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

[pemerton]

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?

Like I posted upthread, one of my complaints is that a lot of the good stuff in Worlds and Monsters was not reproduced in the core books.

But even the core books have quite a bit of flavour - more world background in the 4e DMG than the 3E one, for example, and more world background in the 4e MM monster entries than in the 3E ones (just some random examples - in the demon entry I get the history of the Abyss, in the spider entry I learn that Lolth was once a god of fate, in the goblin entry I learn about the religious and cultural practices of hobgoblins). And the 4e PHB gives more details on the gods than does the 3E one, and it gives us bits of world history scattered throughout the race descriptions.

Anyway, I know from my own experience that it's not true that "nobody understands it or likes it as much as something well designed" (which is what you said) - I understand it and think it is well-designed (and Worlds and Monsters explains the design) and I like it. I like it as much as Greyhawk (which I've GMed in for many years) and better than FR or Eberron, neither of which I have any interest in running a game in.

 

[mattcolville]

I feel as though this is relevant to the discussion.

Why D&D Sucks | SquareMans

In order to understand the reaction to 4E, we need some historical perspective. What was 4E a reaction to? Who was the target audience?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

The more things change...the more they...



...change.

4e might be D&D, or it might not. Same with 3e. Same with Retroclones. Same with hybrids. Same with other games that happen to be similar, but really have nothing to do with D&D.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254968-experts-other-systems-why-arent-they-d-d.html


Call a bird a bird. Call a cow a cow. Or call a cat a catfish. Names matter less than impressions. Impressions are not identical, but they are often shared, especially by groups.


To many, 4e is perfect D&D...even the best D&D. (They are not wrong in their impressions.)

To many others, 4e is no longer D&D. (They are also not wrong in their impressions.)


I think, overall, if WotC had minimized group 2 (the people who think 4e is no longer D&D) that 4e would have been more popular overall, and that there would be fewer edition wars on this and other forums.

 

[shadzar]

Like I posted upthread, one of my complaints is that a lot of the good stuff in Worlds and Monsters was not reproduced in the core books.

But even the core books have quite a bit of flavour - more world background in the 4e DMG than the 3E one, for example, and more world background in the 4e MM monster entries than in the 3E ones (just some random examples - in the demon entry I get the history of the Abyss, in the spider entry I learn that Lolth was once a god of fate, in the goblin entry I learn about the religious and cultural practices of hobgoblins). And the 4e PHB gives more details on the gods than does the 3E one, and it gives us bits of world history scattered throughout the race descriptions.

Anyway, I know from my own experience that it's not true that "nobody understands it or likes it as much as something well designed" (which is what you said) - I understand it and think it is well-designed (and Worlds and Monsters explains the design) and I like it. I like it as much as Greyhawk (which I've GMed in for many years) and better than FR or Eberron, neither of which I have any interest in running a game in.

I see there DOES seem to be some stuff that I had never seen in the MM because it is hidden from the rest of the same information.

You have a blurb about the monster at the front of the list of monster entries, then AFTER those you have the DC checks for lore...which i ignored. All that should be in one place. When running a game I would set up what information is gathered from such an attempt to gain information on them from a character perspective. So MM does have stuff but hidden or broken up so that I would have never looked for it.

I really don't understand what the whole PoL setting is other than a generic litter box. It looks to me as pretty much saying "Here is all the stuff there exists, use what you want/need to in your games". That isn't much of a setting for me beyond what that one poster in a previous thread was saying D&D wasn't much of medieval because it wasnt finite on the detail of the medieval era.

"Nobody" is coming form a very new TTRPGer POV.

When talking of previous edition you can hear of rich settings and such, even if only the medieval front of it all, but 4th edition "core setting" leaves me wondering what and where the heck it is?

I have never heard anyone say that 4th has a rich setting it is built on/in.

 

[MrGrenadine]

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.

4e is D&D, for sure--says so right on the books. But to me, aspects of 4e just aren't D&D, and that has nothing to do with being inflexible.

D&D captured my imagination when I was young because it wasn't like anything else I had ever come across. It was distinctive, and certain things about it--6 attributes, Armor Class, hit points, and more--add up to that special D&D-ness that I love. You want to make an RPG where the abilities are Power, Speed and Smarts? Go ahead. Want to use Wound points, and "Armor level"? Be my guest.

But that wouldn't be D&D to me.

Now, did 4e deviate THAT much from previous versions? In its entirety, no. But aspects of it did, so I understand the feeling.

And I would bet there's SOMETHING about the game that--if changed--even you would think is too much of a deviation to be called D&D.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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 if they had decided to support 4E, once the resources were devoted to it there would have been no turning back. And they didn't really like the 3E rules much either, did they? Otherwise why bother "fixing" it with Pathfinder.

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.

I agree 100% with the first comment. My point was that if someone who preferred 3E, but liked new material and 3E was no longer supported might be more likely to stick with 4E.

 

[Mercurius]

I feel as though this is relevant to the discussion.

Why D&D Sucks | SquareMans

In order to understand the reaction to 4E, we need some historical perspective. What was 4E a reaction to? Who was the target audience?

Interesting read - it could really inspire its own thread. I tend to agree with him, and felt the same way about 3.5 that the WotC person's fiancee did ("30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours"). But the problem is, I don't think 4E really fixed the problem, or rather it was a two steps forward, one step back kind of thing: they replaced old problems with new ones, although ones that I don't think are quite as bad.

In some ways I think the main difference between 3.5E and 4E is not which sacred cows were slain or healing surges or Vancian magic or powers or any number of the many things that people kvetch about; rather, I think it has to do with system mastery, and the degree to which people like that approach to gaming or not. 3.5E is all about systems mastery; 4E is not. 4E seems to have become more about it deeper into the edition cycle because WotC just couldn't resist the urge to come out with endlessly boring and pointless feats. But, by and large, 4E is a game that is generally balanced; it doesn't as much reward system mastery as tactical mastery, especially in relationship to the group.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

And your response to that particular opinion is just as narrow minded, if not more so.

It's just as easy to say "well that's his opinion and I disagree" than to label anyone who disagrees with you to be a narrow minded and inflexible. You're calling into question a person's basic character based on their opinion on what "is" or "isnt" D&D?

What kind of human being are YOU? I think is the real question here.

I've actually ran and played 4E and NO it doesn't feel like any other edition of D&D that I've played since Red Box basic. Your next step in is to get me to quantify what it "feels like" in order to prove myself and many others wrong.
Because we're all a hive mind, see? We all solely listen to each other and our own experiences and feelings don't matter because we didn't jump on the 4E bandwagon.

I know what it "feels" like and it feels like I'm playing a glorified miniature skirmish game. Which is not a bad thing. I LIKE miniature skirmish games, but not as my main fantasy RPG. I like and own the Castle Ravenloft Board game. I like it as a board game. I play it with my son. As a board game 4E is amazing as an RPG it's not what I want and doesnt feel like anything before it. It has nothing to do with fearing change. I work in an IT dept. I know EXACTLY what resistance to change looks like.

I look over at my gaming shelf and I see Mutants & Masterminds, SpyCraft, FantasyCraft, Hero System, Gurps and Rolemaster along side my 3rd Edition, 4th Edition (no, I didn't burn them) 1st Edition and Basic books, I really dont think I'm resistant to change. I'm the guy who went from VHS & Beta, to Laserdisc (I still have my player by the way and the OT on laserdisc) to DVD to Blu-Ray so no I dont think I'm resistant to change.

SO the next time you think to type / insinuate something as patently asinine as someone who says that 4E dosent feel like D&D to them is narrow minded or inflexable, you might want to consider that you yourself might be narrow-minded and inflexible as well in pitching out that response?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I agree 100% with the first comment. My point was that if someone who preferred 3E, but liked new material and 3E was no longer supported might be more likely to stick with 4E.

I'll tell you flat out that this would not have been the case with me. I have enough 3x material to choke a donkey about 10 times over. And if I grew tired of that? I'd find a different system, like FantasyCraft or maybe M&M modded to fantasy?

If Paizo had decided to support 4E, as much as I love their material? I would have probably moved on from Paizo as well.

 

[Diamond Cross]

So if I took off my shirt, got in a rowboat, rowed all the to Australia from Sacramento CA, using only my hands to row, do you think it'd make 4e more popular?