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

[pemerton]

The GM is the narrator. I like to think of him as the criminologist in Rocky Horror.

<snip>

When the criminologist speaks he is both telling part of the story, but setting up the next challenge in it. While telling it he knows where the story is heading

<snip>

So the DM knows where the story is headed, and what is to come in the story.

Ok, I think this is where we part ways. When I GM I generally don't know what is to come in the story. I do know what some of the key game elements are likely to be - the PCs, perhaps a few central antagonits, maybe a few prominent locations - but I don't know precisely who, when or (most importantly) how and what until the game gets there.

For example, and focusing on some key moments in my current game - I didn't know that the PCs would enter into a contract with the duergar slavers for the redemption of slaves until it happened; I didn't know that the wizard would brutally execute the defeated hobgoblins, or brutally kill the tiefling devil-worshipper as he and the party fled a collapsing demonic temple, until it happened; I didn't know that the chaos sorcerer would bargain with an imp to try and gain better control of the chaotic forces utnil it happened; I didn't know that the dwarven fighter would become a warpriest of Moradin until it happened; etc etc.

At the moment the party is likely either to enter the Feywild, or to strike of to the city of Threshold (Night's Dark Terror - which is also the city of Adakmi from Heathen). Very different things await them in each place. I won't know what the story is until it happens.

What did your play actually do to "build" your settings?

<snip>

Did you have a town spring up because the players suddenly wanted to visit it with JIT DMing? Did a race suddenly come into existence?

What significant thing about the setting did this JIT create?

<snip>

What are you creating that is so significant to the setting?

Well, the ruler of a town was created because the players wanted their PCs to meet with him.

The history of the minotaurs as past rulers over the dwarves was introduced by me in order to put some pressure on the player of the dwarf.

The gods worshipped by a particular cult - Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun - were introduced in the course of play, as was their hostility to the Raven Queen and the notion that their burial practices were intended to stop the Raven Queen getting to deal with their souls. Also introduced in the course of play was the reason why the wizard who was one of the leaders of this cult, as well as a chief wizard of Nerath, was killed by an apprentice: the wizard was trying to develop a process that would permit him, without violating those burial practices, to nevertheless harness the energy of the shadowfell to defend Nerath from invading gnolls (perhaps by making undead or golems).

That's probably enough examples for the moment. Given what I've already posted upthread about PoL, about my PCs, and about my game, I think it's pretty obvious how the second and third of these are highly significant for my game.

the DM must make the story fit in the set designed. It doesn't mean a new set can be made for a change in ACT VI once the play is in action.

Once the play is in action for OTHERS to view, all things should have been figured out.

<snip>

Your maps, and such ARE your setting. JIT doesn't create new maps for you "on the fly", you must have them in advance of playing in them.

Maps can actually be the least important part of a setting.

In my current game I am using the maps from Nights Dark Terror, because that is the scenario that I am (loosely) running, and it has some nice maps. A few times my PCs have wandered off the map, and I haven't needed to fill in the blank spaces - a bit of logical extrapolation in the context of an overland travel skill challenge has done the job.

In my previous Rolemaster campaign one important scenario involved the PCs travelling to an island where they knew that a dragon was guarding a portal to hell. I ran multiple sessions of the PCs searching the island, fighting trolls and dragonspawn on the island, finding the dragon's lair beneath an illusion, entering the lair, sneaking past the dragon and entering the portal without any maps drawn in advance. (Rolemaster doesn't need tactical battle maps, so when a fight breaks out, if distances become important a quick sketch of the terrain and the locations of the combatants does the job. Likewise for sneaking past a dragon - a quick diagram of the dragon's cave drawn up on the spot does the job.)

As to things having to have been figured out in advance, that's just not true. For example - do the witches the PCs are talking to know the name of the wizard who helped them? I didn't know the answer to that question until it became important to decide it in the course of the conversation with the PCs. I decided that they did, and that they would share it with the PCs, because this seemed likely to drive the game forward in a more interesting way. Why did the witches send the PCs travelling back in time? I didn't know the answer to this question when I started the scenario. I only worked out an answer after running the scenario - in the course of running the scenario it became clear, as I described above, what had been motivating the wizard whose manor the PCs were exploring in the past (namely, a desire to harness necromantic magic), and I was then able to use this idea to impute a motivation to the witches. Some of that motivation then emerged in the next session.

In short, you are saying that things can't be done, that can be done - and I know this because I do them.

Previous editions had a medieval backdrop.

As does 4e, presumably, when you look at the illustrations, the armour and weaopns list, the paragon paths (Warpriest, Knight Commander, Sword Marshall, Kensai, Battle Archer, Hospitaller - I'm getting a consistent vibe here).

4th has nothing. If you assume still a medieval backdrop then it wasn't because this was offered. It also looks a bit silly to MANY as you are no longer in a human-centric world.

The Hobbit does not take place in a human-centric world - the world of the is centred on Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and Hobbits. I think it is still fair to say that it is a roughly medieval backdrop.

4th I am not currently sure which race would rule, but the concept MIGHT be fixed if for some reason one assumes that ONLY the PCs have levels. But that dissolves my suspension of disbelief when one human can be a PC, but another cannot as there is absolutely nothing that prevents them outside of the game mechanics.

Ok, so now I think I can see where you might be coming from.

Let's look at it another way. In 1st ed AD&D only 10% of humans can gain levels. Furthermore, classed NPCs have different stat requirements from classed PCs. (Both these rules are set out in the DMG.) Does this mean that 90% of humans are in some sense defective? Or that PCs are defective, because they have stricter stat requirements than NPCs? No, it does not. These aren't simulationist rules, trying to model some causal process in the gameworld. They're metagame rules, setting the parameters for play. The result of these metagame rules, for the gameworld, is that (i) heroic-types are only a small part of the population, and (ii) all players play characters who are heroic-types, and (iii) all player heroic types tend, stat-wise, to be at the upper end of the spectrum.

The PC- and NPC-build rules in 4e are likewise metagame rules.

The only edition of D&D I'm aware of that tries to have the build rules be simulationist rather than metagame is 3E. In this it resembles games like Traveller, Runequest and Rolemaster.

Both sorts of games can be fun to play, although the different buid rules will tend to produce different play experiences. But it is a mistake to read the rules for one sort of game as if they were rules for the other. If your own suspension of disbelief can't handle metagame character build rules, that's fine by me. But it doesn't follow from your own personal preferences that 4e is badly designed.

the gods don't even participate in 4th and are there by name only.

Except that they created the world, send angels about in the world, and are likely to be the pre-eminent antagonists in high level play. Of all editions of D&D, 4e is the only one that starts from the premise that high level play will involve the players directly in dealings with, and perhaps fighting against, the gods. (As is evidenced by the Demigod epic destiny appearing in the PHB.)

Yeah you are offered NAMES for things, and if you don't like the very few selections, you have to work from the ground up. The planes can be thrown out.

<snip>

You must create the world, as I said before, because you are sitting in the Ivory Tower with this little bits of stuff floating nearby otherwise surrounded by The Nothing. Because nothing is what the PoL setting is for a setting.

What empires are in the PHB or DMG?

Well, you are offered names and histories. And a cosmology. And a creation myth. But yes, if you throw all that out then you will have nothing. Much like if I pick up Greyhawk but decide I don't like Suel, pseudo-Arabs (sorry, Baklun), pseudo-Amerindians (sorry, Flan), pseudo-Vikings (sorry, the Thilronian kingdoms) and pseudo-medieval Europeans (sorry, the Oeridian kingdoms) then I'll have nothing.

Luckily, when I use Greyhawk I don't throw those things out. It's because I want them that I use the setting. And when I use PoL I don't throw out it's elements either.

As for empires, we get Nerath (the most recent, human empire), Bael Turath (the fallen tiefling empire) and Arkhosia (the fallen dragonborn empire). Plus the eladrin cities of the Feywild. Plus various other bits and pieces in the Monster Manual.

Is you complaint simply that there's no map? No timeline? Both those things are true. But if you are saying that a fantasy RPG can't be run without a map and a timeline, I think you're just mistaken.

Does the market want maps and timelines? I'm pretty sure it does - hence my comments on the OP, that I think the problem for 4e isn't so much the lack of setting, but the design features that mean that it's not best suited to a "map and timeline" style game.

But you appear to be asserting that a game run without a map and timeline cannot be anything but a string of random combat encounters. And that assertion is just nonsense.

 

[pemerton]

I'm a newbie GM and I found that as someone who had no hands-on experience with DnD itself prior to 4th Edition, the setting books were really sparse. I think that there's certainly merit from the direction that the Heinsoo/Collins team wanted -- less book dictated fluff, more GM fiat -- but between players who know the setting and GMs looking for more guidance, it's not necessarily the only approach they should have taken.

<snip>

it's all well and good when Internet GM advice sites and forums say, "Forgotten Realms should always be YOUR Forgotten Realms" or "Don't pay attention to what novels made canon," or even "Who cares if the Ford Klingons were contradicted by Trek canon, use em if you like em," but it's another thing entirely when you've got people opposite the GM screen expecting your version of a setting to conform to their idea of the setting.

<snip>

the lack of setting support means that there's no well-established hook to put 4E on

Interesting post.

When I told my players to make PCs in accordance with the PHB, including it's default setting, I got interesting PCs back. And since then, in play, I haven't had any trouble with canon - the players have used those parts of the setting they like, like a particular god or the history of fallen Nerath, to develop aspects of their PCs, and I've done the same to drive the game forward.

But we are all experienced RPGers (all but one playing since the 1980s, the other since the late 90s).

Is it harder for new players to read a few sentences about the eladrin cities in the Feywild, or the fall of Nerath, or the cult of the Raven Queen, and get ideas for their PCs? I ask this as a genuine question, because I haven't played with a new player since 1998, and the premise for that game was "Kurosawa movies meet mid-90s Hong Kong movies like The Bride with White Hair, Tai Chi Master and Green Snake" - and he was familiar with those movies.

 

[pemerton]

People looking for it that see no place to explore (no default setting) may not think very highly of that game. They are likely to view it as a tactical combat simulator.

Whether you agree with their views, if someone sees the game as such and was looking for an immersive exploratory game, then you must accept the reason they are not interested in it is due to the lack of exploration presented.

Well, given that I made more-or-less this very point back at post #76, I agree.

It doesn't follow, though, that people who think 4e is just a skirmish game, or that you can't run a rich FRPG without maps and a timeline, are correct. That's why I also complained in the same post upthread that WotC could have done a better job in their rulebooks of explaining how to GM this sort of game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Let me jump back into world building real quick:

Absolutely 4e is better for wold building for me. Absolutely. There is literally zero question in my mind. And absolutely 4e is better at "simulation" then 3e is. The idea that 3e is "simulationist" in any way is bizarre to me. What's the simulation? That I can completely destroy the economy of the entire universe by sawing ladders in half?

See, every time in 3e I wanted to make a cool homebrew setting, I came across the same problem.

Magic.

Magic destroys the simulation. Completely. It destroys the world. How do you handle a class that can literally talk to God in your world? How do you deal with a wizard who can create perpetual energy on whim? A druid that ends the very concept of drought? And if I want to follow the rules directly, every "cool thing" I want needs to be do-able by PCs, needs to be statted out, and needs to be magical.

While making my homebrew campaign I tried too make it as edition neutral as I could while still being based on 4e, because hey, I rather like old editions too, and I might wanna play it in them. But as I went, 3e problems kept creeping up.

"The halfling and shifter islands are the standard fantasy floating in the air kind, and only the halflings have tamed flying creatures massive enough for transporting goods, ensuring they hold control over trade and travel."
But what about a wizard that casts flying spells or overland flight or a druid from simply wildshaping into said massive beast?

"The gnome and dwarf wars came down inevitably to a stark difference in religious ideology. The dwarves are all religious to a single dwarf, and have a firm believe in an unchangable soul. The gnomes are by and large agnostics, regarding "gods" as merely very powerful individuals if they exist at all, and regard the soul as mutable."
But what happens when a cleric rings up their god and asks them directly? Either side can just call the divine powers that be and ask them who is right.

"The human-blooded city states were united under a single flag when three saints - a half-elf, master of personal combat, courtesy, and subtle verse; a half-orc champion with the strength of thirty warriors and the ability to shrug off all but the most fatal of attacks; and a human , bound the city states together and formed an alliance with the Dragonborn to the south, sundering the rampaging orcish horde."
How did the warrior contribute to this tremendous war effort? This was at a time when magic didn't function at all - how did these heroes hold back an entire army without using or having any magic at all? These are meant to be characters the PCs will look up to and even someday emulate, how can I do that without any magical items or magical buffs?

"Should they go down this adventure line, the adventurers will find themselves challenged with delving deep into the remains of the past elven capital to find the self proclaimed "emperor" and stop him from finishing a ritual that will turn him into one of the Fey, granting incredible power to a very horrible individual."
What spell is this? How do I stat this out? Can the PCs learn it? God, I don't want them to. How does this actually work in game?

Every step of the way I found more and more holes in the setting, except they were holes that existed in every setting. Flying monsters are exceedingly rare in my setting, but wizards aren't. How are there castles and fortifications with flying wizards? How is there religious ambiguity when clerics can talk to the divine at whim? How are there wars when a few cloudkills render the whole thing meaningless? What's the point of a proud warrior tradition of any ol' cleric or wizard can be a better fighter?

Even worse, in all these examples, most of the problems introduced by magic are done so at relatively low levels. This isn't even getting into the mess of problems behind higher level spells.

In short, I wanted a setting that was not The Wizards of Wizardville Fight the Clerics of Clerictown.

So yeah, I very solidly denounce the idea that 4e is bad for world building. 4e is amazing at world building because now I don't have to constantly worry about "someone has a spell" ruining everything. And it "simulates" the feel and genres and styles I want perfectly.

D&D has never simulated a world. Never. It never tried to. It never wanted to. This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.

The heart of D&D was never to explore and experience Medieval Europe as if it also had mages walking around I guess even though they for whatever reason don't radically alter the universe. It was to take a genre or a style you like and simulate that. In the oldest editions it was "Hey, you like Conan? In D&D you can throw a throne at an evil wizard and then steal all the gold and run away as fast as you can!" In 2e it was "Hey, you like Lord of the Rings? In D&D you can be a semi-useless thief that takes orders from an epic level wizard that doesn't just solve anything because I dunno, screw you!" And in 3e it was "Hey, do you have any cocked out, bizarre, mishmash fantasy idea? Multiclaaaaaaaaass!"

And 4e doesn't change that. You're still Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis, roleplaying out being Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis. The world and setting make just as much sense as they always have: None.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I mean come on, simulationism?

When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.

 

[shadzar]

Well, the ruler of a town was created because the players wanted their PCs to meet with him.

I don't have a story planned out, but the things the PCs CAN interact with. There isn't much empty room where they can reach.

Like your town here HAD a ruler to begin with, you just gave him stats. Otherwise you are saying the town had no governing body until the players wanted to speak to a member of it?

Wait, you said JIT is in response to players something is created, but your examples all just sound like prior planned descriptions, not something created with JIT just because the players want to interact and engage with it. Like your town ruler, it existed, you just didn't fill in all the blanks. The fact a ruler existed was part of the setting. Your JIT created the person, not the position.

Maps can actually be the least important part of a setting.

I don't know about that. When running a game you sort of need to know where things are so you don't end up placing Neverwinter on top of Waterdeep. A DM needs to know where things are to maintain the continuity, otherwise the players will end up seeing it.

Neverwinter is 30 miles due North of where you are.
ENville is 50 miles due North
Waterdeep is 20 miles due South of ENville.

If the DM doesn't have his stuff together ready to play, I would rather call it a night and wait until the enxt time when he is. It is bad enough players flipping manuals waiting to find the right thing at times, when a DM does it, he looks disorganized.

As to things having to have been figured out in advance, that's just not true. For example - do the witches the PCs are talking to know the name of the wizard who helped them? I didn't know the answer to that question until it became important to decide it in the course of the conversation with the PCs.

I am seeing the problem here...our playstyles dont agree with each other. I would definitely not want something like "does this group of people have information on X" to be something done at the last minute.

Maybe your JIT and the link giving just isnt translating some piece of key info that explains it in the creation field,.

Just seems a clash of playstyles in translation is all.

As does 4e, presumably, when you look at the illustrations, the armour and weaopns list, the paragon paths

What does 4th edition tiers have to do with medieval?

You are seeing medieval in just "things". Like the previous discussion where medieval came in there is a bit more that is offered in older editions than in 4th. The caste system and feudalism in parts were there, while 4th is lacking them totally? As that poster mentioned it jsut wasn't enough of the feudalism and caste system for their liking to consider it medieval, but it was there, and now is not.

I don't see medieval when looking at 4th. I honestly see more along the lines of Star Wars looking past the "things" such a the equipment lists. Even then it isn't a real structured government.

It looks more like a sword and sorcery world and society such as Conan, with high fantasy mechanics with magic items and users running rampant.

The Hobbit does not take place in a human-centric world - the world of the is centred on Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and Hobbits. I think it is still fair to say that it is a roughly medieval backdrop.

Yes high fantasy fits well in medieval parameters, we agree on that.

In 1st ed AD&D only 10% of humans can gain levels.

You will have to show me where it says anything about that.

That whole section I am lost on until we get this "only 10% humans can gain levels" sorted out.

Except that they created the world, send angels about in the world, and are likely to be the pre-eminent antagonists in high level play. Of all editions of D&D, 4e is the only one that starts from the premise that high level play will involve the players directly in dealings with, and perhaps fighting against, the gods.

The gods creating the world is pretty much assumed in ALL fantasy games, says nothing about setting.

Again the "monsters" to engage in combat in at a certain level, is not really something that sets up the game world in regards to the setting.

Just because 4th edition makes some mechanics around the concept of forcing players to fight gods at certain levels, it doesn't mean other editions couldn't do so, nor again does it help really create a setting for the game. This is part of the mechanical design.

But yes, if you throw all that out then you will have nothing.

Again gods don't really set anything up. All have them or don't. Very minor detail of a setting. What are the gods doing? Again nothing until you reach a level to fight them. Paladins can go off mass murdering children and still be a paladin after sitting on the pile of corpses polishing his armor.

These things aren't very many, you act like throwing them out is hard to do, finding useful parts to piece together was the problem had in the thread I linked.

You have to search the books and read every word to piece together the setting.

This was mentioned by someone else, maybe yourself; that things may have been taken for granted in other editions as you moved up, but 4th offers so much less than any previous edition.

Has someone made and index, not a website/wiki, of what pages in the PHB to find the bits and pieces of PoL?

Like I said, I surely don't see medieval just because the gear used.

the problem for 4e isn't so much the lack of setting, but the design features that mean that it's not best suited to a "map and timeline" style game.

Which is where the need for a setting comes for some, or where the lack of popularity comes from those that are looking for that "map and timeline" style game.

It seems to work for you, and gives you what you are looking for. While hitting your mark, it sadly misses it for others.

But you appear to be asserting that a game run without a map and timeline cannot be anything but a string of random combat encounters. And that assertion is just nonsense.

Well it sure feels like it to me. As one who likes the exploration aspect rather than constant hack-n-slash, 4th seems to be wanting...

4th seems a great dungeon crawl creation tool. I don't want to only play dungeon crawls.

Popularity is based on the interest in the game, which is in turn based on the "feeling" it gives people.

It feels good to you, but to me I feel like I have been given slices of bread and am looking for the rest of my sandwich so I can start devouring it.

 

[pawsplay]

I mean come on, simulationism?

When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.

That's why it's called simulation. If it were real, they would call it reality.

 

[Aeolius]

When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.

fun-sucker.

 

[BryonD]

I get dogpiled by h4ters who think I'm defending 4E. What part of "I understand why someone might not like 4E" could be any clearer that I wasn't here to defend my edition of choice?

As a someone who isn't a "h4ter", I note a hint of hypocrisy buried in that....

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That's why it's called simulation. If it were real, they would call it reality.

You are missing my point entirely.

The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting. The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.

fun-sucker.

Hey now, that's Fun Tyrant Who else would DM the "tyranny of fun?"