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

[Mallus]

Hence my decision to make the call that I did, and in the process to add a minor detail to the linguistic facts of my gameworld.

In a similar way, it was determined-through-play in our 4e setting that it's currently fashionable for young ladies of means to wear jewelry made of extraordinarily flammable magnesium.

Can you say more about how you approach your world design, and how it relates to your actual play?

Remember, you asked for this! (and I'll try to be brief...).

World design is a form of fiction writing. You are creating the environment in which, in the case of D&D, fantasy adventure stories will take place. So I start with a few (hopefully) original ideas and a list of influences drawn from literature and film --and to a far lesser degree, actual history-- and hammer them into a loose framework. This usually works out to %5 inspiration, %5 perspiration, and %90 plagiarism... err... I mean synthesis.

Next, I give some thought to how the game's conventions will inform the setting fiction: species diversity, class options, leveling and power-scaling, etc. My current design methodology is based on "working with the rules, not against them". I'm more interested in making published races/classes congruent and acceptable to my setting fiction than banning them or modifying their mechanics. My new motto is: leave the mechanics alone and concentrate on good fiction to drape over them.

Next comes setting up the basic conflicts/drama. I don't really do metaplots, so this mean creating NPC's, usually with outlandish names, which the PC's can interact with using their choice of words or murder.

Lastly, and I do mean lastly, I think about how specific elements of the setting fiction will get implemented using the game's mechanics, or, how I like to think of it, the part where I bash the lovely round peg of my creative noodling into the cold, ungrateful, square hole of the rules.

(actually, it not all that bad...).

When I use a (somewhat) rigid class-based system like D&D to run a game, I accept there's going to be a certain level of... dissociation between the game fiction and the game rules. Not every part of the fiction will be well-represented using the rules, if at all. And that's fine with me. Heck, the 2e era produced great setting despite their often flimsy mapping between the fiction and the rules.

I appreciate more granular, toolbox systems like GURPS. It's nice to able to embody more of a setting's fictional elements using the actual game mechanics, rather than relying solely on handwaving and group consensus. In fact, before my 3e campaign went on hiatus, we converted it to M&M2e, partly because it did a better job at modeling those character in that world -- though that's probably because I consider mechanics last when I world-build!

It's nice... but it's not required. A good setting has to be good fiction first. It has to be interesting enough to explore and ripe with/open to conflict. Without that, no amount of clever rules/fiction mapping will make the world worth playing in.

(I so failed to be brief!)

 

[Mallus]

Yes the players engage thing that is why THEY see they, but those fictional elements must exist BEFORE the player CAN engage them.

A certain (small) number of fictional elements must exist prior to play. The rest can be made up as you go along. The trick is writing down the details you invent on the fly so you can refer to them later and come off like some hotshot god of continuity!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I was speaking generally. Of course there are people who would do exactly what you would do. I even think the ratio of people that would choose that route is higher here on ENWorld. But, in general, people seem to like to buy new stuff and lots of it. And if there was no new stuff, those people would go where the stuff is. And most other game systems outside of D&D, historically, have not produced enough stuff to satisfy people.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If I fix or upgrade my house, does it mean I don't like it much? That's silly. I just want to make it better. Clearly, they liked the 3e rules enough to make them better, but also liked them enough to leave most of the structure intact.

My wife wants to upgrade many things in our house because she doesn't like them as-is. She doesn't like our house because it does not feel like "her house." The analogy seems to fit Paizo quite well.

Edit: There are two ways my wife would end up liking our house. 1) Move to a house she does like (analagous to moving to 4E for some) or 2) fixing the things that she doesn't like about our current home (Pathfinder).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That is a huge if. And, it also doesn't follow. Clark Peterson turned back. Fantasy flight turned back. Goodman hasn't turned all the way back, but they are focusing their resources on their own game.

Clark Peterson never went, so he couldn't turn back. Paizo has moved past being a "kitchen table" company and can't afford to shift momentum as much as small publishers.

This comment just shows you don't even know what you are talking about.

Being rude doesn't make your opinion any stronger. I may have chosen evocative phrasing though so I'll overlook the rudeness.

My point was that Paizo saw problems with 3E (much like WotC) and wanted to fix things about it (much like WotC). The two companies just took different approaches.

OK, so, at best, your theory is that people would be denied their preference and their loss MIGHT be 4E's gain.....

My theory is based in the historical evidence of past edition changes. The player base of older editions lost momentum because no new support was forthcoming. How many people do you see that play 3E/4E/Pathfinder that wish they were still playing AD&D. I've seen alot. I've also seen alot of people point out that they could still play. But without new shiny material the interest is pulled toward the supported edition.

Again, I was helping develop "3.75" rules before I heard of Pathfinder. I think the fraction of people who would have settled for a game they didn't like is way small.

I think your assumption is based on the community here. The small fraction of gamers that frequent here are very diverse in their gaming and willing to try a multitude of systems to find the one they like, and that's great. But it's those (I hate this term because I think it's used derogatorively) "Beer & Pretzel" gamers that play the game most readily accessible as an excuse to gather with friends. They don't even care about finding a game they like, they just want to play.

And that ignores that there are a great number of people still playing 3E, not PF. I think if PF was removed from the equation, PF fans would go back to 3E far more readily than to 4E.

I have seen little evidence, beyond the small circle that is ENWorld, that 3E is still heavily played without Pathfinder. YMOV.

Your position seems to be founded on lack of clarity of how things went, wrapped in a bow of wishful thinking.

And your's seems to be founded on the demonization of WotC for "ruining" your favorite game. Not a fair estimate of your feelings? Then stop trying to tell me what mine are.

For the record, I understand why many people do not like 4E. I'm not bogged down in wishful thinking that the absence of Pathfinder or the OGL would suddenly make these people like 4E. But there are a vast number of people outside these forums that just want to buy new stuff and play. There are two companies that provide the constant stream of new material. And even within the confines of these boards the two biggest games are 4E and Pathfinder. My proof? What other game systems have message boards specifically devoted to them? None. Even 3E is relegated to a Legacy board devoted to all previous editions.

 

[billd91]

My wife wants to upgrade many things in our house because she doesn't like them as-is. She doesn't like our house because it does not feel like "her house." The analogy seems to fit Paizo quite well.

Edit: There are two ways my wife would end up liking our house. 1) Move to a house she does like (analagous to moving to 4E for some) or 2) fixing the things that she doesn't like about our current home (Pathfinder).

If you think that analogy fits, you clearly haven't read much of what the Paizo guys have said about 3e. It's clear that they enjoy the system and like it. They just want to improve it. There's a difference between liking the house in general but wanting to improve parts of it and not liking the house in the first place and feeling the need to put your stamp on it. I think Paizo's designers have made it abundantly clear that the former applies while your description of your wife's drive to improve the house sounds like the latter.

 

[shadzar]

A certain (small) number of fictional elements must exist prior to play. The rest can be made up as you go along. The trick is writing down the details you invent on the fly so you can refer to them later and come off like some hotshot god of continuity!

In a similar way, it was determined-through-play in our 4e setting that it's currently fashionable for young ladies of means to wear jewelry made of extraordinarily flammable magnesium.

Herein lies a contradiction. You are not CREATING the setting, but in your own example, you are CHANGING it.

The fact that it was not fashionable for young ladies to wear such PRIOR to play, was the established setting.

In order to engage that aspect of the world, it had to exist beforehand.

There must be a state of something before you can alter that state, as you did with the jewelry.

Did ANY wear such prior to the new concept? Did you EVER describe a young lady wearing this sort of jewelry beforehand?

If not, then you set the default state as part of the setting, that it is NOT fashionable for young ladies to wear it.

Now I will acknowledge that, upon making this statement, I have backed myself into a corner with my overall argument about settings, but will let someone else find me in that corner in order to keep me pinned there, before I tactically escape from it. If they are so inclined to find the corner I have backed myself into.

 

[Mallus]

You are not CREATING the setting, but in your own example, you are CHANGING it.

In this case, there is no DIFFERENCE between the TWO.

The fact that it was not fashionable for young ladies to wear such PRIOR to play, was the established setting.

The current fashion trend in the setting with regard to flammable accessories was simply undefined. Nothing was established.

Did ANY wear such prior to the new concept? Did you EVER describe a young lady wearing this sort of jewelry beforehand?

No. Neither have I described, nor detailed in the setting notes, all the different type of trees that exist in the setting. This does not imply the setting's 'default state' is treeless. Or that only one, generic type of tree exists.

In a similar vein, the existence of coq au vin has yet to be determined. No PC has ever tried to order in a restaurant (though, the existence of both Pernod and something called 'mouse pie' has been confirmed). This does not imply that coq au vin is not present in the setting's 'default state'.

If not, then you set the default state as part of the setting, that it is NOT fashionable for young ladies to wear it.

Look, this is a D&D setting. Outside of a handful of details, the majority of the world is undefined. Until it becomes necessary or amusing to define it. Worlds are big. I don't work everything out in advance. In fact, most details never get worked out unless they have a direct bearing on play.

 

[Mallus]

But, since fluff has nothing to do with system of choice, I'd be judging a comparison of editions on a basis of mechanical representation.

We're talking about two different, but related things. I'm talking about world-building as a creative act, a species of fiction writing. You're more focused on... hmmm... let's call it world-implementation, the specific way the fictional aspects of the setting relate to the game system's rules.

I'm much more interested with the creative side of things. For me, setting design is largely a system-agnostic process. My expectations on how closely the fiction maps to the rules are probably a lot lower, at least for systems like D&D (any edition).

When I think of a great great role-playing game setting, I think of things like M.A.R Barker's Tekumel. It existed long before he bolted a house-ruled version of OD&D onto it and created Empire of the Petal Throne. And the setting is interesting because of the fiction, not because of the mechanical implementation.

 

[Lanefan]

World design is a form of fiction writing. You are creating the environment in which, in the case of D&D, fantasy adventure stories will take place. So I start with a few (hopefully) original ideas and a list of influences drawn from literature and film --and to a far lesser degree, actual history-- and hammer them into a loose framework. This usually works out to %5 inspiration, %5 perspiration, and %90 plagiarism... err... I mean synthesis.

At this point have you determined what culture (Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Dwarven, generic, whatever) your game is going to be set in, or does that come in the next step?

Next, I give some thought to how the game's conventions will inform the setting fiction: species diversity, class options, leveling and power-scaling, etc. My current design methodology is based on "working with the rules, not against them". I'm more interested in making published races/classes congruent and acceptable to my setting fiction than banning them or modifying their mechanics. My new motto is: leave the mechanics alone and concentrate on good fiction to drape over them.

To me this step comes first, and is almost irrelevant: I know going in what system I'm using and how the mechanics work. About the only decision I have to make are race options I'm going to allow either at start or overall.

Somewhere along here also has to come a map and decision of where on that map you're going to put the party to begin with, as that determines a whole bunch of things going forward - will it be a maritime-based game, a desert-based game, deep woods stuff, or ?

Next comes setting up the basic conflicts/drama. I don't really do metaplots, so this mean creating NPC's, usually with outlandish names, which the PC's can interact with using their choice of words or murder.

At this point also comes history, which I've come to realize is the most important bit of the whole exercise. Why? Because a good history gives you an endless mine for story and adventure ideas. The storyboard almost writes itself! And anything that does stuff on its own (and thus saves me work) is just fine by me.

Lastly, and I do mean lastly, I think about how specific elements of the setting fiction will get implemented using the game's mechanics, or, how I like to think of it, the part where I bash the lovely round peg of my creative noodling into the cold, ungrateful, square hole of the rules.

If you've been keeping the system at least in the back of your mind right from the start this process should be trivial, as you'll have already done most of it during the earlier phases possibly without even realizing it.

A good setting has to be good fiction first. It has to be interesting enough to explore and ripe with/open to conflict. Without that, no amount of clever rules/fiction mapping will make the world worth playing in.

Agreed completely.

That's where the history and culture bits come in.

Lan-"it's also fun to mix cultures from vastly different eras e.g. Norse and Sumerian and see what comes out"-efan