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

[pawsplay]

This really isn't tough, guys.

Imagine a man named Bob. Bob likes his pies. Pies are an important part of Bob's life. One day, Bob notices a new pie listed on his favorite pie restaurant's menu: Boston Cream Pie. Bob has never had this pie before, and his curiosity compels him to order one.

When Bob is served his Boston Cream Pie, he is outraged. "This isn't pie!" he bellows, "It's missing some of the things I like about pies! It's way too much like a cake to be a real pie! It just doesn't feel like pie to me."

Bob's view of pies, as a concept, is very narrow. He has created a personal definition of what a pie is, and anything that falls outside that definition is not a pie as far as he is concerned. His definition of pie-hood is not open to revision; no matter how many thoroughly enjoyable desert pastries he samples, he will not expand his personal conception of the essential nature of a pie.

I appreciate your passionate defense of your own mindset, but let's not overextend ourselves, hmm? The creation of a rigid personal definition for what D&D is and isn't does not strike me as flexible.

It would be nice if we could put this particular flavor of gripe to bed. It's a silly one to begin with, and very nearly pointless when it comes to any sort of discussion ("I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me," doesn't explain your position any better than simply saying, "I don't like 4e," and tends to confuse things, because you're the only person who knows what your own personal definition of D&D looks like).

Your analogy is flawed.

How about this scenario? Bob goes to his favorite pie restaurant and orders a Boston cream pie. He gets something entirely unlike what he is used to, and rather than being one of the most delicious Boston cream pies he's ever had, that brought him back to Boston cream pie-eating after a decade long hiatus of eating only cherry pies and the occasional eclair, it is now a fairly serviceable example of a pie that departs so far from what he expected that it does not fulfill his Bostom cream pie craving.

In short, Bob is going to have to find a new pie restaurant. Fortunately, a local bakery that used to supply the filling, has decided to open their own restaurant and bake pies in the style he is used to.

I think it would be unkind to say Bob's view of a Boston cream pie is unreasonably narrow. He was perfectly content with the pie available to him; it was the pie maker who suddenly decided the pie was insufficient to fulfill its pastry destiny.

 

[Dannager]

Your analogy is flawed.

No, actually, both analogies are pretty faithful, albeit for different purposes. Notably, however, in your analogy Bob isn't declaring that the new pie isn't a pie, nor is he declaring that it isn't a Boston Cream Pie, which was the entire point of setting up this analogy in the first place.

Your Bob is just switching bakeries. Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't real pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.

 

[Dannager]

Likewise, dismissing someone's complaint of 4Ed "not being D&D" to them as "narrow minded" or "inflexible" (not to mention "silly" or "pointless") is similarly flawed- you have ZERO concept of their experiences in gaming. Someone with my aforementioned experience - 100+ different systems, remember- might even take that as an insult or as a sign of ignorance, neither of which does your POV any favors.

I think you might be confused. It doesn't matter how many different systems you've played. The fact that you have constructed a personal mental definition (based on arbitrarily-crafted requirements) for exactly what D&D is and isn't is the issue. It looks to me like you may be overthinking this.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

It's not.

Worlds and Monsters was its own stand-alone softcover book put out a few months before 4e's full release, as a primer and introduction to what they were doing and why. I'm not at all sure how easy it'd be to find a copy now; but if you can it's worth it if only for the art.

There was also a second such book, Races and Classes.

Lanefan

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's not.

Worlds and Monsters was its own stand-alone softcover book put out a few months before 4e's full release, as a primer and introduction to what they were doing and why. I'm not at all sure how easy it'd be to find a copy now; but if you can it's worth it if only for the art.

There was also a second such book, Races and [something I forget].

Lanefan

Or possibly good only for starting campfires - W&M had several of the 'the game that you used to play isn't fun' statements that have come back to haunt WotC - in particular the one about 'isn't a game about traipsing through the fairy gates and talking to the little people, it's about combat!' or words to that effect. That one sentence is where I decided that 4e was looking like something to make a pass on.

And for the record - Boston Cream Pie really isn't a pie. It is a pastry, specifically a cake, but not a pie. I like them, I think that they are tasty, but no, they really aren't a pie. If you want a pie then you will have to get something else.

The Auld Grump

 

[Tuft]

Or possibly good only for starting campfires - W&M had several of the 'the game that you used to play isn't fun' statements that have come back to haunt WotC - in particular the one about 'isn't a game about traipsing through the fairy gates and talking to the little people, it's about combat!' or words to that effect. That one sentence is where I decided that 4e was looking like something to make a pass on.

Yep, that quote really drove home that 4E was not for me. I kept trying to find something to like about 4E for a year after that in our tryout campaign (lvl 1-26) since my GM was so insistent, but that initial quote had really made me lose all hope from the start.

There were other things, like the infamous "lets dump dragon dung on the critics" official promotion video. (Man! WoTC must really have gotten a hefty PR budget from Hasbro for the 4E launch, if they could blow money on commissioning that one!) or a local player's gleeful chortle about "finally getting rid of all wussy wizards", but that quote is really the pure, distilled quintessence.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

Call a bird a bird. Call a cow a cow. Or call a cat a catfish. Names matter less than impressions.

<snip>

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.)

For people who focus on tropes and themes, then presumably 4e feels like D&D. But I think so would Rolemaster.

But for those who focus on mechanics, I think it would be surprising if 4e felt much like AD&D or 3E. I mean, RM and Runequest both use d%, but they play pretty differently in mechanical terms.

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.

I think this is true, and quite a difference from many other fantasy RPGs.

But is this something that many people dislike about 4e?

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?

I doubt it. But it would probably make you popular in Australia - we've just appointed a round-the-world solo sailor Young Australian of the Year!

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm a bit surprised that you would post about the lack of flavour in a game when you haven't read the entries in the Monster Manual labelled "Lore".

I really don't understand what the whole PoL setting is other than a generic litter box.

It's not a "setting". It's a framework/set of guidelines to support a GM in running a game. The framework is set out in the DMG ("The World is Ancient", etc).

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.

Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM. It seems intended to support "just in time" GMing - ie the GM sets up situations and the players play through them. This sort of play doesn't need a rich setting. It does need an "atmosphere" and "vibe" - as the OP noted. And this is what PoL supplies.

 

[Nagol]

I think this is true, and quite a difference from many other fantasy RPGs.

But is this something that many people dislike about 4e?

I dislike the (positional) tactical mastery of 4e. It's one of the the design choices that leaves me cold towards the system as a whole.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I quoted this thread before, but I want to bring up a few points from it.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...experts-other-systems-why-arent-they-d-d.html

Saying 4e isn't D&D is mainly problematic because it is a volatile way of saying it. However, the conclusion in that thread was basically "D&D can't really be definied beyond personal preference, feel, and the Name Brand (TM)".

4e is D&D officially because the owners of the name brand call it that. If they call the ravenloft board game D&D, so it will be. But the ravenloft board game is not D&D to me.

How can I say such outrageous things? Well if you think about it not as a defense of 4e, but actually make an attempt to define what D&D is as your starting point, you'll see some interesting themes emerge.


I ask people who know more about other systems why they AREN'T D&D. It's easy to see that World of Darkness isn't D&D. What about Castles and Crusades? What about Rolemaster? What about Pathfinder?

When you start exploring the boundaries of "what is D&D" starting from OD&D roots, and then extrapolating out, it becomes harder and harder to justify certain things (including 3e and 4e) as D&D without also claiming that other games, games that no one would ever really call D&D, are D&D as well.

Need to roll a d20? Kult.
Needs fantasy themes? Warhammer Fantasy.
Needs levels? WOW.

Or the converse...
Needs Vancian Magic? No to 4e.
Needs Thac0? No to 3e.


In the end, I think it is perfectly justifiable to say 4e (or 3e, or Castles and Crusades, or Pathfinder, or Osric) doesn't feel like D&D to me.