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

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

No, it looks to me as that your own narrow minded inflexibility has gotten the better of you and you are either incapable or unwilling to admit as much. Your rabidly blind defense of all things 4E is admirable but your inability to see that people have points different from your own on 4E doesn't help any argument that you might put forth. It just makes you the worst kind of edition warrior, the one who blasts or is dismissive of someone else's (in this case quite a few people's) opinion and then is completely incapable from walking away.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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).

If it's so silly and pointless, then STOP DISCUSSING IT.

It doesn't confuse things at all. It would only be confusing to someone who honestly isn't trying to understand what the other person is saying and just wants that other person to STOP EXPRESSING THAT PARTICULAR OPINION.

Seriously, it would be nice if you feel that you didn't have to mount a spirited defense of 4E whenever YOU felt it was being attacked. Saying that "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" isn't an attack, it's an opinion. There is no logical, rational argument that you can make that would reinforce that that feeling is "Silly" or "pointless".

No one here is saying that it's a bad game or that it sucks (at least I'm not) but you're determined to turn this into some sort of conflict by insulting the people who dont feel the same way as you do. And that's exactly what you've done in your posts (in a passive agressive way no doubt...).

Let me make this clear. I dont hate 4E. I've played it and run i for a short while and to me it doesnt feel like D&D. Considering that I've played every iteration of D&D from Red Box Basic TO 4E and they ALL of differences from one another, saying that my framework for D&D is narrow is well...short sighted and a bit self serving.

Big differences between Red Box Basic and Advanced D&D, Not huge changes between AD&D and 2nd ED at the beginning (then Kits and what not). Some big changes between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. Minor changes between 3x and 3.5. Big changes between 3.5 and 4E.

I've played all of these types of D&D. They all have different flavors but in the end they all felt like I was playing basically the same game. Except for 4E.

Narrow I think not.

Also? I dont know about the rest of you but I only use analogies when I'm trying to explain a concept to a layman who may not have a context for what I'm talking about. None of us here are laymen so we can actually talk about what were talking about. there's no need to try and seem to be smarter than we actually are. We know the truth. We're actually just smart enough to hold a conversation with one another. No more and no less. So please no more analogies?

 

[shadzar]

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%.

But the DM doesn't like Boston Cream Pie so doesn't allow it in his game.

Same concept different thread. People have a personal taste. That is their subjective view.

Subjective: facts from the subject
Objective: facts about the object

Since the object remains the same the facts about it will remain the same, and as the subject viewing it changes, the fact form that subject will vary.

Bob doesn't se it as a pie, because pies have a top and bottom crust and this thing doesn't have a top crust, but is only a bottom crust.

The thing however is still called a pie.

Who is right, Bob of the one naming it? Bob is of course. He has to accept the name. The one naming it also is right, because of the failure for common ground and any kind of setup that forces things to be named correctly. Some sort of naming convention.

So long as there is an absence of a set of rules for naming things, and its creator can name anything what it wants from the bakery to Julliard. Someone so inclined can put boiled cabbage in it and still call it a Boston Cream Pie, since there is not a list of what can and cannot be added until it no longer becomes what the name applies to.

Both will always be right so long as anyone can name anything what they want and stick D&D on the cover of any book they have legal rights to do so with, and Bob will always be right to think it is not D&D if he does not accept the name as being what defines the thing.

The DM, the Devil, and Bob, can each like what they want, and not like what they want without needing anyone else's permission or approval such as if personal taste, be it something to allow or not in a game based on those likes and dislikes, or accepting Boston Cream as a type of pie.

I could easily say one is narrow-minded for accepting something to be D&D just because it has the name D&D on the cover, because how many people sit down and have a game with just the Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies?

The definition being change by putting the name on something that diverges further and further away form the root that held the name brings us also to the "dilution" thread. How wide can a chair be before it becomes a couch?

On that note I will leave this argument for everyone to contemplate this rectangle:

 

[BryonD]

But if they had decided to support 4E, once the resources were devoted to it there would have been no turning back.

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.

And they didn't really like the 3E rules much either, did they? Otherwise why bother "fixing" it with Pathfinder.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[shadzar]

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.

As your previous reply right before this one, the "tactical mastery" is why it doesn't need those things, because MANY miniature wargames don't need a rich story to be enjoyed.

Strangely there are MANY miniature wargames that have much more setting to them than 4th edition does with its PoL setting. Yes WotC called it a setting.

Most other RPGs have more of a setting in/with them as well, and certainly the CRPGs and MMOs have a setting.

The way you say it about "on time GMing", seems like there shouldn't even be a GM and just a deck of cards to draw an encounter from then go back and make a story out of whatever happened. Make sure they are mixed proportionally for the group with the proper amounts of combat and non-combat encounters.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Exactly right.

I already said that I am a fan of PF and it feels like D&D to me. But I am also not a fan of older versions of D&D. So the differences between old D&D and PF are, in my book, very good things. Losing things I didn't like doesn't make it not D&D to me. But, to someone else for whom those things were important, it certainly COULD ruin that connection.


It is perfectly valid for Dannager to claim that 4E feels just like D&D to him.
But it is laughably wrong when he starts insisting that other views not only are invalid, but are inflexible and annoying.

Pathfinder feels like D&D to me. If someone said it did not to them, then cool. I can't imagine finding THAT statement even confrontational, much less "annoying the dickens out of me". It seems more a matter of trying to avoid a losing argument by insulting it.

 

[BryonD]

Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM.

Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.

 

[Mallus]

Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.

It was for my group. I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.

It could be that we're just exceptional world-builders!

I can see 4e not inspiring people to world-build. That can't be argued. But the practical difficulties in world-building for 4e (still) elude me.

 

[BryonD]

It was for my group. I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.

OK, I don't for a second doubt there are people who see it that way. But I hope you will accept that I put both my view and Mearls view ahead of yours in ranking that apply to me.

It could be that we're just exceptional world-builders!

Perhaps. Or perhaps your expectations just don't exceed the limitations.

I can see 4e not inspiring people to world-build. That can't be argued. But the practical difficulties in world-building for 4e (still) elude me.

Well, if they elude you they elude you. So be it. I can see how others systems offer more.

And that is a fundamental difference. Saying that other systems provide more is different than saying this particular system can't do it. Mearls did not say that it couldn't be done. I didn't say it couldn't be done. The statement is that it would not be "the system of choice" if that is a primary focus.

Restating other people's positions in ways that change the meaning seems to be a frequent theme in 4E defense.

 

[BryonD]

I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.

As a further note, if we are comparing fluff to fluff, then I don't doubt this in the least.

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. In your 4E homebrew the AC of a knight in armor and a bare chested pirate will both be based primarily on their challenge level. That, as one tiny example among a million other related issues, are why I have no doubt that even if I LOVE your homebrew, I'd (personally) enjoying playing in it VASTLY more using a less gamist mechanical system.

But, the story and flavor of your homebrew just might be the most awesome ever, as far as I know.