D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Nergal Pendragon]

And now we're getting into there being different sources that got retconned together, and I'm going with an older one. Erec et Enide was 1170 - Geoffrey of Monmouth died in 1155, and Morgana appears in his Vita Merlini as one of the nine magical Queen sisters of Avalon and is not mentioned as being related to Arthur at all so far as I am aware. She was magical from the start - and a healer. Subsequently in Erec et Enide a Morgan shows up who was named as Arthur's sister and healer, although with a slightly different role to the Queen of Avalon. It's my personal belief here that these actually started out as two different characters (ever tried tracing family trees in comics? If they have the same last name they must be related however weird that ends up being). There's also another Morgan wandering around the earliest myths; Morgan Tud, Arthur's chief healer but he drops out of the myths for being far too confusing. And after that we're into the Vulgate Cycle where I think we agree.

Comics are easy. Try it with mythology. As bad as people talk about comic families, some of the divine ones require non-euclidean geometry to chart out.

We both agree on that. I do think those were two different characters, and that the later feud between Arthur and Morgan was itself a retcon. Of course, this was probably a result of attempting to give Arthur a female villain who didn't happen to be his wife; his issues with Guinevere appear to definitely originate from the same time as the introduction of his sister.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Comics are easy. Try it with mythology. As bad as people talk about comic families, some of the divine ones require non-euclidean geometry to chart out.

I'm fairly sure that the Summers' do as well. Comics (both Marvel and DC) are for all practical purposes modern mythology that have only been going for decades rather than centuries - but most people on these boards are likely to know their comics better than their mythology.

We both agree on that. I do think those were two different characters, and that the later feud between Arthur and Morgan was itself a retcon. Of course, this was probably a result of attempting to give Arthur a female villain who didn't happen to be his wife; his issues with Guinevere appear to definitely originate from the same time as the introduction of his sister.

And I think we agree on that as well And then are confused by each new knight being their author's Mary Sue that beats up all the rest, and Lancelot being the Mary Sue that got involved with Guinevere. And people building on that.

 

[Remathilis]

First, how they got there is irrelevant. They are there.

Second, have you ever counted how many people in the Greek myths are part-deity? It's easier to count the protagonists that don't at least claim to be part deity. I'm struggling to think of any.

Third, Robin of Locksley could split an arrow down the middle in most tellings of the myth. And was ridiculously fast at shooting. If you're accurate enough to split an arrow down the middle (a target smaller than an eyeball) you can keep up with anyone who can't catch arrows or shrug them off. (Which admittedly does not include everyone in The Water Margin).

Fourth, Gandalf? Powerful Angel (technically Maiar). Circe? Goddess. Merlin? Supernatural (child without a father). Medea? Niece of Circe and quarter god. Morgana le Fay? What do you think Le Fay means? (Probably water spirit in her case). Morgause? Morgana's sister.

I can think of more than a few mythological heroes that weren't part God, starting with Orlando and Robin Hood. I'm struggling to think of any mages that weren't spirit or divine. Yet mysteriously this issue is never even raised when it comes to spellcasters despite being rooted far, far deeper in the mythology for them. If you're going to say that because of mythological roots most fighters should be part-God or divinely empowered then so should every single wizard. Even where you have mundane births and no direct empowerment for the martial heroes (as in the Arthurian cycle for many of them) the wizards are all part something.

I guess if we need partiality, then all fighters are demi-gods and all wizards are divine/fey entities. Of course, we've constructed a world far closer to Exalted then Greyhawk, but...

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure they could have been removed, the fact is they happened, and they doomed an otherwise innovative and technically much-improved edition of a traditionally stodgy game. The alternative theory, that it was 'appeal of content to the market' has to 1) ignore the perfect storm and 2) come up with some solid, detailed sales figures of 4e /and/ prior eds for comparison to have any support at all. Since your alternative theory can't be proven (unless WotC opens it's books and old TSR records can be unearthed), and the perfect storm happened, and the effect it posits on 4e & Pathfinder is consistent with the available evidence, I'm pretty content to leave it at that.

You posted a very long piece and yet again elected to avoid providing a single reason why anyone not playing 4E would do so.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess if we need -for-tat, then all fighters get to be demi-gods and all wizards are divine/fey entities. Of course, we've constructed a world far closer to Exalted then Greyhawk, but...

The thing is, as I said, mythologically Greyhawk under OD&D rules or pre-Unearthed Arcana rules works. Spells are a slightly weird type of wondrous magic item that you need to first quest for and then attune yourself to. And they are rare and precious enough that no one who can use them is going to share other than with people they know very well (which is explicitly in the rulebooks). Wizards aren't until very high level people who command the forces of the cosmos. They are scavengers, grubbing around in dangerous areas for fallen power.

This parity breaks when spell libraries become other than private or when wizards start spontaneously generating spells as they level up. But a Vancian spell is close to a Pokemon - a semi-sentient being that you need to first wrestle into a Pokeball shaped like a spellbook and then into your mind before you can choose it. The power is with the spell, not with the wizard.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I'm fairly sure that the Summers' do as well. Comics (both Marvel and DC) are for all practical purposes modern mythology that have only been going for decades rather than centuries - but most people on these boards are likely to know their comics better than their mythology.



And I think we agree on that as well And then are confused by each new knight being their author's Mary Sue that beats up all the rest, and Lancelot being the Mary Sue that got involved with Guinevere. And people building on that.

We're in total agreement! I swear, that entire mythology cycle has become nothing more than something for people to toss in their Mary Sue's or drop their own private anvils! I'm half tempted to write an Arthur story featuring a knight named Mary Sue who defeats enemies by dropping anvils on them.

You posted a very long piece and yet again elected to avoid providing a single reason why anyone not playing 4E would do so.

My personal guess is it's because of the poison slipped into their food and drink and they have to play the game in order to be provided with the antidote?

 

[BryonD]

My personal guess is it's because of the poison slipped into their food and drink and they have to play the game in order to be provided with the antidote?

Yeah, unfortunately they bought their poison from the same guys who thought New Coke couldn't fail because of the brand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You posted a very long piece and yet again elected to avoid providing a single reason why anyone not playing 4E would do so.

To put it bluntly, if fewer lies had been spread about 4e in the edition wars, more people would have given it a fair chance. And first impressions count for a lot. Many people who did give 4e a fair chance had their first impression of playing as Mike Mearls' execrable Keep on the Shadowfell - and the best way to save that module is to drop an asteroid on the entire keep (it's actually not too bad before you reach it but there's no edition it would play well in after, and it's especially bad in 4e).

Honestly, most people don't care much about game systems. I may enjoy picking them apart but the main condition a game needs is as a package to be good enough. And the system includes what you're trying to do with it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We're in total agreement! I swear, that entire mythology cycle has become nothing more than something for people to toss in their Mary Sue's or drop their own private anvils! I'm half tempted to write an Arthur story featuring a knight named Mary Sue who defeats enemies by dropping anvils on them.

Which would probably be less anachronistic than Mallory's knights in plate armour. Or the Courtly Love that Arthurian Knights were meant to follow.

 

[BryonD]

To put it bluntly, if fewer lies had been spread about 4e in the edition wars, more people would have given it a fair chance.

Again, from Day 1 4E fans (and to much lesser but non-zero extent, WotC) expressed "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

And, of course, the attitude of "I don't agree with your taste" = "lies" isn't exactly productive.

And first impressions count for a lot. Many people who did give 4e a fair chance had their first impression of playing as Mike Mearls' execrable Keep on the Shadowfell - and the best way to save that module is to drop an asteroid on the entire keep (it's actually not too bad before you reach it but there's no edition it would play well in after, and it's especially bad in 4e).

4E was a massive best seller initially and there was great trumpeting of the overwhelming success. There were and continue to be VAST complaints about a wide ranges of issues with the mechanics of the very game itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who dislike 4E is 5 times the number of people who played "keep on the shadowfell". But regardless, I can;t recall any "h4ter" making mention of it even as a tangent. So to claim that was in any way fundamental to the number of people who don't like the system as a whole is wildly revisionist.

Honestly, most people don't care much about game systems. I may enjoy picking them apart but the main condition a game needs is as a package to be good enough. And the system includes what you're trying to do with it.

Well, ok I think you have framed it in terms no one can dispute. I think the vast majority of people care about system, but yeah, it just needs to be "good enough". To a whole lot of people 4E was not "good enough".