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

[shadzar]

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.

But those undefined thing you had a default assumption on and passed along to the players did you not?

When you declared there were forests or that objects were made out of wood, you told the players your setting has trees. Not defining the exact trees means nothing as you have defining trees exist.

Likewise by not having anyone were this type of jewelry before, you made the default assumption and passed it along to the players that it was not worn or fashionable to do so.

Your alteration of that state can when a player or yourself questioned that state.

Your default state wasn't necessarily that it wasn't done or not allowed for some reason, just that it hasn't YET been done. That was your established setting. Many of those undefineds form the established setting on common assumptions.

While you set the default state of the setting to "none do it" by leaving it as you say "undefined", it doesn't mean you cannot later alter that state, but you did set the state to begin with even without writing it down.

You actively set the state to "undefined" for many things, so you CAN alter them later, by not defining them up front.

Just because you haven't decided which walls to paint in your house, doesn't mean the walls are not there to be painted.

So when leaving this as a so-called "undefined" element, and not including both options, you really did set the state that people didn't wear flammable jewelry. It is fine to change it for whatever reason so long as your players like the change. But in your setting it didn't happen was the default state, because it didn't. It is just an unwritten part of your setting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The more I read threads like this, the more I appreciate how difficult it is to convey the sensibility of a game system. Or if "sensibility" is a little too vague, then perhaps the "the set of styles meant to be easily supported by the mechanics and accompanying setting materials."

As to why, the funny thing to me is that 4E feels more like D&D than any version of D&D, ever. It evokes and supports, quite well, the feel that we tried to get out of Red Box and early AD&D. The things that were annoying to us in those mechanics, that seemed to go against the "feel" of D&D as we were playing it, are mostly gone. Meanwhile, new things are supporting that intended style of play. But when I try to convey specifics of this, I'm reduced to thinking that maybe Mearls was trying to recruit himself--and me.

(You'll note that this does not mean that I find the 4E implementation perfect. Far from it. Pretty much everything Robin Laws got his fingers on makes me want to scream in frustration, particularly when it comes to finding a way to let players "succeed" even when they totally blow every opportunity. However, like grappling rules in AD&D, I find this easy to ignore in play.)

I'll try one specific in the hope of clarity. Consider the D&D trope of a bunch of low-level heroes going into the starter dungeon, killing some monsters, and getting the treasure. Being a trifle unfair for the sake of distinctions:

Red Box: As the combat example illustrates, and play supports, you'll likely lose at least one PC during the first fight. Survivers retreating makes a lot of sense, and for this reason you'll learn to avoid fights when possible. If you want to play a gnome, he has hairy feet.

1st ed: Ditto, except now your lost PC can be a wider variety of races and classes. Your poor gnome was a ghoul snack.

2nd ed: Your gnome would've gotten eaten by the ghouls, but since you roleplayed that conversation with the powerful NPC, he bailed you out. Or maybe the gnome fast talked the ghoul king. Eventually, the lich will kill the gnome, but he will get to make a dramatic speech before he dies.

3rd ed: Your gnome was quite successful in his initial forays. That sorcerer with a few early levels of rogue wasn't nearly quite as overpowered as everyone first said, but it worked well enough. And paragon levels rounded him out nicely. We lost a PC early, but it wasn't you, since you had enough sense to stay far away from that orc with the great axe.

3.5 ed: Now you get to play that gnome bard you've been trying to play forever, with more or less the same results as 3rd ed. Or if the previous campaign taught you different lessons, you went wizard for power, and the hell with concept.

4E: You know that goblin fight in the Hobbit, that sounded so chaotic in the text? You can have that fight now, gnome or halfing your choice, and you won't need a ring of invisibility or Gandalf to have a decent shot to survive. Depending on how the group reads the suggestions in the rules, it may or may not be up to you to make sure you are fighting the goblins and not Smaug, who will eat your whole party very rapidly if they stick around.

Now see, every edition had an answer to, "How do you deal with those early fights?" And they were all effective answers, in that they work if you approach the game with the corresponding mindset. But if you, for example, wanted a particular feel counter to that answer, you weren't going to get the result you wanted.

We learned pretty rapidly that the Hobbit goblin fight was not going to happen as we wanted. So we adapted to what Basic expected and avoided fights. It didn't feel right, but that's what was necessary to make it work. This is accepting the mechanics for what they are, but nonetheless bucking the intended style at every turn. It can be very fun, but it isn't what you want.

4E lets us accept the mechanics for what they are while also embracing the intended style. Equally fun results with less chafe.

 

[Mallus]

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?

Culture is part of Step 1, but I like to begin with a broad, overall premise. For example, my old 3e campaign setting started from the question: what all the great cities of the ancient world were within walking distance of each other? This led to CITY, a megalopolis made up of 9 far-flung cities linking by magical gates, the last surviving piece of an ancient empire which had mastered the art of teleportation (and the art of exploiting contemporaneous civilizations using their mastery of teleportation).

From there, details began to accrue. At some point I decided one of the linked cities resembled early Renaissance Venice and another was a kind of French/Indian mash-up (masala?).

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.

I came to gaming from SF&F literature, and I still think in terms of genre conventions/emulation first, and game conventions/mechanics a distant second (despite the fact I've played these games for over 25 years).

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?

I'm not much of a mapper. I scratch something out and leave the more advanced cartography to my setting collaborators and/or players. As for where the campaign's going to be based -- I try to leave that as open as possible. I have a thing for big fantasy cities --from Lankhmar to Ankh-Morpork and New Crobuzon-- but most of my settings contain a variety of places and potential campaign themes.

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.

I usually do a broad and very sparsely detailed history at the start, then fill in the details later, either as needed or as I feel inspired, often totally out-of-order. I might create a neighborhood's local color/history first, then a lost empire's ancient history 6 months into the campaign.

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.

It's probably right to say I keep system "in the back of my mind", but I don't like to feel constrained by game convention/mechanics when I'm dreaming up my frequently-derivative-or-absurdly-juxtaposed fantasy setting-wank.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Clark invested a huge amount of energy and then walked away. And you substituted someone else for the other two companies I identified, so I guess those are confirmed.

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

Calling my statement rude does not negate the accuracy of it. The Paizo Pathfinder release poster states, boldy, "3.5 Thrives". Your assessment was completely at odds with what happened. And far more statements than just their poster support that. If you were up to speed on the topic, you would know that.

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.

I know exactly zero people who wish they were playing an older version of D&D but play PF.

But, that is beside the point, you are clearly agreeing that WotC would gain 4E palyers who simply WISHED they were not 4E players. That is a very sad position to be defending.

I think your assumption is based on the community here.

Ok. You are wrong.
4E seems to be vastly MORE popular here than it is in meatspace. It has become a running joke how I run into completely random strangers and upon discovering they are gamers immediately finding out how much they dislike 4E.

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.

Ok, so 4E is for drunk folks who don't really care which game they play. Noted. (Not my opinion, but that is what I read in yours)

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

shrug. I have. Heck, a lot of 3E fans dislike the PF changes.

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.

Well the difference is, you intentionally provided an unfair estimate of my feelings. I simply commented on the factual errors underlying yours.

If you would like to make some statements that actually describe reality, I'm interested. But if you don't have that, then please, best of gaming to you.

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.

And if you look in that message board you will find threads based on anything other than 3E represent a minimal fraction. It is not uncommon to see the first page have none.

 

[BryonD]

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)..

I agree with you and support this position 100%.

However, the conversation is on a comparison of game mechanics systems.

3E is vastly better at THAT.
If that only represents one half of one percent of the matter to you, then it isn't going to matter. Cool. I buy that. But that doesn't make 4E better, it just makes the difference irrelevant.

I like simulation. I like imagining a cool wizard and then seeing him become expressed in an interactive way with the responsive environment. I love the "world-implementation".

I doubt you could convince me that you love the "creative act, fiction" part any more than I do. I love that a ton. But, unlike you, I love the nuts and bolts side just as much.

And there is nothing REMOTELY critical meant in that. Hell, I can easily see how it would seem silly that I get so much fun out of the wonky stuff. But I do.
But a system-agnostic approach doesn't support a position of one system being better than another.

 

[Mallus]

So when leaving this as a so-called "undefined" element, and not including both options, you really did set the state that people didn't wear flammable jewelry. It is fine to change it for whatever reason so long as your players like the change. But in your setting it didn't happen was the default state, because it didn't. It is just an unwritten part of your setting.

You're just messing with me, aren't you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As to why, the funny thing to me is that 4E feels more like D&D than any version of D&D, ever.

That's just crazy talk, Jerome!

 

[shadzar]

You're just messing with me, aren't you?

Did you or did you NOT include jewelry for young ladies in your game?

This is part of the setting that jewelry exists for young ladies.

You set that as the state of the setting. Later you aren't creating the setting, just changing societies views on what kind of jewelry is fashionable.

You described people as wearing jewelry or not? It may seem innocuous, but that is a part of your setting.

If you say up front that people do NOT wear gold jewelry, then you have defined that state of jewelry. Having no one wearing gold jewelry is your undefined state for that kind of jewelry.

Either way of the various types of possible jewelry from gold to flammable, you already placed jewelry in your campaign and its setting. You aren't creating jewelry as part of the setting at a later time. You are jsut changing the state of one possible jewelry.

Your flammable magnesium jewelry existed when needed, but if it never existed, it does NOT change that jewelry did.

Follow me?

Again like your trees, you defined they existed but didn't specify which species. Therefore by having trees you by default set each tree species state to yes, no, or undefined. The specific species can't retcon that trees never existed in your campaign, because you already said they did.

These may seem silly little examples, but I am using what you presented form your interesting game story.

Trees and jewelry were decided to exist. This is a small part of a setting, and probably a common assumption, but you made that go from an assumption to an actual part or your setting by presenting them to your players.

Take the bigger picture of a setting and look at gnomes not being present as a playable race initially. That is a part of the setting, but no real reason given, like half-orcs and assassins int he past.

OK, half-orcs were given a reason, but it was initially a silly cause of creation to begin with. It only serves to show that the game isn't about "traipsing through fairy rings and talking to the little people" as some designers would have you to believe, but set up part of the default setting for the game too, in how gritty and harsh the life of an adventurer could be.

Like people trying to debate what is acceptable reasons for a DM to disallow parts of the game, likewise a decent setting information should be present int he books for a game with a long history, to explain its reasons why some things are and are not there.

People may not have needed a reason for you young ladies to wear jewelry, flammable or not, but others question the world itself, where there is nothing to support it. This is a problem with the 4th edition "assumed" setting.

For those looking to just play, then it might not be a problem, for those looking for that rich place to play in and looking to trust those presenting things to have a place for those things and reasons for them being included or removed, the setting or absence thereof can play a big part in how popular it is amongst those people who look for that element.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Clark invested a huge amount of energy and then walked away.

Posting "I wish I could publish 4E stuff" on a message board does not constitute a huge amount in my opinion.

And you substituted someone else for the other two companies I identified, so I guess those are confirmed.

Nope. I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm calling all three of your examples "kitchen table companies."

I know exactly zero people who wish they were playing an older version of D&D but play PF.

And MMV.

But, that is beside the point, you are clearly agreeing that WotC would gain 4E palyers who simply WISHED they were not 4E players. That is a very sad position to be defending.

Now we get to the crux of your anger. You are defending a position. I am making an observation based on experience.

Ok. You are wrong.
4E seems to be vastly MORE popular here than it is in meatspace. It has become a running joke how I run into completely random strangers and upon discovering they are gamers immediately finding out how much they dislike 4E.

MMV greatly.

Ok, so 4E is for drunk folks who don't really care which game they play. Noted. (Not my opinion, but that is what I read in yours)

Again, are you being obstinate on purpose? You are obviously, IMO, a hardcore gamer always in search of the "best" game. "B&P" refers to casual players who enjoy hanging out with friends more than worrying about what game they play. You seem to have some anger towards casual players. How dare they not care!

Well the difference is, you intentionally provided an unfair estimate of my feelings. I simply commented on the factual errors underlying yours.

Your attempt to frame my feelings MAY have been unintentional, but you were not simply pointing out factual errors.

 

[pawsplay]

Why is 4e not as popular as it might have been? Because it wasn't properly min-maxed. Pleasing a certain segment of the fanbase has become a feat-tax.