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

[Aldarc]

Except keep in mind that 2e was itself pretty modular; if for some reason you wanted to get rid of divine classes you could, provided you could inject a suitable replacement for healing and-or were prepared to have your parties spend lots of downtime recovering from injuries.

As I said, I came into D&D through 3E, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the mechanics of 2E. Good to know. 4E's modularity however is quite purposeful in terms of designing classes around a particular combat role and delineating classes by power source.

It also assumes the existence of eladrin. Not all of 4e's base assumptions are mechanical.

True, but that's essentially the same for all editions. Dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are equally "base assumptions" of the system that can interfere with world-building. I have homebrewed many a setting that sought to give these assumed player races the old heave-ho.

I'm not a real fan of any version of as-written D+D cosmology, truth be told, and quite some time ago designed my own.

I often design my own as well, but the "simplified" cosmology of 4E is a bit more flexible for me to adjust to my liking. And when it comes to "as-written" cosmologies, the 4E version is just easier for me to work with conceptionally. I especially like the parallel Shadowfall and Feywild planes as those frequently have parallels in myths of "otherworlds" and "underworlds."

That said, I am a fan of the 9-alignment model and wasn't impressed to see it reduced to 5.

If we are talking about preferences, I prefer to disregard alignments altogether. But using alignments as general guidelines, I prefer the 5 alignment system, as that's generally how alignments played out in my campaigns. NE and LE were often played as a more general E alignment, while CG and NG were often played out as a more general G alignment. And CN was frequently played out as "CE in all but name" in many groups of mine. I also prefer the new "unaligned" over the neutral alignment. I particularly like how it made devils and demons a bit more compelling to me, while not also having to resort to creating nearly identical creatures for the different alignments. So I can see where these changes to alignment are coming from. But I can also see how people would prefer the symmetrical 9-alignment model.

 

[LostSoul]

snip

That was an awesome post!

 

[BryonD]

Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't need fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, during the course of play as the players engage with them. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.

The point of just in time GMing is that the gameworld that results is one that is highly responsive to and engaging of the players. This is achieved because the gameworld is built by the GM around the players' activities at the table (including especially the things they do with their PCs).

But you absolutely 100% need the fictional elements beforehand.
Obviously, we completely disagree on that. But that is because we are describing radically different gaming experiences.

If we wanted to obtain the type of experience you are content with, then yeah, neither of us would need it. But if you wanted to experience the type of game play I desire, then you also need it.

I hear a lot of talk about all the "work" that 3E is. For me, back when I played AD&D, and when I moved on to GURPS and other games, and then under 3E, I've always spent more time doing things away from the table. But the word "work" is absolutely the wrong word for it.

I love doing it. It is great fun.
And I'll readily admit that sometimes I spend a chunk of time on something that only shows up for 2 minutes, and sometimes I spend a chunk of time on something that never actually shows up. Sometimes I am suprised at how little time something sees, and sometimes I knew all along and just did it for the fun of it. And that last is really very common.

I had in mind both of your disambiguations (4e is not the best "no myth" RPG ever, but is I think the best "no myth" edition of D&D), and I don't agree that this is not a point of distinction.

Many of the features of 4e that you seem not to like - the linking of mechanical difficulties of challenge, for example, to metagame considerations like encounter level rather than to ingame considerations like armour worn; or the skill challenge structure for resolving conflicts out of combat - are in my view precisely the ones that support "no myth" play.

They do so in more than one way.

...

I completely, absolutely, disagree that it is a point of distinction. And here is why, I do everything you have described, on the fly, all the time in my 3E games.

It is almost bothersome to me that your post presumes these are distinctions for your 4E over my 3E game. Partly because you seem to think I don't do them and partly because it surprising to me to hear people talk about these as something new they have gained in 4E.

If it IS a point of distinction for YOU, then I'm glad that your got a game that helps. But I feel sorry you have missed out on it before now.

Be it coming up with the details of a specific encounter or projected the plot of the story into a new direction, change will happen at the table. And I roll with it. Tabletop RPG playing has (a lot) more than one fun element. World building and creation is one, but the fun of rolling with the unexpected changes players bring, in real time, is also another one.

But I do all this "just in time". Now, I do have details already in mind that the new details need to not contradict. But that is part of the fun. And it is a "challenge", but a very fun one. And, bottom line, I've asked my players before after some sessions if they can tell which parts were planned and which were on the fly. They almost always say they are surprised that any of it was on the fly.

Yes, 4E is better at on the fly stuff. But improving 1 second to 1/2 second is not value added to me. And that improvement comes with loads of gamist compromises that do distinctly detract from the fun of the experience.

Clearly we agree that something didn't go according to plan and 4E is not a hit with as many people as would have been hoped. This exact point of discussion is not "the reason". But it is part of the overall package deal of why it is that way.

For many people it "feels like a tactical mini game". While I agree that you can roleplay on top of the rules, I also agree that it, relatively speaking, feels more like a tactical mini game. And if the things you have described are really new additions that 4E offers you, then those of us already having these things in 3E are not going to see new value, but we are going to see the prices which have been paid.

 

[BryonD]

I got that, but many of the popular RPG variants seemed to skyrocket as a reaction to 3.5. Arcana Unearthed, for example, was released in 2003 around the same time as WotC was releasing 3.5. It was also clear from Monte Cook's design diaries that he was aware of the upcoming 3.5 changes. Blue Rose, True20, Iron Heroes all came out in 2005.

Part of the history is the D20STL. THAT was along for the ride but was not really a part of the OGL. But when the OGL first came along it was pretty much an assumed.

I think AU may have been the first game without it. I'm not 100% on that. But it was a big deal at the time. There was a lot of talk about what would happen. It turned out nothing happened. At least, nothing bad.

But between having that door opened and a lot of 3PPs feeling that they had been burned by WotC dropping 3.5 on them and wasting a lot of work and product, the floodgates were opened.

 

[S'mon]

I do think that cross-subsidising the cost of producing GM-support material with the profits from bigger-selling player-support material may maximise overall sales & profits.

I think 4e's relative lack of success compared to earlier editions may be more due to some fairly serious design flaws, though. They did not play up tabletop RPGs advantages vs CRPGs, instead they tried to compete head on by emphasing the visuals, the minis, and the very game-like, less immersive feel of the encounter-centric design. I'm finding that there is too little simulation element in 4e's combat rules to support Suspension of Disbelief; and combat is too long and unexciting, too much of a plateau (grind) with too few peaks and valleys (game-changers like devastating spells or special attacks).

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Deleted Post.

 

[BryonD]

Hey S'mon

I agree with you that there are a lot of variables. And it is easy for me to be caught up in the point of the moment.

Though I do think that they are inter-connected. The visuals, minis, etc.. points you make are correct, but those are part of the whole "at the table", "just in time" approach.

 

[Reigan]

I do think that cross-subsidising the cost of producing GM-support material with the profits from bigger-selling player-support material may maximise overall sales & profits.

I think 4e's relative lack of success compared to earlier editions may be more due to some fairly serious design flaws, though. They did not play up tabletop RPGs advantages vs CRPGs, instead they tried to compete head on by emphasing the visuals, the minis, and the very game-like, less immersive feel of the encounter-centric design. I'm finding that there is too little simulation element in 4e's combat rules to support Suspension of Disbelief; and combat is too long and unexciting, too much of a plateau (grind) with too few peaks and valleys (game-changers like devastating spells or special attacks).

The spellcaster pressing the "I Win" button doesn't do it for me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It just occured to me...I don't think I have a clue as to what a high magic vs low magic game of 4Ed would look like.

 

[shadzar]

Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't need fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, during the course of play as the players engage with them. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.

That is just silly, and you are trying to connect two different things incorrectly.

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

If you don't have any fictional elements to begin with, then how do the players even know what characters to make?

Bob "I don't think Boston Cream is a pie": I made this awesome cleric and he is going to be so good in the game.
DM: We are playing Dragonlance. I just decided. So there are no actual clerics you will have to play something else.

Making it all up as you go is a root cause of DM v player, because there was nothing set down beforehand and the DM can get pissed at the players and screwed them over with the next thing because of the last thing.

That or the DM is taking time to create Pemervale so the players can visit it now that they have just heard of it. They finally heard of it because it just started existing for some reason in response to the players needing it.

No, that is not a game I would play in for very long. If the DM is so uncoordinated and unorganized to have a basic plan in advance of what is going on and makes the whole adventure up on the fly...I wont be wasting my time.

On the fly DMing is something used for when the adventure path and main plot is left for some sort of sidetrek that the players unexpectedly took the hook for.

The game works when the world exists and the players are set into it and let lose. It doesn't work when they are just set in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing and then something comes into existence and is created just because and when they want to engage it.

Of course in this sort of gaming there can be a type of experience of "discovering" rather than "creating" the story - but that is just a metaphor, as when an author says of a book that "it wrote itself". The literal truth, at which the metaphor gestures, is along the lines of the creation being a less-than-fully conscious process.

Herein lies the problem. When that happens for an author it means little to nothing. Doby didn't exist in Sorcerer's Stone. He came into existence in Chamber of Secrets. No matter how JKR came up with him, when the viewer needed him, all he was needed for existed. The book was published in its entirely for the reader (viewer) to read. Same for movies. Likewise things should exist for the viewer, the player, of a game before they can interact with them.

4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM.

This is what you said. You are confusing 2 things, probably like whoever you are quoting. The world is not the story, and the story is not the world. They are independent in creation.

While independent in creation, one is dependent on the other to ever exist. The story must have a world to be told in.

The story is ALWAYS told on the fly, unless you are playing a railroad. I think nobody would disagree with that, much.

The world however must exist for there to even be a story had.

So when talking about the setting, yes that can guide part of the story by framing and mapping it the world. But the story is yet to be told as the players have not done anything to create their story.

The world/setting must exist for them to begin telling their story.

The story is NEVER something "built" by the GM in a player driven game. The world however MUST be built by something before you can even have a game.

"Just in time" again even in your examples are talking about creation upon need of existence. Just like a computer process that only runs when it is needed rather than being resident and waiting for it to have something to do. Well the world/setting for D&D cannot be created in a "just in time" fashion if you intend to have a gave beyond random encounters strung together.

Does that make a game of random encounters strung together a bad thing? No. But it is not the purpose of D&D.

When you play the D&D game, one player will become the Dungeon Master (also known as the DM or referee). He or she will create the world and setting in which the adventures will be taking place and will create a variety of characters to populate the world. The DM will also develop situations taking place in that world and will then run adventures—acting as the main narrator of the stories in which the other players' characters will participate.

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

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

In case this was amiguous or incomplete - of course "just in time" play will deliver a rich setting at the end of play. It's just that the richness results from play. It's not an input into play.

Herein lies the problem, and you agree with Mearls on it. 4th edition isn't made to have a working foundation with which to build from. As many have stated in the past about various things, they piece the story together after play. Sure any edition can do this, but with 4th it must.

Either way you still have no real foundation as is what is being discussed with the lack of a setting.

The focus of D&D changed from having a world/setting to play in, to a game you just played. The inspiration to play is the "killing of monsters and taking their stuff".

When compared to EVERY other edition that had set forth to create some sort of setting, even if only loose medieval fantasy, there was something already for the players to WANT to engage in, rather than 4th where the players engage in things just because the DM brought something in at that time for them to engage.

That is why 4th isn't as popular. Because it IS the players sitting in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing, until the DM creates it so that a combat can be had. There is NO setting, just the skeleton of the game.

While some games may be "sand box", I would call 4th edition the "litter box" because crap is in it in certain places due to having room for crap there when there is a need for crap.

Now we could compare to other games that DO having a setting....

Have you read what I've posted upthread about "just in time" GMing? Or the example of play that I linked to? What has any of that got to do with DDM?

Warhammer all versions have races and "classes" of people, with a HELL of a lot more setting info. Take 40k for example, Eldar, the elves, and Dark Eldar, the dark elves, both fight for their own reasons, have their own cultures, etc. Just like D&D elves. The "characters" played in the game have their own "powers". The thing is when looking at 40k and 4th edition, 40k has a setting that will engage the players, rather than waiting for the players to engage it.

Now, in both games you create your "characters" mainly based on the mechanic you are wanting, so your race is chosen. That is really all the setting does for you in 40k and 4th edition. Only in a very few instances did play actually change the setting for 40k. The races stories were changed due to battles had in tournaments. The players shaped the new version. After the characters are created, since 4th doesn't even have one, the setting is ignored and you play out your little grid based combats with your characters. You can link them together later to tell a story, but that is NOT the purpose of 40k to tell a story. Likewise there being no setting to 4th, you don't have to play to tell a story. There is really nothing to build a story off of anymore than DDM.

DDM had no setting and was just like disconnected little combats. Not like, it was. 4th edition however moves a little bit of connection to those combats, that is all. It doesn't matter where you are, because just like your "just in time" where you are play little to not part in it until the players are ready to do something. Where they go next doesnt matter until they are ready to go there.

The lack of a setting plays a BIG part in how the game looks. When trying to capture video gamers to the tabletop market, the lack of setting means they also had little to inspire them to move to the game. WoW has a VERY rich setting that is sitting and waiting for you to engage it.

You yourself said you had to create a world and such as "just in time" reduces SOME of the work of creation. Therein the problem is you have to create it all. The popularity then is because unlike previous editions, unlike other RPGs, and unlike MMOs and other video games; there is no setting in which to spark interest to begin with as much as those things offer.

A character in a game is made by most based on a few things:
-Who am I?
-What am I doing here?
-Where is here?

From these the game begins. The player can decide the first 2, but the third must be given to them. 4th by default doesn't offer a single thing about "where" you are except "Generic Fantasy World Skeleton 4638576 using the D&D Engine".

The very simple thing of previous edition having said the game is "medieval" in nature already develops a large portion of a default setting. 4th edition just tells you the world allows your characters to exist in it and is a framework to fit your characters into.

It changed so MANY things, it left no world to be seen. 4th does its job VERY well. It sets up the framework to build a game. That doesn't mean it has anything to inspire people to WANT to build a game, such a a setting.

It sells the game concept to executives of a corporation. It has mechanics that anyone can use to make anything happen. Its lack of popularity then comes from the populace when they look at the game and ask it to "Tell me why I should play an Eladrin.", then "Tell me how Eladrin will fit into the game I am about to play."

"Ok you convinced me to play an Eladrin, now tell me about this Feywild. Well? I'm waiting."

You get nothing. Nothing about this Feywild. But you might say but the Feywild is more of a setting than previous editions. I say it is just a name, a word. You could have easily said they lived in the forest. It may be tired, or overused with forest dwelling elves, but it gives you something rather than just making up a name and leaving you to wonder.

Im not inspired to create this Feywild they named, nor as Mearls stated should I want to. So if you are going to jsut throw out names, then finish the job and develop the default setting. At least with a forest I can stick it somewhere, but what is so special about this Feywild, for you to name it, and me to want to use it. No, I wont read ever word in the book to try to compile the information on the Feywild, when a seciton could have ben had to do that so when I want to look up the Feywild, I can turn to it to see what the Feywild is and let me know more about Eladrin. Now I am not even interested in playing an Eladrin.

Keeping with the DDM portion here, you play an Eladrin if you want to "teleport around the battlefield". That is clearly a defining characteristic for choosing a race/unit type for a miniature wargame.

I am not inspired to play a high fantasy RPG when told I will be playing Nightcrawler BAMFing around during fights. It inspires me to play a grid based battle simulation,

That is the thing about a setting, it tells you where the Eladrin came from and how they came to be. Worlds and Monsters may have this info, but it should have been in the game for AFTER WaM was out of print. Kender are explained how they came to be in the Dragonlance setting. Where did this Eladrin come from?

The game inspired great, and as a recent thread has shown long, combats, as its focus is for the cinematic fight sequences such as in movies. Miniature wargames do that too. An RPG should inspire more than just combat sequences you would see in a major motion picture. HAving had something for the story-driven aspect players would have made the game more popular, as the combat simulation players have tons of games that had been better developed. Oh and those games still have miniatures readily available and easily findable for use with them.

So the "just in time" setting/game creation works for a miniature wargame where you create the story after play, and need only things to interact and engage with when the players engage them, but for an RPG that is plot dirven where you are trying to do something, you need a palce to set the character into...some sort of what is the word where you set things? Ah, a setting.