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

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do. I personally couldn't even make it through Worlds & Monsters before I lost my suspension of disbelief. It seems bloody obvious to me that if fairy rings exist, someone at some point is going to traipse through one and possibly talk to a little person. That you would rate 3e and 4e equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world tells me that and similar issues are not salient to you. If you don't care if there's any there there, one dungeon crasher will do as well as the next.

That you think I would rate 3E and 4E equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world is already wrong, and so everything you say after this is increasingly off the tracks. They have very different facades. But they are both facades (and very roughly equivalent in the degree of the facade, as the chart indicated). You just happen to find the 3E facade more useful, satisfying, whatever.

The difference between us is that I can see that you find the 3E facade useful, and not assume that there is no "there there." You are having a hard time returning the courtesy. This problem is not with me.

 

[LostSoul]

Who says you can't do both? I do.

You can do both, but I've found that it's too easy for me to let the description fall aside - because it doesn't matter to the game if you describe anything or not; what matters is where the mini is on the battlemap.

 

[shadzar]

the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).

Now if you regard "traipsing through fairy rings" as a placeholder for all things of any thematic depth that might occur in a fantasy RPG, it would be a different thing. But in my view W&M makes it pretty clear that that is not the intention of the game designers.

<snip>

The sort of consistency I want in my gameworld is consistency in the broad sweep of history, of myth and of politics, and consistency when this is reduced down into particular (generally non-commercial) interactions with people and places. I want consistency in the difference between devil-worshipping tieflings and demon-worshipping gnolls.

Now you have confused me. You don't want organized worship but do?

The thing is in either case, YOU envision the game as W&M said, and that and probably JIT works for you because that is the type of game you were looking for. It doesnt work for others looking for a different type of game than you. Your JIT style works, because your players agree with you and don't want to witness the citizens actually worshiping anything or need that kind of continuity.

You seem to play an out of sight out of mind kind of game. If that works for you, then great.

What made the game popular and may be holding back its popularity for others is the lack of those things that you enjoy doing without.

As I said in the other thread, your playstyle works for you and your players and that should be all that matters to you, but you must accpet that kind of playstyle isnt popular with everyone and capturing you by aligning with your playstyle, could be a cause of reduced popularity in 4th edition.

It doesn't make your playstyle wrong, but others have a view of what yo playstyle seems to be. If you are happy with it, what do you care what industry/genre name it has been given?

Dungeon Crawls, hack-n-slash, dungeon-basher, tactical simulation, all of these CAN include other parts, but their primary focus IS, like 4th edition, the combat format.

The combat is where the story is just like in movies.

When I read The Hobbit or the LotR,
<snip>
Economics is just not a salient consideration for those particular fantasy stories.

This is the exact thing. You are looking for a much different depth that others are. Some want that richness provided in the details.

The game world needs to be real in all ways except those in which it isn't real.

having a standard of living comparable to that of an England that was one of the centres of world commerce and production

This is EXACTLY what some people want. That is the simulationism they want. A real world that the player is enveloped in. Books and movies often skip the economics because it isn't part or a good movie or book. Oddly Harry Potter books and movies took time to describe the economy of wizard money versus muggle money. People ate it up so much that galleons, knuts, etc was made for sale.

4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them. Hell they are flat out told that isnt fun. Why would the game be popular when the very books insult them about what they like?

Gary had the same problem with his "no thespianism" rule. Seems clothes and types of games aren't the only retro things, but attitudes as well....

Gary "no thespians": 1979
WotC "____ isn't fun": 2008

Didn't make it 30 years but was darn close.

So how you are feeling insulted by people viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game, you are seeing how those people feel about 4th when it tells them that "traipsing through fairy rings isnt fun".

The thing is,when the company says it, it is a slap in the face and they are biting the hands that feed them because they are insulting a playstyle by denying it as a valid way to play the game. When another gamer says it, who cares, it is their opinion.

You would likely not play the next edition if it was designed around and claimed that your current method of play was wrong, correct?

the dramatic pacing of 4e combat

With comments like this you seem to want that tactical skirmish game, so what is so insulting about it?

 

[shadzar]

I've observed that D&D is on the forefront of non-gamers minds as THE roleplaying game. They don't know anything about any other TTRPG. Casual gamers are similar. They know D&D. They know "roll a twenty-sided die and ask if I hit." Other systems require a deeper knowledge of the industry that they don't want to bother with. All IMO, of course.

Woohoo! I'm a non-gamer!

 

[Umbran]

Woohoo! I'm a non-gamer!

That's not what he said, nor is it what he implies.

 

[shadzar]

That's not what he said, nor is it what he implies.

In a sense it is right though....

That is how some would view it just as presented. Just a bit of a surprise when you think about how things have changed over the years, and how the definition of "gamer" has changed, casual or otherwise.

You know? I am fine with it. I don't require the industry or other gamers to validate me.

 

[Dannager]

4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them. Hell they are flat out told that isnt fun. Why would the game be popular when the very books insult them about what they like?

Seeing this as "insulting" is silly. Really silly. You're being told, by people (real people, just like you!) that they designed their game to be fun, and this is what they think is fun and what they think isn't fun.

In no way is "Minutiae is not fun," an insult. In no way. Unless your name is Minutiae. Then it might be. The fact that you disagree with that statement doesn't suddenly make it an insult. This is fairly ridiculous oversensitivity. Similarly, other statements about things that are fun and things that are not fun are not insults, nor should they be perceived as insulting even if you disagree with them.

Crazy gamer overreaction leads to sad examples like this thread. You should not want to be like that.

 

[Imaro]

Seeing this as "insulting" is silly. Really silly. You're being told, by people (real people, just like you!) that they designed their game to be fun, and this is what they think is fun and what they think isn't fun.

In no way is "Minutiae is not fun," an insult. In no way. Unless your name is Minutiae. Then it might be. The fact that you disagree with that statement doesn't suddenly make it an insult. This is fairly ridiculous oversensitivity. Similarly, other statements about things that are fun and things that are not fun are not insults, nor should they be perceived as insulting even if you disagree with them.

Crazy gamer overreaction leads to sad examples like this thread. You should not want to be like that.

While I agree that it really isn't an insult (in the same way comments about 4e aren't an insult to those who enjoy playing 4e, unless they are named 4e)...

I guess the real question becomes... why would I want to play or spend money on a game that was designed by those who use the very things I've found fun in previous editions as examples of things that are neither enjoyable or encouraged in this particular iterration of the game. IMO it would have been far better to adopt the stance that gamers will find their own fun things within the experience of the game and the ability to tailor this to individual groups and players is one of the greatest strengths of a human moderated game. I mean it seems to me the gateway/most popular rpg would also want to be as inclusive as possible...

 

[Dannager]

While I agree that it really isn't an insult (in the same way comments about 4e aren't an insult to those who enjoy playing 4e, unless they are named 4e)...

I guess the real question becomes... why would I want to play or spend money on a game that was designed by those who use the very things I've found fun in previous editions as examples of things that are neither enjoyable or encouraged in this particular iterration of the game. IMO it would have been far better to adopt the stance that gamers will find their own fun things within the experience of the game and the ability to tailor this to individual groups and players is one of the greatest strengths of a human moderated game. I mean it seems to me the gateway/most popular rpg would also want to be as inclusive as possible...

While this is definitely a more level-headed approach to take than looking for new and exciting ways to act offended, we're talking about game design here. Focus is important, and D&D has a definite focus (and always has). 4e placed by far the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date. There have been attempts, in the past, to put some token design effort towards fleshing out areas of potential play that are not part of the intended focus of D&D - Profession skills, etc. Those design efforts are, I argue, wasted. Some people disagree, but I'd argue that the number of people who require a formula for making money via basketweaving in order to properly enjoy their RPG are in the tiny minority compared to those who appreciate the design attention that D&D's focus (adventure, combat, heroic action) received. And those who are in that minority have a lot of other options, and that's cool.

But don't make the mistake that basketweaving profession formulae are going to draw new people into the hobby. If anything, minutiae like that have been shown time and time again to impart a level of senseless complexity that make the new player experience that much harder to make work.

Let me be clear: being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to make the game easily accessible (which you should focus on as the entry point to the hobby) is not the same as being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to cater to everyone's tastes at the same time, especially if that jeopardizes the focus and coherency of your game.

 

[Imaro]

While this is definitely a more level-headed approach to take than looking for new and exciting ways to act offended, we're talking about game design here. Focus is important, and D&D has a definite focus (and always has). 4e placed by far the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date. There have been attempts, in the past, to put some token design effort towards fleshing out areas of potential play that are not part of the intended focus of D&D - Profession skills, etc. Those design efforts are, I argue, wasted. Some people disagree, but I'd argue that the number of people who require a formula for making money via basketweaving in order to properly enjoy their RPG are in the tiny minority compared to those who appreciate the design attention that D&D's focus (adventure, combat, heroic action) received. And those who are in that minority have a lot of other options, and that's cool.

Maybe 4e placing "by far the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date." is exactly why it isn't as popular as it could be. Maybe most people weren't looking for a focused tool but were instead much happier with the swiss army knife type approach of previous editions. To claim people who want this kind of "minutae" are a minority... is well disingenuous without some type of evidence...

But don't make the mistake that basketweaving profession formulae are going to draw new people into the hobby. If anything, minutiae like that have been shown time and time again to impart a level of senseless complexity that make the new player experience that much harder to make work.

I find this hard to believe since more recent CRPG's (like Fable and Dragon Age) and MMORPG's (WoW) have crafting systems, profession systems, sometimes the ability to purchase land and even have families and children... and many people find enjoyment in using them... even if they aren't realistic. So assuming such things about people who would be interested in playing D&D seems a bit presumptuous at best and erroneous if the current trend of rpg videogames is any indicator. I mean these games are moving more in the direction you claim is not what most people want... Honestly I think WotC messed up big time with this directional shift in focus.