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

[Retreater]

I was designing in the 3.5 ecosystem during the announcement of 4E and the GSL. My publisher was determined to go along with 4E, regardless of their preferences for the system, because following D&D was more important than their preferences. (Honestly, if they could have, they would've been designing for what's now called the OSR, but this was before OSRIC and that movement.)
They pulled their intentions to publish for 4E when the GSL was released. It was a nonstarter. Later, they'd go on to support Pathfinder.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The really crazy thing is that you can be a significant non-WOTC player... while releasing a game that competes directly with them blow for blow, it's not even like, a different genre. That probably has to do with the fact that nothing is as sticky with TTRPG players as fantasy adventuring, but still.

Yeah, its not like fantasy adventure is particularly underrepresented in non-D&D games.

 

[Staffan]

Not to say it was all sourness of the 4E system. I know when Paizo inquired about the GSL and what assurances they had the rug wouldn't be ripped from under them after publishing, WOTC replied, "none".

Right. Like most things, it's probably really a mix of different reasons. But Bulmahn's experiences with 4e were what flipped it from "How the heck can we make this work?" to "Yeah, that's not happening."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've always wondered . . . if WotC took another swing with Gamma World, but developed it as a genre expansion for D&D 5E . . . could it find more success and longevity? Similar with other TSR/WotC RPGs of days long past; Star Frontiers as D&D Space, Boot Hill as D&D Wild West, Urban Arcana as D&D Modern . . .

As the most D&D-like version of Gamma World wasn't exactly the most successful one, that doesn't seem all that likely to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

After being a 4E apologist for the last 10 years, I ran a 9 month campaign which ended last fall.
The result: all my 4e books have been removed from my shelves and put into boxes, ready to go into storage. (For those keeping score, I have no other gaming books in storage.)
Moreover, I disliked it so much that it's carried over into similar games such as 13th Age and Pathfinder 2. I'm completely disengaged from those systems as well as watching my enthusiasm disappear for Draw Steel.

You like what you like--or not.

4e wasn't my cuppa either, and I played in a pretty long campaign of it too.

However, that's because I think its an excellently designed system that goes just a little too far in a direction I otherwise want t a game to go into.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think it would have helped as much as we might like. Presumably we'd have better early adventures, better tool support, probably wouldn't have awkwardly mixed attribute classes and we'd have snappier monsters out the gate.

The Paizo split probably still happens, because that's driven by the GSL. That allows the existing player base to avoid change, which i think was clearly undervalued as a risk at the time, and I don't think the critical mass of new players was there to step in that 5e gained from exogenous factors, particularly because I don't see any way to get those older players on board without completely overhauling the game's presentation and rethinking some core ideas.

The run is probably longer, essentials probably doesn't happen, but it's likely the same underlying story.

Plus, it's not like anti-4e sentiment is entirely driven by problems in the release. It adapted a different series of both implicit and explicit design goals than the last edition that not all players bought into. The game's vision for what a combat encounter is, or how non-combat interaction should work are different than what came before, so no amount of refinement was going to persuade anyone who didn't want change.

I don't disagree with much of this, but it still begs the question about why 3e managed to pull of a virtually as radical a change to the players of the time, while 4e didn't. I still suspect its because the inflow of returning or new players drowned out enough of the hostile 2e players and kept it going (because there was a pretty visible hostile earlier D&D populace reacting to it).

 

[Aldarc]

Most recently, I had run it often at my FLGS for D&D Encounters. That was a very different experience than in a home game.
1) The sessions were designed to be short with one combat encounter and maybe one trap, puzzle, social situation. The home experience of running for 4 hours was exhausting and repetitive.
2) Players either had access to the D&D 4e tools OR sufficient play aids existed for them to take a pregen. In my case, I was the only one with the 4e tools, so I had to manage all the PCs.
3) Encounters seasons covered levels 1-3 then started over. In the home game, complicated strings of reactions, triggered actions, magic item effects, etc, slowed combat to a crawl.
4) Creating my own adventures was a hassle because I had to make tactically interesting encounters AND roleplaying AND award appropriate magic items, etc. 4E adventures are bad. I started off trying to run a season of D&D Encounters, but the players balked at the restrictions that were placed on the organized play structure (such as using daily powers once per chapter).
5) I'm not as young as I was then. It was physically exhausting. It's hard to explain, but I felt like I had been in a real fight every week after the session ended.
6) Times have changed and I don't think 4E holds up. There are easier, faster, and more satisfying ways to do tactical combat: Gloomhaven, Baldurs Gate 3, Pathfinder 2 on Foundry VTT, etc. There are skirmish-level wargames like Kill Team and War Cry.
7) The design isn't interesting to me. Let's look at what a 1st level character gets: 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily power. Each combat, you have these choices. Sure, there are more choices than you might have as a 1st level character in another edition, but the combats take longer, and you need more of them to advance (than you do in 5e anyway). And now that there are 30 levels, you need more encounters to reach the "endgame."
It's so boring. And I timed this. At 7th level, we were talking 45 minutes to go around the table once. I had a character who was stunned and unable to act for two of those turns. The player sat there and did nothing for an hour and a half, except getting bored and distracting the other players.

Essentially, the juice of 4E isn't worth the squeeze. Combats should take half the time. Scenarios should be laid out like you'd find in Gloomhaven. To be interesting, characters should probably have 5+ powers they can choose from. Actions should require one roll and do a static amount of damage based on the roll (and trigger an effect based on that roll). Average monsters should die in 2-3 hits.

Please don't take this in the wrong way, but you also seemingly have a posting habit over the years where you despair games not working out for you. It's not hard to get the impression from many of your posts that you are perpetually dissatisfied with whatever game that you happen to be playing, as if you are always looking for the "perfect" game but everything failing to meet whatever expectations or standards you have set as your bar. With maybe a few exceptions, I'm not sure if I have actually seen you excited or happy about a game that worked well for both you and/or your group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't disagree with much of this, but it still begs the question about why 3e managed to pull of a virtually as radical a change to the players of the time, while 4e didn't. I still suspect its because the inflow of returning or new players drowned out enough of the hostile 2e players and kept it going (because there was a pretty visible hostile earlier D&D populace reacting to it).

I think also that 3e didn't explicitly cut across the grain of it's predecessor like 4e did. 4e was not presented as an house cleaning and modern design update to 3e, while still allowing and supporting older playstyles. 3e was that to 2e, or at least that's how I read it at the time.

 

[payn]

I don't disagree with much of this, but it still begs the question about why 3e managed to pull of a virtually as radical a change to the players of the time, while 4e didn't. I still suspect its because the inflow of returning or new players drowned out enough of the hostile 2e players and kept it going (because there was a pretty visible hostile earlier D&D populace reacting to it).

There wasnt really any social media as we know it today in 2000. 8 short years later, dial up was a memory, smartphones were becoming common, and facebook was dominant. No longer was it the real nerds hanging on obscure websites and forums, but everybody was sharing the news. All voices were louder and prouder then ever. I think it had a far reaching effect that just wasnt as ripe in 2000. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think also that 3e didn't explicitly cut across the grain of it's predecessor like 4e did. 4e was not presented as an house cleaning and modern design update to 3e, while still allowing and supporting older playstyles. 3e was that to 2e, or at least that's how I read it at the time.

That didn't seem to be the way a lot of grognards reacted to it though; the whole "everything is based on a common resolution, plus skills and feats" was read by a number of them as some kind of betrayal of D&D's fundamental design ethos (no, I couldn't buy it either in a game that still had classes, levels, level elevating hit points, and attacks modified by armor, but they all seemed very sure of it).