Non-D&D 4Ed

[Dannyalcatraz]

Despite your insistence of brand association, 4E still would not be as popular as it is now without being labeled as the next edition of "D&D." I think that once you get that, you can move on

In business, there are examples of stunning successes from brand association and examples of stunning failures of pure branding, and vice versa.

Whether the game would be bigger or not is not provable. I stated an opinion based on my education as a MBA of Sports & Entertainment Marketing and my observations of the Edition Schism and things that ENWorlders have been saying about 4Ed (good & bad) for the past 3 years.

But its just an opinion.

I think that once you get that, you can move on to provide some interesting 4Ed variants of your own in this thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What do you think?

I'm not bugged by things yet- let it slide a bit longer, if you're willing. If the noise obscures the signal, I'll reboot.

 

[Aldarc]

In business, there are examples of stunning successes from brand association and examples of stunning failures of pure branding, and vice versa.

Whether the game would be bigger or not is not provable. I stated an opinion based on my education as a MBA of Sports & Entertainment Marketing and my observations of the Edition Schism and things that ENWorlders have been saying about 4Ed (good & bad) for the past 3 years.

But its just an opinion.

I think that once you get that, you can move on to provide some interesting 4Ed variants of your own in this thread.

Then if you are also unable to prove your assertion that 4E would have reached its full potential via brand association. Don't you think then that Plane Sailing's point that he brought up regarding how you framed the heart of the matter be considered? If you want answers about 4E variants, then ask about 4E variants.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then if you are also unable to prove your assertion that 4E would have reached its full potential via brand association. Don't you think then that Plane Sailing's point that he brought up regarding how you framed the heart of the matter be considered? If you want answers about 4E variants, then ask about 4E variants.

I never claimed to prove it- I said I reached a conclusion. I brought it up to put my cards on the table. I'm not a huge fan of 4Ed. However, I do think its fun to play an find certain elements of it's design to be quite strong.

And I think that some of the so-called "4iors" made very convincing arguments that legacy issues held the game back. Where I didn't agree with them is that such a game would be a better D&D.

Hence the thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A thought occurs: if 4Ed eschewed classes and races were modular, it would be damned easy to:

1. model characters who were members of powerful races, and make them playable from low levels, AND
2. improve NPCs without exception-based design being necessary.

 

[Mercurius]

As Peter Griffin might say..."Go on..."

Are you saying that each PC has a tragic flaw...that they HAVE to have one? If so, that's a bit of a stronger approach than games that use Disadvantages or Flaws as a PC building option. That is something that could really help both the GM and the player get a solid grip on the PC's concept.

Well remember that I'm going with the idea of 4E as a kind of non-anime/manga version of Exalted, which also means that it might have a tighter focus than D&D, even tied to a specific setting like Exalted is - some kind of mythic age of legends. Maybe, as I implied, each PC is part of one or another bloodline or ancestry that goes back to the more powerful Elder Races. Powers are tied to the different bloodlines; if a PC has multiple bloodlines they're equivalent to multi-class, but instead it would be "multi-power."

The Heroic tier would be equivalent to the coming-of-age for these characters, with Paragon a kind of maturation and Epic full blossoming into their demigodhood.

The reason for the Flaw could be tied into the backstory - perhaps the Elder Races perished because of some major cataclysm or war, all because they were flawed in some way, and some that normal humans are not. Or it may be that the power of the bloodline gives a corresponding weakness, sort of like Achilles' Heel. Or maybe all of the Elder Races perished but preserved themselves in the blood of humans, and this blood could "activate" later on but with consequences tied to the specific power source.

To put it all another way, I think the power source idea could be better exploited but that because 4E is tied to legacy and is still trying to cover the entire D&D territory, it is caught between being mundane and magical, which doesn't quite work. A common (and justified) complaint (imo) is that 4E doesn't do low fantasy and/or sword & sorcery very well - everything is too...gonzo. I'd like to see 5E address this; but if we're talking about 4E as a non-D&D game, then I'd like to see powers exploited further.

 

[SSquirrel]

WotC early on did try to release another FRPG, Everway, alongside D&D. It failed, not because people didn't like it, but because WotC simply didn't have the cash flow to support Everway. They also tossed Primal Order. About the only thing they kept besides D&D were the cash-cow CCGs. Times have changed- WotC has much deeper pockets and cash flow than they did in the early days of 3Ed. It is entirely possible that they could have invested in and supported a non-D&D FRPG.

The way you have written this, which might not hazve been the iontent, makes it sound like EVerway and The Primal Order occurred when WotC already owned D&D. They both predated the purchase of TSR. Everway failed b/c while it was an innovative game, it wasn't something that was exactly going to pull in the masses. The Primal Order was something that was meant to be used to describe high level (godlike play) for any game and made the mistake of mentioning many other systems. Kevin Siembieda sued and the game pretty much died.

So these games didn't die b/c they weren't D&D, they died b/c of other issues. As far as your topic goes, some of the things you describe as legacy issues, like alignment, could have easily been done away with. Other similar games like Arcana Evolved ditched alignment w/no problems. I think 4E was them deciding they didn't want to pull it off the character sheet, but it makes almost no difference now. It only matters to make sure your alignment is close enough to your god. There are no detects or protections based on alignment anymore. Effectively, they DID remove alignment.

I don't think they would remove classes b/c of all the things they could change about the game, having classes has always seemed to be one of the most defining features of D&D. Class based, wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, level-based play, SDCIWC. Those are the core of the game for me. I've never understood the other viewpoint on this one b/c I've played since basic and I'm extremely happy with 4E.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So these games didn't die b/c they weren't D&D, they died b/c of other issues

It wasn't my intent to imply they were launched when WotC owned D&D- I know better than that.

However, both product lines were cancelled after the acquisition, and there was a press release to the effect that WotC didn't have the resources to manage both D&D and another RPG.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think they would remove classes b/c of all the things they could change about the game, having classes has always seemed to be one of the most defining features of D&D. Class based, wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, level-based play, SDCIWC. Those are the core of the game for me. I've never understood the other viewpoint on this one b/c I've played since basic and I'm extremely happy with 4E

Do you think it would work with a True20 style class framework, with a few extremely customizable classes?

 

[Aldarc]

Do you think it would work with a True20 style class framework, with a few extremely customizable classes?

While this is not addressed to me, it is a question that's exeptionally relevant, as I'm asking myself that question at present in regards to a possible campaign setting. Having classes built solidly around well-defined archetypes (1E, 2E, 4E) can be beneficial for players. 3E's d20 system is ideal for a build-based construction, in which the system seems more geared towards constructing an optimized or personalized character around builds (especially via multiclassing). But I'm playing around with what would be best for that end: a d20 Modern-based system or True20-based system? True20's system is based more around the muscle monkey, skill monkey, and magic monkey. The benefit of the True20 class design (as shown in the True20 Companion) is the class math that assigns values for class features, which means that you can just assign a certain value (like the standard 5) and then tell the player to build their own class that fits their character's concept.

ETA: Such a system could also provide different magic systems and have different magic progressions assigned point values, such that a Vancian spell progression could be assigned as fast (up to 9th level), medium (up to 7th level), slow (up to 5th level), and very slow (up to 3rd level).

d20 Modern's system is based more around the six stats: strong guy, fast guy, tough guy, smart guy, wise guy, persuasive guy. But for either it would not be hard to convert the special abilities of advanced and prestige classes into talent trees.