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

[prabe]

In this context: Oversimplified. Leaving out important aspects. So no, not 'accurate'.

Given that in at least one way, I'm approaching it as an outsider (I've never experienced 4E in play), I'd expect it to be missing ... something, and I was pretty explicitly trying to simplify (though I might have exceeded my intentions).

Thanks for the answer, and for what feels from here like a little benefit of the doubt.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to clarify what I said a bit. Many people felt that 4E was a pretty radical departure from previous editions in style and implementation. That's just a simple fact.

Indeed. I don’t dispute this fact.

Whether or not it was an enjoyable game, "better" or "worse" than any other edition is a completely separate issue and in the eye of the beholder. I think it would have been more successful if it hadn't had a rushed implementation but that's water under the bridge.

Agreed.

But at this point you've never really given much of a reason other than "it's objectionable because it is". I try to be reasonably sensitive of other people but I'd need a better explanation than "because".

I’ll try again, though I don’t have high hopes given how this conversation has gone previously. The problem is not expressing that you felt 4e was a departure from previous editions. In fact, I think most 4e fans would agree. The problem is setting up what you view as the feel of D&D as objective. The reason this is objectionable is because it implicitly invalidates others’ views on the matter. If the way 4e felt to you was not the way you think D&D has historically felt, or the way you think it should feel, that’s just fine and dandy. If you suggest that the way you think D&D has historically felt or the way that you think D&D should feel is objectively correct, you are suggesting, implicitly, that people who have different opinions about those things are objectively wrong. You are presenting your opinions as factual and other people’s opinions as counter-factual. And that is what many 4e fans object to.

But never mind, I'll just go back to ignoring this thread.

Ok.

 

[Oofta]

Indeed. I don’t dispute this fact.


Agreed.


I’ll try again, though I don’t have high hopes given how this conversation has gone previously. The problem is not expressing that you felt 4e was a departure from previous editions. In fact, I think most 4e fans would agree. The problem is setting up what you view as the feel of D&D as objective. The reason this is objectionable is because it implicitly invalidates others’ views on the matter. If the way 4e felt to you was not the way you think D&D has historically felt, or the way you think it should feel, that’s just fine and dandy. If you suggest that the way you think D&D has historically felt or the way that you think D&D should feel is objectively correct, you are suggesting, implicitly, that people who have different opinions about those things are objectively wrong. You are presenting your opinions as factual and other people’s opinions as counter-factual. And that is what many 4e fans object to.

See, that's what confuses me. We agree that it was a pretty radical departure. People associate a certain niche to products all the time. A Ford Mustang of today is radically different from the first Mustangs produced in the 60s, but it still fills the same niche of two-door rear wheel drive car on the small side that appeals to the sporty car crowd. Both 1965.5 and 2020 Mustangs "feel" like the same car in many ways. Had they tried to replace the Mustang with a front wheel drive car with a small displacement engine, people would have said it didn't feel like a Mustang. Which is why they released what was supposed to be a Mustang replacement as the Probe.

D&D 4E simply didn't hit the same niche and style as previous editions, it didn't feel like an evolution of the previous games but a nearly complete departure from core game concepts and structure. It didn't feel like previous editions to a lot of people. I don't understand why that's controversial.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think there's a blame game that goes on whenever we get into edition wars. In my experience 4E did not fail because of bad publicity, antagonism from old grognards or any other external source. It simply wasn't a particularly popular game.

There was no anti-4E cabal.

But I don't see a point in continuing. Have a good one.

You don't have to respond, but I figured I'd use this as a quick springboard to post my thoughts on what were the causal components of 4e's demise.

I know people who hated it want to lay the blame exclusively upon the game itself, but (a) nothing like this is ever one thing and (b) its just not true.

If I had to name the factors, in no particular order, they would be:

* The actively hostile hobby environment I described above. Its not just the 1st order impacts of a certain segment of players not liking the game, its the 2nd order effects of them not only not promoting it and bringing in casual players (creating a positive zeitgeist) but actively pushing casual players from trying the game or (when they did try it) enjoying it (actively creating a negative climate for playing). Making that completely hostile climate so utterly visible to Hasbro and WotC cannot be undersold.

* A tragic murder/suicide that derailed the VTT.

* The game needed about another 8-10 months (probably 9 exactly, given how polished DMG2 was and how great and coherent releases after that were) of further polish before release.

* Some bad branding ("ze game remains the same") or poor language in the DMG ("skip the gate guards and get to the fun" vs simply the established indie axiom of "drive play toward conflict").

* The fact that the game was fundamentally systemized to be an abstract, Action-Adventure, Scene-Based game (all conflicts, both combat and non-conflict) vs a granular, serial exploration game or a "GM as lead storyteller and metaplot-friendly" game or a "FFV/Appalachian-Trail-Attrition" game. In terms of classical play, the game was most friendly to a Moldvay or RC approach to play (which is why most Moldvay and RC players typically enjoyed it). It could certainly be drifted to any of those other styles, but the game tech had an unfamiliar bent for people who were exclusively D&D die-hards so attempts for those people to hack it led to frustration.

* Likely unreasonable RoI requirements by Hasbro. The game was hugely successful, despite all of the above issues, but apparently Hasbro had unreal $$$$$$$$ in mind.

* Though I thought the initial DMG1 was excellent, it could have used more clarity on certain issues (which was probably either intentional to try to portray "ze game remaining ze same" or it was the product of too many voices involved in writing/editing) and some better instruction in focused areas (how to aggressively change the situation in Skill Challanges by creating interesting thematic complications and how to Fail Forward).

* If the game was actually released after the Cortex+ games and the PBtA games (particularly the Forged in the Dark games), instead of before them, I think a much wider grokking of 4e would have occured due to exposure to those games.

* Like the one above, being developed and released during the 5e period would have led to a huge influx of app assistance and VTT assistance in gameplay (like for Gloomhaven...which is ENORMOUSLY successful given its a one-man operation).

* Some very specific design choices (like putting +1/+2 etc on weapons/armor/neck pieces rather than just folding that in with the game's maths and just having magical items with interesting powers/abilities exclusively).

* And finally, coming into being 6-7 years later in the "Being a Nerd is Cool!" cultural era wouldn't have hurt.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm seeing the makings of the above start for PF2 players (of which I am not one). I would HATE for history to repeat itself for those PF2 players and for the hobby at large (as we have a pretty hospitable gaming environment right now...nothing like 10 years ago).

I try to look at the positive. So far, I have not seen anyone claim that P2e “isn’t Pathfinder”. Even Zapp, who has been a harsh critic of the system on this thread, is running a Pathfinder Adventure Path (as he indicates in the Pathfinder forum).

 

[FrozenNorth]

See, that's what confuses me. We agree that it was a pretty radical departure. People associate a certain niche to products all the time. A Ford Mustang of today is radically different from the first Mustangs produced in the 60s, but it still fills the same niche of two-door rear wheel drive car on the small side that appeals to the sporty car crowd. Both 1965.5 and 2020 Mustangs "feel" like the same car in many ways. Had they tried to replace the Mustang with a front wheel drive car with a small displacement engine, people would have said it didn't feel like a Mustang. Which is why they released what was supposed to be a Mustang replacement as the Probe.

Would they say it didn’t feel like a Ford? How about if they said it didn’t feel like a car?

I think we can both agree that there is a level of abstraction where the comment slides from subjective opinion to insult. We may disagree about where to draw the line, but ghere is definitely a line.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, that's what confuses me. We agree that it was a pretty radical departure. People associate a certain niche to products all the time. A Ford Mustang of today is radically different from the first Mustangs produced in the 60s, but it still fills the same niche of two-door rear wheel drive car on the small side that appeals to the sporty car crowd. Both 1965.5 and 2020 Mustangs "feel" like the same car in many ways. Had they tried to replace the Mustang with a front wheel drive car with a small displacement engine, people would have said it didn't feel like a Mustang. Which is why they released what was supposed to be a Mustang replacement as the Probe.

D&D 4E simply didn't hit the same niche and style as previous editions,

I’m 100% with you so far.

it didn't feel like an evolution of the previous games but a nearly complete departure from core game concepts and structure.

To you. And to a lot of other people as well, absolutely. But it is still an opinion, and not one universally held. To many people it did feel like a natural evolution of the game, despite having made many radical changes. I take no issue with people feeling like it was not a natural progression. I only take issue with them stating it as fact instead of opinion.

It didn't feel like previous editions to a lot of people. I don't understand why that's controversial.

It isn’t controversial, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. It’s fine if it didn’t feel like the previous game to you. What’s not fine is trying to claim that it objectively didn’t feel like the previous game, as if the opinions of the people to whom it felt like a natural progression are somehow wrong.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The thing is, I don’t think you are understanding the basis of our disagreement. It’s hard to agree to disagree on something when it’s not even clear what we’re ostensibly disagreeing on.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, you have a game that might superficially look like 4e, but that 4e fans are saying isn't like 4e in the execution.

I didn't say it looks like 4e so you can say that is superficial and really doesn't play like 4e.

Read the OP. Engage with the actual argument.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is a pretty heavy handed case of you begging a loaded question. It's on the level of "Why did you decide to stop beating your wife?" It's a crappy question to ask, lacking of any merit or value, so it is probably best anyway to leave such baseless questions left unanswered.

Yes, that you are uninterested in answering any of my questions has become crystal clear over time.

But answer me this: why do you keep returning to threads I start?

 

[Oofta]

I’m 100% with you so far.


To you. And to a lot of other people as well, absolutely. But it is still an opinion, and not one universally held. To many people it did feel like a natural evolution of the game, despite having made many radical changes. I take no issue with people feeling like it was not a natural progression. I only take issue with them stating it as fact instead of opinion.


It isn’t controversial, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. It’s fine if it didn’t feel like the previous game to you. What’s not fine is trying to claim that it objectively didn’t feel like the previous game, as if the opinions of the people to whom it felt like a natural progression are somehow wrong.


The thing is, I don’t think you are understanding the basis of our disagreement. It’s hard to agree to disagree on something when it’s not even clear what we’re ostensibly disagreeing on.

Okay, how about this: I disagree. My opinion does not have to be universal, objective or fact based to be legitimate. It doesn't even have to be in the majority. I think SUVs are stupid unless you're buying it for a specific reasons that would disqualify 80% of the people that buy them. Obviously an unpopular opinion in the US.

Opinions are by their nature not objective, they're subjective. Whether 4E felt like previous editions is 100% is never a statement of fact, it's a statement of opinion. We have a glass sculpture in our display cabinet that looks like a rose but is objectively not a rose, the same distinction can't be made for a game.

That, and I really see no reason to continue this particular conversation.