So that's it for 4th edition I guess?

[Umbran]

For the love of pete, can we drop the five-years-past-relevance edition warring? *sigh*

Agreed.

Folks, please - we really, really don't need the edition warring any more. It makes nothing better. And we ask you to stop. Thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Post deleted.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think 4E is going to go bye-bye, yes.

I think 4E did a lot of things well (DM prep time slashed, balancing classes better than 3E/3.5E, limiting the 15 minute adventuring day) but it lost the feel of D&D to me by changing too many sacred cows.

It may no longer be supported, as numerous editions before it have, but I doubt that it will simply go away.

For people like myself who enjoy it, I will continue to play it and use it, much as I do 3.5/Pathfinder.

 

[adamc]

4e was an attempt at making a game where the publisher remained a core participant in the experience after you bought the game and took it home. That aspect of 4e was a flop. It requires continually investing resources in maintaining services (like DDL) that a decreasing number of people are using. If you kill the service, you kill the remaining market. Online services like DDI are on a march towards a net loss unless you can constantly find a way to bring numbers into the system to replace losses from attrition, and practically speaking the tabletop RPG market may not be large enough to support that movement.

Evidence, please. The cost of sticking new content into the database should be relatively minor. What's the evidence that there are a decreasing number of folks using it, or that they are anywhere close to having a net loss on it?

The reality is that the character builder, adventure tools, and compendium are hugely useful to me. I can imagine a dozen ways they could be better, and I'd strongly prefer that they open up integration to 3rd parties, but those tools make DMing relatively easy. Doubt I'd bother without them.

 

[adamc]

good riddance. I feel like im going to ride out pathfinder as long as possible. The mentality behind 5e's design isnt persuading me much.

Rule #1 of ENWorld is "Keep It Civil." Wishing something good riddance is breaking that rule. If you can articulate why you might feel this particular dislike in a way that is respectful, it'd be much better to hear. ~ KM

I'm a 4e fan, but that strikes me as hyper-sensitive. Good riddance isn't uncivil. I doubt many of us are under any illusion that everyone likes 4e. (Everyone doesn't like anything.)

 

[pemerton]

to answer the question posed in the title of this thread "yes, that's it". But "that's it" also applies to every game that is no longer actively produced by its owner.

Well, it doesn't apply to games that are no longer actively produced by their owners, but are licensed for others to produce.

Which is why the interesting question is really whether someone is (i) clever enough to produce 4e as a licensed game (drawing on the d20 SRD as licensed under the OGL), and (ii) entrepreneurial enough to make it work (given the twin challenges of avoiding hostility from WotC and gaining attention and uptake in the RPG marketplace).

 

[MoonSong]

Evidence, please. The cost of sticking new content into the database should be relatively minor. What's the evidence that there are a decreasing number of folks using it, or that they are anywhere close to having a net loss on it?

The reality is that the character builder, adventure tools, and compendium are hugely useful to me. I can imagine a dozen ways they could be better, and I'd strongly prefer that they open up integration to 3rd parties, but those tools make DMing relatively easy. Doubt I'd bother without them.

Well, you could also try to learn to run 4e the hard way (which isn't very hard really). I've gotten enough practice to build any character in less than 30 minutes, even on 15 or less if this isn't the first one of it's kind I build, all I need is the charop boards to locate the good picks (and because they work like indexes, very good to quickly find the right book).

Similarly enough, all you need is the MM3 and MV and copy the math tables to the DM screen, I've found it quick enough. (though I must confess I rarely bother to create skill challenges, I don't feel like pulling them off). Dming by hand isn't that hard, don't let something as simple as lack of DDI to stop you from having fun with your favored system.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Which is why the interesting question is really whether someone is (i) clever enough to produce 4e as a licensed game [...], and (ii) entrepreneurial enough to make it work.

Scroll up the thread and you'll see references to a few attempts at just that.

But does a game need to be in print to stay relevant? I would argue the answer is no. Up until relatively recently, every version of D&D other than 3e was OOP yet people still played the previous editions. (And I mean, even prior to the so-called Old School Revival.)

I think 4e could go the same way. It'll be a niche game, sure, but I for one plan to keep playing it.

And if someone can figure out how to publish a 4e-clone, that's great. I'll certainly buy it.

 

[Mark Morrison]

This week my 4e party hadn't quite finished the minotaurs from the previous session, so I thought, why not fight Baphomet as a last ditch summon?

I jumped onto the WotC builder, found an Aspect of Baphomet, hit the slider to knock it down to Level 8, hit print, and that was my prep.

We had a fantastic epic boss fight which raged from one end of the labyrinth to the other and ended with one very very dead NPC, four very beaten up PCs, and a dead bull god.

4e is such a pleasure to prep and run. As long as they keep the tools online, I'll still be using it.

(But, in the spirit of having cake and eating it too, when I play it's Pathfinder!)

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Warbringer]

4e is indeed now a redundant product, and probably 18 mths too early, a very unfortunate consequence of an extended playtest.

I hope WOTC pays attention and understands a simple basic premise of iterative based design... Don't piss off the existing user base; more accurately, don't doit again.

4e helped create a schism that was exacerbated by the existence of a competitive product (s) that could fill the void, but the extreme change in game mechanics and themes was the main driver, cuoupled with alienation of the legacy product.

My point.... Don't frigging do it again... My perception of the current playtest, absolutely committing the same sin.

To be fully transparent 4e after a year was not my cup of tea, but we've been playing my own home brew which was definitely influenced by it.

4e had some amazing contributions to D&D

Roles
Balanced class contribution
emphasis on team play
Dynamic combat resolution
Playable multiclassing
Effective min max control
Ease of prep

These should survive the new edition

Some of its perceived weaknesses

Extended combat thru choice complexity
Class sameness outside of role differentiation
Constrained monster power choice
Collapsing skill challenges
Combat grind ( admittance to it being resolved in mm3)

Are learning opportunities to improving the game in its next ( pun intended) iteration...

So please, acknowledge the mechanical benefits that 4 e brought to the game and iterate ( got to love scrum ) and deliver a game that truly includes the learnings of all editions ...