Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e; 4e upgrade or new game??

[Imban]

This is probably the best way of looking at 4e I can think of.

A disclaimer: I've played Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics, but not Fallout 3. I wasn't commenting on its goodness or lack thereof, but... well, they're strictly turn-based systems with a real-time non-combat mode attached. Fallout 3's a first-person shooter with a pseudo-turn-based and optional combat system attached.

While you can easily see Fallout 2 as an "upgrade" of Fallout - basically the same game but with a few upgrades engine and system-wise, just with a different storyline - you can't really say the same for Fallout 3.

 

[pemerton]

I think the game would've been a lot better if they hadn't slapped the trademarked name onto it and just went with "A new RPG by Bethesda/A new RPG by Wizards."

Better for whom? Better in what way?

 

[Nebulous]

I find that 4e combat, even for a neophyte, runs more smoothly than 3e combat. However, 4e combats seem to take longer than 4e. And 4e is a bit lacking in support for non-combat related powers.

End result - is it an upgrade? That depends - if smooth and simple combat were my basic desire, then yes. Otherwise, it may not be.

The combat is definitely smooth and exciting. I would say that the fighting aspect of the game is an improvement over earlier editions, but i can't say the same for the rest of the system. I suppose it really does come down to opinion and what you're looking for. 4e is an excellent miniatures battle game.

 

[bagger245]

Yeap, its the brand name that they slapped on this rpg that they made. Should have
called it D&D: Evolution like Star Wars Saga edition or something along those
lines..maybe it wouldn't have that much threads discussing about 4th and more
threads about the fun of playing a new game..

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Better for whom? Better in what way?

Imagine they had really done that! Would the game no longer called D&D be as successful? How would the D&D fans have cried that their favorite game was no longer supported and dead?

And worse - what if it was just as successful as it now seems to be! D&D dead? New game replacing its market?

Not very likely to happen, admittedly - you probably need the brand to create the same level of awareness in the first place... But imagine a time where the top RPG is not D&D...

 

[justanobody]

Imagine they had really done that! Would the game no longer called D&D be as successful?

That is the question isn't it? Did the success come form the game itself or the name put onto it?

How would the D&D fans have cried that their favorite game was no longer supported and dead?

They would have done no different that they are still doing, but would have been happy to be told the truth, and wouldn't be fighting as much about game quality being the reason the game has sold vs the name being the reason it is sold.

And worse - what if it was just as successful as it now seems to be! D&D dead? New game replacing its market?

Then those fans of D&D that liked the game, not the name, would have been happy to continue playing D&D, and just as fine for those other people to enjoy their new game.

Just like the people drinking fruit glavored milk like it better than normal, the ones that want just plain milk can enjoy what they want, and everyone is happy.

Not very likely to happen, admittedly - you probably need the brand to create the same level of awareness in the first place... But imagine a time where the top RPG is not D&D...

Not D&D, or not carrying the name of D&D?

Many would say now that the top [selling currently available in production] RPG already is NOT D&D.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is the question isn't it? Did the success come form the game itself or the name put onto it?

Ultimately, it's both. The game wouldn't sell that well if it wasn't branded D&D, and it wouldn't sell that well if it wasn't also a good game. I fear that a larger part of the success of any D&D game is always just the brand - but maybe that's because the brand also stands for quality, not just for the first RPG ever. Once the game no longer guarantees quality, the brand will lose value.
The brand of D&D stands for lots of players, lots of supports, and a high quality. Once it no longer stands for any of the 3, the brand will no longer draw in the crowds.

They would have done no different that they are still doing, but would have been happy to be told the truth, and wouldn't be fighting as much about game quality being the reason the game has sold vs the name being the reason it is sold.

Sure. If it was allowed to just stand on its own and not being dragged into the discussions "Is this still D&D" or "It's just the name that's selling it", it would be valued on its own merits. Sounds like a trueismn. Though maybe not. Maybe people would ask "Why don't they call it D&D! It clearly is! Why do they hate D&D that they don't use its name? I will not play this fantasy heartbreaker!" Of course, this might be different people from the ones complaining now...

Then those fans of D&D that liked the game, not the name, would have been happy to continue playing D&D, and just as fine for those other people to enjoy their new game.

Well, you know, people can still play D&D with whatever edition they prefer and still care to name D&D. I don't care how much OD&D is the true D&D and all others are pale imitations of the true thing, for example. I was quite happy with the 3rd pale imitation, and the 4th is even better. I would never go the original.

Just like the people drinking fruit glavored milk like it better than normal, the ones that want just plain milk can enjoy what they want, and everyone is happy.

A, generic food metaphor... Where is hong when I need him?

Not D&D, or not carrying the name of D&D?

Not D&D in name.

Many would say now that the top [selling currently available in production] RPG already is NOT D&D.

Yes, sure, but it's not unknown that even many people can be wrong. I mean, it still says D&D on the cover, right?

 

[justanobody]

Yes, sure, but it's not unknown that even many people can be wrong. I mean, it still says D&D on the cover, right?

So does Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting.

Oddly 3rd edition also said D&D on the cover, but was an alteration of AD&D, not D&D....which was a different game then D&D, and bore a new name to specify so.

Oddly AD&D sold well for quite a few years as a new game with a new name.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So does Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting.

Yes - you think it's not D&D? What's on the cover of Forgotten Realms, Darksun or Eberron?

Oddly 3rd edition also said D&D on the cover, but was an alteration of AD&D, not D&D....which was a different game then D&D, and bore a new name to specify so.

Oddly AD&D sold well for quite a few years as a new game with a new name.

But AD&D also says D&D, right?

 

[justanobody]

Yes - you think it's not D&D? What's on the cover of Forgotten Realms, Darksun or Eberron?



But AD&D also says D&D, right?

Smart arse!

I bet is C&C was given much thought for a name at that time it would have been used, but with so many upstarts and a copyright already they stuck with what fit in the copyright by adding advanced.

Still like 4th edition does AD&D confused the hell of a lot of people, and still does to this day, as to what the word "advanced" means.