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

[BryonD]

Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile.

If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.

Is GURPS fantasy a heavily house-ruled version of D&D?

And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D.

Reality won't change because you don't like it.

Do you not understand the difference between "it doesn't feel like D&D.", which is being said, and "it is not the current version of D&D.", which is beyond obvious and in no way being argued?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile.

Again, a nice use if neutral, non-escalatory language. Would you like a match with your Molotov?

(Also, note your pre-conceived notion about how HRed EVERYONE's AD&D experience was.)

If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.

That doesn't help because...wait for it...it still doesn't feel like D&D to me. Not even HRed D&D because it contains elements I've never seen in HRs before AND excises things I consider essential. It feels like a completely different (and this is key) but perfectly fine FRPG...that isn't D&D.

Reality won't change just because you don't like it

Aaaand still missing the point that "4Ed doesn't feel like D&D." /= "I hate 4Ed."

Please try to understand that.

 

[bouncyhead]

To flip this whole "feels like" thing around: Take a (hypothetical) player who has come to the game through the latest edition. She has nearly three years under her belt. At her local club (common here in the UK) she joins in a 2e game one week.

If her take was: "This is great fun, but it doesn't feel like d&d to me. There's much that's familiar but many things are weirdly different. It doesn't match my expectations." Is she being narrow-minded or unreasonable?

Seems to me that this disconnect is just a question of expectations, and nothing whatsoever to do with 4e or any other edition. Nor is she challenging 2e's right have 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.

I think you have it backwards.

He was saying that he likes it more than earlier versions of D&D, but that those were D&D first.

And not to put words in his mouth, I think he's assuming the other versions WERE/ARE D&D...and that pathfinder is also D&D.


AND THE POINT THERE WAS NOT THAT PATHFINDER IS "MORE" D&D, JUST THAT HE LIKES IT MORE.

The point, which seems to repeatedly be missed, despite repeatedly being stated very clearly, is that ENJOYMENT AND ADMIRATION OF A SYSTEM OR EDITION IS NOT NECESSARILY CORRELATED WITH WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OR IS NOT D&D.



Edit: and once again, someone is twisting words (and being passive aggressive).

 

[BryonD]

That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.

I'd think your bizarre interpretation of what I said is probably more controversial than what I actually said.

But, hey, it is just yet another iteration of a 4E fan misrepresenting something in lieu of actually making their own case.

 

[shadzar]

Seems to me that this disconnect is just a question of expectations, and nothing whatsoever to do with 4e or any other edition.

But it does have to do with every edition. Those expectations have changed in part because of a lack of focus.

How many other games have shifted focus so much that the only thing linking them still may be their name?

Specifically 4th edition, for ill or good, caused a change in focus that shifted expectations greatly. D&D is half an identity crisis. It may come out ok in the end, but no matter what happens in solving that crisis it loses something that it really wouldn't have lost from editions shifting prior to 4th edition.

Each edition has had the disconnect with a previous, but even fans of specific older editions would consider them to be D&D, while 4th edition completely makes some just flat out feel and state "This isn't D&D".

For some, that it is not D&D similar to anything before, is a good thing, while to others it is not.

It also goes to show that in "her" case, as a proof, first interaction with something colors all future reactions to it.

If D&D keeps changing to find a new format or set of expectations, then no one will know what to expect. D&D can only suffer from such as people will come to expect that D&D is not a stable system and those staying with older editions when a new one comes out will become larger numbers, and the new players may not be able to compensate for their loss. Likewise without a system change, people may gravitate to where a system/game is stable so they now what to expect from it.

So while in the past you sort of knew what you were going to get as each edition prior to 4th had a lot of associated focus, 4th edition has completely shifted the focus and expectations of them, such that "she" was quite confused by the game not meeting the same or even having the same expectations from play.

So what is the current expectation from a game of D&D from a player only ever having used 4th edition?

 

[Mercurius]

This thread has devolved like a post-apocalyptic proto-simian. ;-)

Seriously though, to answer some of the various replies, I have no real problem with the statement "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me," although what that person is really saying is "4E doesn't feel like what I personally identify as D&D." Might as well take it all the way; if we are talking about the feeling of D&D, that is highly personal - I'm fine with that. But let's at least be honest and extend that completely but recognizing that what we are referring to as "D&D" is one's own personal identification and feeling-sense of D&D.What I do find to be problematic is "4E isn't real D&D" because A) It is just a ridiculous thing to say, and B) It leads to major interpersonal issues, especially on a website like ENWorld. And I'm not sure if anyone is saying that in this thread, but I have heard such statements - and on this website.

And this goes for shadzar's point which I think is a bit misplaced - if you are on EN World you damn well better accept that 4E is a valid form of D&D and not play the sort of semantic games you're advocating. I mean, come on. The common ground is that all forms of D&D, all editions, are valid forms of D&D. 4E might not feel like what you consider D&D to be, but it certainly does to many thousands of people.

I mean, how annoying would be it be if you were talking about your 3.x campaign and I asked you, "What edition are you playing?" And you said "3.5" and I said "Oh, so we're talking about 3.5 and not real D&D."

 

[Bluenose]

I think you have it backwards.

He was saying that he likes it more than earlier versions of D&D, but that those were D&D first.

And not to put words in his mouth, I think he's assuming the other versions WERE/ARE D&D...and that pathfinder is also D&D.

AND THE POINT THERE WAS NOT THAT PATHFINDER IS "MORE" D&D, JUST THAT HE LIKES IT MORE.

He likes Pathfinder. He doesn't like older versions of D&D. Something doesn't feel the same. Perhaps it's Pathfinder that isn't really like D&D? But that would require accepting that people who don't like it could be anything other than 4e fanboys, and it's much easier to disregard an opinion you don't like by criticising the messenger rather than the message.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread state that 4Ed isn't "real" D&D, so let's just not discuss that strawman any further.