The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[Celebrim]

Was D&D 4th Edition ahead of its time or a misstep in gaming history? Dive into our latest article exploring the controversial rise, fall, and surprising resurgence of 4e. From the bold mechanics to the infamous Edition Wars, we’re unpacking it all. Whether you loved it, hated it, or never tried it, this edition left its mark on the RPG world forever. Discover its triumphs, flaws, and enduring legacy now on RPG Gazette

The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

Blasphemy in the first paragraph of an article about 4e seem par for the course in the edition's tone deafness and the way it marketed itself.

 

[mamba]

Wrong, and also logically impossible, or 4e couldn't have any sales whatsoever. Unless you'd like to posit that everyone who bought 4e was a fresh new player who had never played 3.5e.

you can buy something and be disappointed by it

 

[mamba]

Well sales in Essentials did drop a lot compared to the initial 4E launch

4e already dropped before it got to Essentials, that is why there was an Essentials in the first place

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I guess it bears repeating what I've said before:

I yearn for the day when everyone can stop fixating on 4e as being the "failed" edition, the "controversial" edition, or the "divisive" edition. Just accept that (like it or not) it is just another version of the Dungeons & Dragons, respect that many D&D fans actually liked the system (and many still do), and appreciate the contributions and influences it made to current RPG designs.

 

[TheSword]

4e slaughtered too many sacred cows too quickly to ever be a true successor to what was an excellent 3rd edition. The scope and breadth of changes made previous edition switches look like a light polish. Ultimately it tried to change too much too fast and lost the goodwill of a large slice of the community because of it. It was not just a failure of marketing, though no doubt that contributed.

It’s the Edward VIII of game systems. Now that 4e doesn’t carry the weight of the D&D brand on its shoulders it may be treated more fondly that it deserved at the time. Particularly if people can cherry pick the best of the system now the cycle has ended.

Regarding the initial point - claiming that it was inspired by World of Warcraft when the designer said it wasn’t… if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - folks are gonna call it a duck. It’s possible to lack self awareness of the full range of your inspirations.

 

[Staffan]

Regarding the initial point - claiming that it was inspired by World of Warcraft when the designer said it wasn’t… if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - folks are gonna call it a duck. It’s possible to lack self awareness of the full range of your inspirations.

The main WoW-ish thing was the role division, particulartly the Defender role. While D&D has always had tough fighters who are relatively hard to hurt and can take a lot of damage, and acting as meatshields for the casters, this was the first time they had mechanical weight that said "Fight ME, not them." The other roles were mainly extrapolating things those classes were already doing to make sure "classes that do X" all did X at about the same level, even if they went about it in different ways.

 

[TheSword]

The main WoW-ish thing was the role division, particulartly the Defender role. While D&D has always had tough fighters who are relatively hard to hurt and can take a lot of damage, and acting as meatshields for the casters, this was the first time they had mechanical weight that said "Fight ME, not them." The other roles were mainly extrapolating things those classes were already doing to make sure "classes that do X" all did X at about the same level, even if they went about it in different ways.

I agree that was a big part. There were a couple of others that spring to mind.

- Characters reduced to a suite of powers with different cool down times. You could almost imagine them lined up on a quick bar.

- Powers duplicated across classes that are variations of the same power. Overwhelmingly focused on combat. I remember seeing this in the book of nine swords and thinking that a bad moon was rising.

 

[Tigris]

Wait, what did I miss? I haven't seen Peterson's referenced interview with the 4e designers, but I have found his historical work (such as Playing at the World) to be excellent. Are you sure you aren't confusing John Peterson with Ben Riggs, about whom I've heard a lot more criticism?

Edit: This thread references an interview where the interviewer (Ben Riggs) states that World of Warcraft was the inspiration for 4e. But Riggs is very much not the same person as Peterson.

I am 100% sure I am not confusing. I mean Peterson.

- Here is the "celebrating 50 years D&D: 4th edition" lifestream which happened at gencon: in which the Heinso and Collins say that WoW was not really an influence (and especially that the roles come from observing how people played D&D). They said something like "the only thing which I took from it was that everyone was useful in combat."

- Here is the interview which happened afterwards (and which even referenced the lifestream) where Peterson states "as everyone knows D&D 4E was (heavily?) inspired by WoW):

I agree that was a big part. There were a couple of others that spring to mind.

- Characters reduced to a suite of powers with different cool down times. You could almost imagine them lined up on a quick bar.

- Powers duplicated across classes that are variations of the same power. Overwhelmingly focused on combat. I remember seeing this in the book of nine swords and thinking that a bad moon was rising.

Can we please stop repeating this old flamebait?

Once per encounter abilities are really not like cooldowns at all. Cooldowns create rotations (like the Monk has in 13th age) with repetitions. This is completly different gameplay than once per encounter or once per day abilities, which encourage "waiting for the best moment to use them" and no repetitions. I dont like repeating myself all the time, so let me just quote why 4E is not like WoW:




Also 4E had a lot of non combat mechanics and abilities, they were just in (some) utility powers and especially in rituals which were separated from class powers (as well as in some class features like cantrips) and the skill challenge mechanic as well as DMG page 42 which allowed improvised actions with skills etc. (outside and inside combat).


And this is before it added skill powers, martial rituals, backgrounds, character themes, and simplified classes with non combat abilities to replace ritual caster.

What evidence is there that 4e is making a comeback? Because me and my still-playing-4e friends are very curious.

Well on reddit scrivener of doom said that he got over the last phew years more and more people asking him about 4E and how to get the old tools. (And even after his post was removed as a pinned post, because the 4E subreddit mod want to lead people to the 4E discord instead, he said he still gets request from people).

Several articles and youtube videos about 4E were made in the last year than lets say 3 years ago. I have found several youtubers which started again doing 4E series. (Like even some 5E youtubers have small series about 4E (even if its just several videos about what to learn from 4E for 5E).

I regularily get on reddit 100+ upvotes and or are the most upvoted comment when mentioning D&D 4E as my favorite game. When you look at posts more years ago this almost never happened to people mentioning 4E. And I got asked so often about 4E on reddit that I made a guide because of it.

Several 4E inspired games were made in the last years. Sure before was Pathfinder 2 and Lancer (and then Gloomhaven), but just the last year I learned about 4 more 4E inspired RPGs: Beacon, Gunwat Banwa, Bludgeon, Wyrdwood Wand. This is in addition to Matt Colvilles Game which is also in the making and has openly 4E inspirations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Especially at the beginning! Negative marketing is a thing and can be successful, but it is really risky to conduct a negative marketing campaign against your own product while all of your customers are still happily using it.

Also, I've said this before on ENWorld, but I don't mind repeating myself: 4e made the mistake of substantially changing both the lore and the rules substantially. I think it could have gotten away with changing either one of the two and still been a success. But both at once just lost too many fans.

For context, I had a really successful 4e campaign going all the way up to level 30, but it was mostly for new players who were board game fanatics trying out D&D for the first time. For them, the heavy tactical focus was a plus and they were completely neutral about the lore, since they were experiencing it all for the first time. For those specific circumstances, 4e was a perfect match.

That's an interesting thought. One could argue that WotC has changed both the rules and the lore in 5.5 (to a lesser degree but without even calling it an edition change). I wonder if the same thing will happen?

 

[payn]

Did my J just kick in or is something wrong with the editing of that post?