems with that.

The first is that the division was clear before PF was even announced. Certainly it has grown since, but it was already there. It makes more sense to point out that the reason a company with a reputation for good material decided to support a previous edition is because they realized a lot of the market was up for that.

Second, a lot of people did switch and subsequently left. So clearly the option to not switch was moot in their case.

I disagree. The division was clear before PF because Paizo could continue to support 3E D&D through the OGL. Also, it was quite clear from people like Erik Mona that Paizo's first choice was to support 4E, but WotC's mishandling of the 3rd party agreement pushed them down another path and by the time the issue was cleared up Paizo had put too much time and effort into a project that was subsequently doing well.

People that left after adopting 4E might not have left if their was no support for 3E from a reputable company.

 

[BryonD]

it's not D&D to me.

heh. exactly

I like GURPS. GURPS does NOT feel like D&D to me.
I like 3E. 3E DOES feel like D&D to me.
I don't (much) like 2E. 2E feels like D&D to me.
I don't (much) like 4E. 4E kinda feels like D&D to me.
I like Warhammer 1E and 2E. They don't feel like D&D to me.
I don't like Warhammer 3E. It doesn't feel like D&D to me.

There are games that feel like D&D to me and games that don't.
There are games I like and games I don't.

The two are not correlated.

I see some D&D in 4E, but it is very easy for me to see the differences. Those differences are not the key differences in my taste, so no big deal. But it is easy to see how someone else would, very reasonably, have a different view.

 

[BryonD]

I disagree. The division was clear before PF because Paizo could continue to support 3E D&D through the OGL. Also, it was quite clear from people like Erik Mona that Paizo's first choice was to support 4E, but WotC's mishandling of the 3rd party agreement pushed them down another path and by the time the issue was cleared up Paizo had put too much time and effort into a project that was subsequently doing well.

They have made a lot of comments that they were never thrilled with the 4e mechanics, nor with some of the cosmology changes, etc...

The GSL played a role. But so did the game itself. And, further, the market demand MUST lead the choice to invest. They heard the market loud and clear and they answered it.

I think your statement of "first choice" is just flat wrong. There may have been a point in time when it was a default presumption. But hell, there was a point in time when me going to 4E was the default presumption. Disillusion with the game itself led the path to change in both cases.

People that left after adopting 4E might not have left if their was no support for 3E from a reputable company.

If they preferred 4E to 3E, no amount of support for 3E would draw them back away. If they prefer 3E, well, there's your problem.

 

[pemerton]

On "D&D to me" - If D&D is meant to be a historically relevant category, then I would reserve that to Basic and AD&D (I don't have experience with OD&D).

3E is not D&D to me - it feels sort of like a Rolemaster/D&D hybrid.

Of course I describe 4e as D&D, but it doesn't feel like Rolemaster, or like A/BD&D. It is it's own game.

And just for clarity - all of the above refer to mechanical feel and the sort of play those mechanics produce. As for themes/tropes, I GM 4e much the same way as I GMed Rolemaster - kitchen-sink fantasy ecology with a world backstory to try and rationalise this, and with that backstory also being drawn on to support a fairly serious moral/mythical tone.