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

[pemerton]

I myself have stated IN THIS THREAD that I find 4Ed to be an enjoyable game to play. It still doesn't feel like D&D to me.

<snip>

When a car reviewer says a particular model doesn't have the "feel" of a Ferrari (or Porsche, Fiat, Ford, etc.), it's pretty much understood that he is NOT negating the car's identity, but rather that something about the car is at perceptible variance with his expectations of what he expects from the badge. (And in fact, that may even be a positive- context matters).

If by "D&D" we mean something along the lines of Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert or 1st ed AD&D (the two editions of D&D that I happen to be most familiar with, and also two editions that in my view play somewhat similarly, the mechanical baroqueness of AD&D notwithstanding), then I will say that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me.

If it did, I wouldn't be playing it.

So in this particular point I think I agree with Danny (although our tastes in RPGs obviously differ to an extent).

(For the curious: 4e doesn't, to me, feel like those earlier editions because (i) it doesn't lean towards simulationism in its approach to action resolution and scenario design, and (ii) it doesn't lean towards dungeon exploration, and particularly the operational minutiae of dungeon exploration, in its approach to the themes of the game.)

Each edition has had the disconnect with a previous, but even fans of specific older editions would consider them to be D&D

I realize that a lot of people don't think 3E feels like D&D. That has been true for a very long time. My reaction to this is: ok.

I'm one of the people BryonD refers to. To me, 3E feels like an unstable blend of AD&D and Rolemaster. I'd rather play one or the other. But I would say that 3E does not feel, to me, as different from AD&D as does 4e.

And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D which pathfinder isn't.

I think this is true only in the sense of D&D the brand name. But in most of these conversations I don't think that that is how "D&D" is being used.

If someone asked me to come and join an RPG group, and I said "Fine, but no 3rd ed D&D, I really don't like its build rules, and I'm not a big fan of its action resolution either" I wouldn't expect the response "OK, then, let's play Pathfinder (or Arcana Unearthed, or Conan d20)". These are all 3E variants. Yes, they vary the build and action resolutin mechanics in minor ways, but from my point of view they're still all 3E games.

Read some Wittgenstein

<snip>

Simply because two people can't agree on a definition doesn't mean they couldn't use one.

Well, Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations does launch a pretty strong attack on the notion of definitions. Part of the point of Witt's deployment of the notions of "family resemblance", "lanugage games" and "forms of life" is that some terms - perhaps most of the terms of a natural language - get their meaning not from a shared definition, but from shared practices of use.

 

[pemerton]

With this short paragraph you've just crystallized something that's bugged me about 4e since before Day 1 but that I just couldn't quite put a finger on until now.

Cool!

"the GM sets up situations and the players play through them" works only as long as a) the DM can keep finding situations to set up, and b) the players are willing to play through them and not bother with the rest of the game world. It falls apart if [a) the DM runs out of situations and turns the players loose] and-or [b) the players want to step outside the presented situations] and the DM can't or won't world-build on the fly. (very few can)

<snip>

for a campaign where the players and-or DM actually want to engage with the game world beyond the adventures, it's not enough.

I half agree and half disagree with this.

As to your point (a): agreed, but the actions of the PCs will tend to set up many future situations, so it's not quite as difficult as you suggest.

As to your point (b), which I see as continuing into the post-snippage quoted sentence: you're right that this won't work for players who are mostly interested in world exploration - but as long as they're mostly interested in playing out conflicts that their PCs find themselves in, then even when they "go off the edge of the map", they will be provoking new situations, or will engage in the ones you (as GM) present - so the solution to (a) is also the solution to (b).

To see how I actually run this sort of game, and to see how it avoids railroading, have a look at the actual play report I've linked to a couple of post up.

This is even more disappointing in that to me Worlds and Monsters set 4e up to be a world-builder's game.

Whereas to me, W&M gives me all the info I need to run 4e as a "just-in-time" game, because as well as the ingame info about the world and it's monsters, it tells me how the designers see them being used. And this helps me solve the "world creation on the fly" problem that you point to in your post.

 

[BryonD]

Well, it's nice to know that when I read the system I reach the same conclusions as it's designers!

And that is cool. Clearly you are in the target audience.

Over the course of multiple sessions, decisions like this produce a rich gameworld. But they are the result of play. They are not a prelude to it. This is what I think 4e is best suited to.

The statement "4e is best suited..." is a bit ambiguous. If you mean that it is better suited to that than it is to other approaches, ok. If you mean it is better suited to that than other editions are, then I would strongly disagree.

This type of thing works great in almost any RPG, in my experience. I really can't think of any that don't support it. Certainly there may be some, but in the end it is pretty fundamental. To me it is kinda like bragging that your car has seat belts.

4E certainly has strengths. And resilient mechanical balance and consistent "easy to DM" elements are front and center. But, as with everything, there are trade-offs for these strengths.

3E has strengths as well. And those strengths speak much more to me. And reaching all the way back to the OP, a whole lot of people agree. Plenty disagree, but far from enough. Way far from enough.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, Shin, pretty much no one considers themselves an "edition warrior" ...

I do.

But the edition I fight for is one most have never heard of unless they've either played in our games or read our website, so it really doesn't matter very much.

I am saying if you want to discuss things you must accept the terms being used by the other party. If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D", then discussing 4th in the context of D&D isn't going to work with that person. It is only begging to create a conflict rather than a discussion.

If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D" then there's no point in continuing any discussion with the speaker, because like it or not (and note that I don't yet am defending it anyway) 4e *is* D&D every bit as much as 3e, 2e, 1e, and all the other various e's; and if the speaker can not or will not realize this you're probably wasting your time.

Why is this? Because there's a massive difference between the statement "4e isn't D&D" (an objective statement and also an outright lie) and "4e doesn't feel like D&D" (a subjective statement likely true from the speaker's point of view).

From what I've seen/read of 4e it certainly doesn't look like D&D to me, and I'm not interested in playing or running it. But I cannot deny that 4e has become part of the D&D family and that there's lots of people who do like it for what it is.

Lan-"the black sheep of the family is still part of the family"-efan

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Is this a fair statement?

"4e is D&D, but it sure doesn't feel like it to me, and I wish they'd gone in another direction after 3e (possibly something like Star Wars SAGA or Pathfinder)?"

If it is a fair statement, why?

If it is not a fair statement, why?


...Because, honestly, it's how I actually feel.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Lan-"the black sheep of the family is still part of the family"-efan

I find this discussion of what is D&D rather sad, overall. If it served a point for enjoying the game, I would not mind it so much, but I cannot see where it will lead to better or more fun play.

As for the above quote, all editions of D&D (as well as every game ever created) are black sheep, it just depends on what table you are looking at.

 

[shadzar]

just-in-time means that something is done only when needed to be done in most other areas, so never heard it applied differently or to RPGs before.

4th seems like a great next step for DDM though.

 

[pawsplay]

Why is this? Because there's a massive difference between the statement "4e isn't D&D" (an objective statement and also an outright lie) and "4e doesn't feel like D&D" (a subjective statement likely true from the speaker's point of view).

It depends on the context. If you are talking a published continuity, then 4e is D&D. If, on the other hand, you are talking about something that feels like other D&Ds (it has similar characteristics), then there is no difference between the two statments. "4e is not D&D" is not a lie; it's a clear and unambiguous statement that on the criteria the speaker considers most salient, it is not sufficiently similar to other D&Ds to qualify.

You are claiming there is only one definition of D&D, only one thing that is D&D, and that its characteristics are objective. You are incorrect. D&D is a label, that is, a linguistic phenomenon.

 

[Lanefan]

Is this a fair statement?

"4e is D&D, but it sure doesn't feel like it to me, and I wish they'd gone in another direction after 3e (possibly something like Star Wars SAGA or Pathfinder)?"

If it is a fair statement, why?

It's fair.

It states the obvious fact that 4e is D&D, but then gives some opinions regarding said fact; and regardless of whether or not a given reader agrees with said opinions the act of stating them is still valid.

The opinions can, of course, be argued and debated until the next ice age strikes; and that's what forums like this are for. Local pubs are even better for it.

Lan-"when the GenCon planning forum shows up I'll be calling a pub night"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It depends on the context. If you are talking a published continuity, then 4e is D&D.

Does it (legally) say D&D on the cover? If yes, then it's D&D. Objective non-negotiable fact.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about something that feels like other D&Ds (it has similar characteristics), then there is no difference between the two statments. "4e is not D&D" is not a lie; it's a clear and unambiguous statement that on the criteria the speaker considers most salient, it is not sufficiently similar to other D&Ds to qualify.

Feels like = subjective, and thus open to interpretation and debate.

Let's take some examples:

1. 4e is D&D.
2. 4e to many does not feel like D&D.
3. Pathfinder is not D&D.
4. Pathfinder to many feels like D&D.

All four statements are true, but only 1 and 3 are objective facts. 2 and 4 are built on common opinion and are open to debate.

See the difference I'm getting at? Someone who says 4e is not D&D is merely stating an opinion, not a fact; and sometimes this needs to be pointed out.

Lan-"just the facts, ma'am"-efan

p.s. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I had a long reply to one of your posts here and lost it -