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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can agree that is a factor, but I still do not believe it is the biggest one amongst casual gamers. And I still believe casual gamers make up the greatest population of overall gamers.

For the casual gamer, the issue is what game is most popular where they are, since they are the least likely to offer to run a game.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

For the casual gamer, the issue is what game is most popular where they are, since they are the least likely to offer to run a game.

IME I've also had trouble getting casual gamers to play games other than D&D. They cite many reasons, the most common being familiarity with D&D, not wanting to learn a new system. So, not only are they merely playing the most popular game in town, often they will only play the most popular version of D&D in town.

 

[Aldarc]

But it really isnt. If one is looking for a type of game, and the system offers you nothing for that, even if it lets you add everything in the world; then some people will view that system as missing that since it was not offered with it.

If I am wanting a hamburger I have choices. I can get the materials and equipment required and make it myself, or I can go someone that has them already made.

Lots of factors play into that choice. Depending on those factors for each individual if they are common enough to lead people to the same choice of which to chose "make you own" or "premade", then that choice will be the popular one.

Many people don't want to assemble or paint minis for D&D they would buy the prepainted ones, others will "make their own".

4th edition, any other games, will be preferred by certain DM styles and player styles as it will offer what they seek. Other DM and player styles can find 4th edition missing something for them.

You were talking about DM preferences when it came to whether or not a DM had already matted out the details of a town prior to PC relevance, were you not? And is that not fairly independent of the game system? As either a player or a DM who has played both systems, I do not see how much of that would differ between 3E and 4E.

 

[shadzar]

IME I've also had trouble getting casual gamers to play games other than D&D. They cite many reasons, the most common being familiarity with D&D, not wanting to learn a new system. So, not only are they merely playing the most popular game in town, often they will only play the most popular version of D&D in town.

That then says that for the non-casual gamer, the popularity of 4th isnt as much as it is for other editions. If 4th edition was as popular as could have been hoped, then the casual gamer, only playing D&D to not have to learn a new system you be playing those 4th edition games.

But, BUT, 4th edition IS a new game system in LARGE parts. Thus a blur in the D&D system, and possible reluctance to use the vastly different system by non-casual players, in order to keep casual players flowing to their games, so they can fill seats to have a game with...right?

You were talking about DM preferences when it came to whether or not a DM had already matted out the details of a town prior to PC relevance, were you not? And is that not fairly independent of the game system? As either a player or a DM who has played both systems, I do not see how much of that would differ between 3E and 4E.

I don't know, let me read back through and find out....

Me and P are discussing several things in several threads, so my mind likely merges them at times....

You claim that it is independent of the system, that which we are talking about. I don't think so. When it comes to a setting present or not and what that setting it, it determines the focus the game gets from people. To be popular you want people to be focusing on your game enough.

If something else provides an element you feel is missing from a game/system, then you are likely to gravitate to another. So the popularity of the system is in part directed by playstyles.

Which Vampire video game do I and others choose? Ravenloft based game, or Vampire (White Wolf) based one?

Part of what will make me and others decide will be in its presentation. How it sells itself TO ME. If Ravenloft has a setting I do not find enjoyable, then I might choose Vampire. Did I want to play lost int he mist, or just hiding in the crowd?

Lets say Vampire had NO setting. If I enjoy playing in and DMing for a game with a default setting to build on, rather than an empty lot, I am likely to choose Ravenloft that DOES have a setting, and others like myself, aligned with MY PLAYSTYLE, will likely find Ravenloft to be more popular.

So there is a LOT me and pemerton are discussing to refine terms and ideas so that we can get back to the main point. It is a bit of a long journey that you have been watching us take, but I am enjoying the travel along the road, and hope we can reach the same destination in the end. Even if that destination is only a clearer understanding of each other.

 

[pawsplay]

Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition.

I didn't say it wasn't important to me, just that it wasn't important to 3e. That is, little effort went into constructing wage-earning rules for 3e. At the opposite end of the spectrum, consider GURPS, with its job tables.

So do cooks. Who are also called out as an example in the Profession skill description. Simple mathematics tells you how much someone with Profession (Cook) +1 can earn by practising that skill, and it's a lot more than 1sp/day. Consistency in this regard would be desirable.

To me, this is just a case of simplicity. The rules don't offer more than that level of detail because that level of detail at cooking was not engineered into the game. You are incorrect that this is a simple exercise in mathematics; the skill actually says

You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.

That word "about" might mean, in many cases, pretty much exactly. But it could also mean you earn a fixed salary commensurate with your skills. The GM could also says that it means "it depends." For instance, a week of dedicated work could mean a week of work at your professional level. Regardless of skill level, the GM is free to rule that regardless of skill level, the village baker makes 2 gp per week. Perhaps to make the full amount, he needs to have access to a high volume bakery, or a wealthy patron, or be near a large city where he can command higher prices and participate in fairs. The word "about" is not very informative but it does tell us one very important thing: the mechanic is an approximation and the GM is being asked to adjudicate an appropriate result.

I tend to the belief that the economy is one of the more significant factors when it comes to world-building. And I'm easily annoyed by rules that are an obvious afterthought or that are inconsistent from place to place. Although it's probably right that a functioning economy is a detail when it comes to a game about hunting monsters in dungeons, not every game is like that.

I think economy is important, too. It annoys me that the DMG claims a large city has a billion chickens for sale if you can afford them. But simply because some of the rules don't work well as one might hope does not mean that

1) the rules don't exist, or
2) the rules aren't intended to cover the area, or
3) the GM has lost their usual prerogative in dealing with situations not well covered by mechanical expressions of the rules

Simply because 3e is not particularly good at running SimBarony doesn't mean it can't simulate an imaginary world full of ordinary workers and laborers, protected by a military aristocracy, and supported by a population of freeborn tradesmen and hirelings. If you want nitty gritty detail on various Professions, you're going to need a sourcebook for that. Just because the DMG doesn't have good rules for ship-to-ship combat between flying ships doesn't mean that the game universe falls apart like a broken toy if you include them.

If you want more detail on running a business, guess what? The DMG II gives more detail. Sadly, it doesn't revise some of the broken guidelines in 3e. 4e certainly could have done that; instead, the designers of 4e decided to peel off any semblance of a game world economy and set it aside.

4e can be run at a high level of simulation; there is nothing preventing you from doing so. But compared to 3e, first you have to craft on a mundane economy of some kind, replace the rules for making, buying, and selling items, come up with some kind of background or ecology for any and all creatures encountered, etc. 4e's world is more of a facade. For that matter, it hardly examines why such a thing as "starleather" is so consitently available and why it has a stable market price. That's 4e for you. It's not necessarily bad. The Final Fantasy games are full of things with ridiculous and arbitrary prices and you can still play and enjoy those games. You would find it difficult, however, to adapt that kind of aesthetic for a supposedly consistent gameworld.

Can the 3e economic system be improved, while still retaining its basic simplicity? You bet. Will your game world break if you used the posted guidelines? Not necessarily, although I would watch out for the billion chickens. Does that have anything to do with magic or feudalism or any of the above topics? No, at this level, we are simply talking about the utility of specific rules.

 

[LostSoul]

The answer is simple. "Push 2" is a fast way of writing "Throws the target ten foot backwards". And tossing people back like that is pure cinematics.

The problem is that, for me, there's a big difference between describing what happens in the game world and grabbing the mini and moving it 2 squares. For me, the former seems cinematic; the latter, less so. I realize that not all people share this point of view.

Of course, thanks to this thread - and pemerton's posts - I see what 4E is meant to do and how it all works together. That common critique of mine probably doesn't hold that much water given what combat mechanics are meant to achieve.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4e's world is more of a facade.

See, I don't disagree that 4E's world sim is a facade. I just disagree that it is any more of a facade than 3E, or at least not anymore on any kind of meaningful scale of usefulness. If you envision a scale, where extreme left is "total facade" and extreme right is "what you see is exactly what you get", then I see it something like this:

4E
------[ huge gap ]-------------Hero--------GURPS-------Runequest-->
3E

For me personally, 3E is actually a little to the left of that diagram, because it's facade is often so misleading. To others, 3E is a little to the right, because there is a little something behind the facade (i.e. actual craft skill). But it's like zooming in on two adjacent pebbles on a 2 billion pebble mosaic.

All we are really arguing about is how the particular facade makes you feel warm and fuzzy. It's the classic "Stand By Me" argument, where the kid was told by his friends that, "Who would win if Mighty Mouse fought Superman," was a stupid question, because everyone knew that Mighty Mouse was just a cartoon.

It may or may not be a stupid question as to whether 3E or 4E has some advantage in this regard, but if it is, it isn't because 4E is merely a facade.

Next, you'll be telling me that the Pirates ride at Disney World isn't housed in a real fort.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't know, let me read back through and find out....

Me and P are discussing several things in several threads, so my mind likely merges them at times....

You claim that it is independent of the system, that which we are talking about. I don't think so. When it comes to a setting present or not and what that setting it, it determines the focus the game gets from people. To be popular you want people to be focusing on your game enough.

If something else provides an element you feel is missing from a game/system, then you are likely to gravitate to another. So the popularity of the system is in part directed by playstyles.

Which Vampire video game do I and others choose? Ravenloft based game, or Vampire (White Wolf) based one?

Part of what will make me and others decide will be in its presentation. How it sells itself TO ME. If Ravenloft has a setting I do not find enjoyable, then I might choose Vampire. Did I want to play lost int he mist, or just hiding in the crowd?

Lets say Vampire had NO setting. If I enjoy playing in and DMing for a game with a default setting to build on, rather than an empty lot, I am likely to choose Ravenloft that DOES have a setting, and others like myself, aligned with MY PLAYSTYLE, will likely find Ravenloft to be more popular.

So there is a LOT me and pemerton are discussing to refine terms and ideas so that we can get back to the main point. It is a bit of a long journey that you have been watching us take, but I am enjoying the travel along the road, and hope we can reach the same destination in the end. Even if that destination is only a clearer understanding of each other.

Thank you for the points of clarification. I am still somewhat lost, and perhaps it is best if I dropped it, as I did not follow the conversation as closely as I should have to be more informed. But again, this seems more a matter of the game setting rather than the game system. The game system will flavor the play style within the setting, but many of these matters seem more dependent on the details of the setting and how well the setting sells itself. But playstyles are also not dependent on the system, but how the players and DM utilize that system. I do think you make some good points. I will follow your conversation closely now.

 

[shadzar]

Thank you for the points of clarification. I am still somewhat lost, and perhaps it is best if I dropped it, as I did not follow the conversation as closely as I should have to be more informed. But again, this seems more a matter of the game setting rather than the game system. The game system will flavor the play style within the setting, but many of these matters seem more dependent on the details of the setting and how well the setting sells itself. But playstyles are also not dependent on the system, but how the players and DM utilize that system. I do think you make some good points. I will follow your conversation closely now.

Any time you need a road map, I will gladly hand you my version of the "YOU ARE HERE" sign, I am sure pemerton will likely hand you his version as well if asked.

What you say about the setting is, as I see it, the whole crux of the thread.

Some view the setting more important, such as my vampire game example, others view the mechanics/system more important, and others still like a good mix.

If you only capture those looking for a system/mechanics, you have lost chance to capture those who prefer or want the even mix of setting.

That can greatly determine how popular the game is depending on which of those 3 stances has what percentage of your consumer base.

The sad thing is we have no idea what percentage of consumers/players go with each of those stances, so are really just supposing the reason.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That then says that for the non-casual gamer, the popularity of 4th isnt as much as it is for other editions. If 4th edition was as popular as could have been hoped, then the casual gamer, only playing D&D to not have to learn a new system you be playing those 4th edition games.

But, BUT, 4th edition IS a new game system in LARGE parts. Thus a blur in the D&D system, and possible reluctance to use the vastly different system by non-casual players, in order to keep casual players flowing to their games, so they can fill seats to have a game with...right?

IMO, yes and no. 4E, compared to other non-D&D games, is still the same game. Roll a d20 vs. a target number. Other games have dice pools, dice sets, no dice, etc.

But, because of the other factor I see in casual gamers, 3E is still a viable choice. Hard-core gamers can play OD&D for 50 years straight if that's their favorite game. Casual gamers need new material to keep their interest.