D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Oofta]

The simple phrase is “it didn’t feel like what I wanted out of D&D.” What’s so difficult about that?

Because you don't get to define what I mean when I state my opinion? Because you're the only one I've ever heard utter that phrase? I think getting even mildly perturbed about something like this is a bit silly when I've explained what it means to me? I don't remember the last time I used the phrase other than to explain what it meant when I said it back when.

I get that there are certain trigger words and phrases. I just don't see "It didn't feel like D&D" rising to anywhere near that level.

But again. Horse. Dead. I'm done discussing this ... if you want to get back to what the OP was asking about I may respond. But this topic? Nah.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. Heinsoo said they were rushed and he wanted the classes to be more unique but they didn't have the time to craft each class.
13th Age shares 4e DNA but in this game all the classes are very distinct from each other. It's easy to change things, swap and reskin. I wonder what 4e would have looked like if Heinsoo and the other designers were given the time to really work on the game to their satisfaction.

Probably about like it looked by around the PHB3. That was, in my view, the point at which they found a lot of the worst kinks in the system and were well on their way to ironing them out. Had they the time they wanted, I imagine that level of refinement would have been their starting point. Which would have been awesome, but I doubt it would have “felt like D&D” to the folks who didn’t care for the 4e we got. It just would have been a better-executed version of whatever you want to call what it did feel like.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because you don't get to define what I mean when I state my opinion?

What? I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I’m trying to do this from.

Because you're the only one I've ever heard utter that phrase? I think getting even mildly perturbed about something like this is a bit silly when I've explained what it means to me? I don't remember the last time I used the phrase other than to explain what it meant when I said it back when.

I’ve stated repeatedly that I am not asking you to define what it means. I am not particularly interested in your definition of what it means. All I’m saying is that the phrase “didn’t feel like D&D” sets a lot of 4e fans into defensive mode. We all got sick of hearing it, having our preferences dismissed as “not D&D.” I think these discussions would go a lot more smoothly if folks who didn’t like 4e would stop calling 4e “not D&D” and instead say it was “not to my liking.”

I get that there are certain trigger words and phrases. I just don't see "It didn't feel like D&D" rising to anywhere near that level.

It does. For a LOT of 4e fans. That’s a big part of why these threads never lead anywhere productive, because its detractors for some reason refuse to cede that the feel they felt 4e didn’t capture is not inherently the feel of D&D.

 

[Undrave]

That is in every sense of it the opposite of what is happening in comic books nowadays. The ones attempting to appeal to a distinctly different persuasion of person from what has been the typical crowd of fans in the past are the ones tanking hardest. I dont know how else to put this but its a thing.

The top selling comic for january 2020 is Wonder Woman with sales numbers reported (mind you by Diamond Distribution, no digital included) as only 167K or so. The 'core' comic book market that publishers constantly try to appeal to is pretty tiny, and I'm pretty sure this is what would have befell D&D if it had kept going forever as 3.5.

I could go on about the comic books fandom being unwelcoming, the Marvel and DC universe being intimidating daunting messes to get into, or the lack of embracing digital distribution, or how non-superhero comics are making headway into those non-traditional demographics, but I will just say that I feel like the comic book audience has basically calcified over the 90s and early 00s and the industry is struggling with it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Philosophically speaking, both games strike me as primarily being about failure.

Coming from a 3E perspective, I was used to the idea of trade-offs. You can only be good at 2-3 things, and iffy on a couple more, but everything else is outside your niche and you shouldn't even try. If you're a fighter, then you don't have to worry about hitting, but you're hopeless at Knowledge skills. If you're a rogue, then you can use Stealth reliably, but you can't swim at all. If you wanted to succeed, then you could do it, but you needed to pick your battles carefully.

That wasn't the case in 4E at all. Not only did they lock down bonuses to a very predictable range based on your level, but the balance was such that you'd fail at your core competences on a regular basis. You can do everything within your power to hit, or to pick locks, or to defend yourself from arrows, and it would all be for naught. No matter what you want to do, there's a significant chance of failure.

And at a glance, PF2 appears to follow that same design goal. They want you to fail, on a regular basis. There's nothing you can do about it. Don't worry about trying to be good at anything; just roll the dice, and try to not be too disappointed when you fail. It's depressing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Philosophically speaking, both games strike me as primarily being about failure.

Coming from a 3E perspective, I was used to the idea of trade-offs. You can only be good at 2-3 things, and iffy on a couple more, but everything else is outside your niche and you shouldn't even try. If you're a fighter, then you don't have to worry about hitting, but you're hopeless at Knowledge skills. If you're a rogue, then you can use Stealth reliably, but you can't swim at all. If you wanted to succeed, then you could do it, but you needed to pick your battles carefully.

That wasn't the case in 4E at all. Not only did they lock down bonuses to a very predictable range based on your level, but the balance was such that you'd fail at your core competences on a regular basis. You can do everything within your power to hit, or to pick locks, or to defend yourself from arrows, and it would all be for naught. No matter what you want to do, there's a significant chance of failure.

And at a glance, PF2 appears to follow that same design goal. They want you to fail, on a regular basis. There's nothing you can do about it. Don't worry about trying to be good at anything; just roll the dice, and try to not be too disappointed when you fail. It's depressing.

This is why DMs should only call for dice rolls when the action described has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve its goal. Just like you don’t call for checks on attempts to jump to the moon, you shouldn’t call for checks on attempts to tie your shoes. In situations where that significant chance of failure isn’t appropriate, a check isn’t appropriate either. Under this model, the bonuses from skills and abilities are insurance against failure rather than assurance of success. If you want assurance of success, you should aim to eliminate that chance by your actions rather than relying on your stats to do it.

 

[HarbingerX]

For me 5e feels like they took all the 'non-mechanics' rules simplifications that 4e brought, and tacked on a simpler 3e d20 system. I really liked 4e's rules for running the game, outside of power system, and the DMG was excellent.

But 4e failed for many, many reasons. Problem with the rules, with community building, with VTT failure, etc. It was a true business disaster.

 

[Krachek]

Philosophically speaking, both games strike me as primarily being about failure.

Coming from a 3E perspective, I was used to the idea of trade-offs. You can only be good at 2-3 things, and iffy on a couple more, but everything else is outside your niche and you shouldn't even try. If you're a fighter, then you don't have to worry about hitting, but you're hopeless at Knowledge skills. If you're a rogue, then you can use Stealth reliably, but you can't swim at all. If you wanted to succeed, then you could do it, but you needed to pick your battles carefully.

That wasn't the case in 4E at all. Not only did they lock down bonuses to a very predictable range based on your level, but the balance was such that you'd fail at your core competences on a regular basis. You can do everything within your power to hit, or to pick locks, or to defend yourself from arrows, and it would all be for naught. No matter what you want to do, there's a significant chance of failure.

And at a glance, PF2 appears to follow that same design goal. They want you to fail, on a regular basis. There's nothing you can do about it. Don't worry about trying to be good at anything; just roll the dice, and try to not be too disappointed when you fail. It's depressing.

And in 5ed we have the paradox of « bound accuracy » that make you succeed more often as you level up!

 

[Nagol]

For me 5e feels like they took all the 'non-mechanics' rules simplifications that 4e brought, and tacked on a simpler 3e d20 system. I really liked 4e's rules for running the game, outside of power system, and the DMG was excellent.

But 4e failed for many, many reasons. Problem with the rules, with community building, with VTT failure, etc. It was a true business disaster.

And Gleemax. That hideous green non-colourblind friendly monstrosity they turned their boards into because reasons.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why is this thread not in General Role-Playing?

I discuss only WotC and Paizo games?