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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

That may be it, but I'll just note USENET and mailing lists were blowing up all over the place, and there were still some well known forums (within the hobby) that had--opinions. But it may be a case where the extent just wasn't as broad.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

"Inertia and the fact that [D&D] is also the game of choice for people who (otherwise) aren't aware of the TTRPG space" is the very thing I was talking about. Those things cause D&D to be the 900-lb gorilla. ANYTHING that gets the D&D label slapped on it instantly gets vastly more attention than anything that doesn't. Gamma World is a great example of what happens when the makers of D&D create a side game that doesn't have the D&D label. It disappears.

So, my actual thinking here is that I see the space a little bit differently than you do, mainly in that I don't really see the reality of the situation as especially static.

The whole environment more or less changed in the 2016 to 2019 stretch, which in some ways appeared to enforce the dominance of DND as a seismic slam of new players entered the space under the DND umbrella. But I think that what we're seeing is that not all of those players are sticking with the hobby, and the logistics of 5e have appeared to turn WOTC into a kind of pinata-- some of the new players quit or rarely play, essentially being "people who bought a player's handbook" while others are functionally to invested to stay within WOTC's sphere of influence without a whole lot of friction, and in that recent conversation with Mearls/Winniger there was some evidence shown that the audience is treating the 5.5/2024 thing as an edition split, with some ardently refusing the transition, and a smaller portion likely starting to shake off DND entirely (and by that I mean I've met and spoken to some of them.)

One of the major reasons for the OGL situation appears to be WOTC's identification that other parties were making too much money off of the previous license, like huge kickstarters for 5e material and the like, or the growing success of what were at the time OGL systems, like PF2e. To me this demonstrates that in aggregate, WOTC's 5e base that's been built up over the last few years, is watching the market hungrily reach out for material beyond what they're producing.

Overall, I see this as an ongoing process where these 'high-investment' 5e players introduced in the last decade have been 'coming-of-age' and jumping demographics and tastes, that doesn't mean that they're growing into anything in particular (some are reaching for more roleplaying, more rules lite, some becoming more OSR-coded, others looking for an advanced high-customization style product, just like the rest of us all sorted in different directions in whatever relevant era) but it means that they're becoming a less tractable base and there's potential for more mass movement.

The problem is essentially that WOTC's dominance of the market relies too heavily on the factors I mentioned, it relies too much on any given player who is jonesing for something else to have friends pressuring them to stick with the game as opposed to also jonesing for something else, it depends too much on the person being invested enough to buy a lot of product, and engaged enough to push the lifestyle-brand on socials or talk about the game on r/dndnext or r/onednd, but not enough to start looking into the other games that get mentioned, and it relies on the neither the product nor the purchaser changing in terms of the purchaser's desires.

That's a very, very, narrow win condition for keeping the rest of the industry out, and I think it's only getting worse as the high-investment players continue to develop into whatever kind of gamer they are and become less compatible or lose interest altogether-- and I'd attest that it's why the PF2e subreddit saw a spike in new subcribers every time WOTC ran a UA in the lead up to the 2024 edition (did you know that the software we used to track that went down in the API thing? I really wish I had the data for the aftermath of the new PHB's release.) The more stuff like that happens, the more likely it is that any given gamer you meet is going to tempt or pressure you (as a tablemate) outside of WOTC's space.

Edit: To circle back around, I think that 4e more likely had less uptake because it had a higher skill floor, rather than because it wasn't sufficiently DNDish-- so it couldn't pursue as strong a blue ocean strategy as 5e (which is where a lot of 4e's success came from! Myself included!) 5e is almost facing the opposite problem, where it doesn't hold up as well for advanced players, and many players go from needing a low floor to needing a high ceiling, a lot of the money spent above on 5e kickstarters is chasing that ceiling, not of power, but of... meat and potatoes? More to be invested in? Better support for whatever playstyle?

 

[Pedantic]

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).

This is before my time, so I'm really just guessing, but I wonder if that wasn't partially down to the lack of alternative, combined with the inverse effect of the OGL? The narrative felt a lot more like TSR was dying and WotC was stepping in to save the game, than WotC yanking support for a thing people liked. Plus the OGL was essentially sold as a promise not to go after fan works and 3rd party stuff, while also providing a path to keep the game alive forever.

Basically, the marketing and circumstance allowed the changes to be sold in entirely the opposite light that 4e's did, is my theory. WotC made moves that bought goodwill at the time, while 4e's launch ended up mostly spending it.

 

[Retreater]

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.

True. I've rarely been happy with the hobby since I started coming here and discussing it - which has been almost 20 years. I think it's easy for me to over-analyze companies, systems, adventures, my group, and my own GMing skills to the point of becoming unhappy. It was easier to be satisfied when I didn't know the metrics others use. And probably to an extent, I expect the gaming hobby to do more heavy lifting in my happiness and life satisfaction than it can reasonably provide.
Ultimately, I think I want what others want: a fun social activity I can help provide to a group of friends on a mostly weekly basis.
I don't have a "fun meter" for my friends, but I do watch their behavior. Are they engaged? Do they laugh or get excited? Do they high-five or exclaim when they get a good result? Do they groan when their plan fails? Do they remember anything about the game from week-to-week? Do they talk to me outside the game or thank me for running it? Do they consider plans for their characters - whether story goals or level up rewards?
So yes, I am often thinking about how to improve a game and see more of this behavior. Our current Savage Worlds game isn't the best, but I can tell it's providing some enjoyment. Sure, I'd like it to be better, but we can make it work for a bit.
But the 4e game was a special breed of misery. It nearly broke me on this hobby. Honestly, if my players didn't encourage me to come back, I was done. After each game I would have to sit with a bourbon and call up a fellow DM friend for encouragement.

 

[Voadam]

This is before my time, so I'm really just guessing, but I wonder if that wasn't partially down to the lack of alternative, combined with the inverse effect of the OGL? The narrative felt a lot more like TSR was dying and WotC was stepping in to save the game, than WotC yanking support for a thing people liked. Plus the OGL was essentially sold as a promise not to go after fan works and 3rd party stuff, while also providing a path to keep the game alive forever.

Basically, the marketing and circumstance allowed the changes to be sold in entirely the opposite light that 4e's did, is my theory. WotC made moves that bought goodwill at the time, while 4e's launch ended up mostly spending it.

In the 3e and 3.5 roll out they provided free rules online with the SRDs. People could check it out and play the complete game for free.

I did both times and was playing and buying supplements and using the SRD as a reference in my games.

In 4e’s roll out there was no SRD or free basic rules. You had to buy the keep module to get the basic rules or the core books. There was no free online resource for a long while and even then it was just the basic rules from the Keep module. I did not pick up 4e on release, I just kept playing 3.5.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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).

You're not wrong, but I think 4e's marketing was simply too aggressive for fans of older editions in a way 3e's was not. I often got the impression at the time that WotC could care less whether or not fans of older editions liked 4e at all, because what they really wanted were new fans and new wallets.

 

[Staffan]

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 a big part of it was that 4e changed both rules and lore, and 3e only changed the rules. You didn't have massive changes among giants, dragons, and assorted planar beings. You had some minor lore evolutions, but at least in FR it was represented as a more accurate way of representing the "real" Realms, not an actual change. You didn't have a bunch of divine upheaval like the Time of Troubles – I think the only change among the FR pantheon was that Iyachtu Xvim, Bane's son who had recently been freed from some kind of imprisonment and had grabbed the Tyranny portfolio from Cyric, turned out to be a seed from which Bane managed to reincarnate himself.

That last bit was spoiled in the most hilarious way, too. Before the release of the FRCS, there was a preview document released with many of the rule bits, such as new subraces and domains for the various gods, for use with the Living City campaign. This included, among other things, lists of gods for the various domains, but for some reason Iyachtu Xvim was always written out of alphabetical order in these lists. And the Suffering domain had the 1st level spell xvim... because the internal document at Wizards of the Coast of course used Bane, and someone just search-and-replaced it. You'd think they would have learned from dawizard, but no...

 

[billd91]

I think a big part of it was that 4e changed both rules and lore, and 3e only changed the rules. You didn't have massive changes among giants, dragons, and assorted planar beings. You had some minor lore evolutions, but at least in FR it was represented as a more accurate way of representing the "real" Realms, not an actual change. You didn't have a bunch of divine upheaval like the Time of Troubles – I think the only change among the FR pantheon was that Iyachtu Xvim, Bane's son who had recently been freed from some kind of imprisonment and had grabbed the Tyranny portfolio from Cyric, turned out to be a seed from which Bane managed to reincarnate himself.

I thought there was a substantial blow-up about the Faerun map getting some changes for 3e. But I think, in the main, you've got a point. 3e changed a bunch of rules but emphasized "Back to the Dungeon" in its marketing focus and the focus of some initial publications. Most monster lore was similar enough that it was more of an elaboration or minor shift rather than substantially rewriting things. Plus, 3e added things players had been wanting for some time (like magic item creation) and that would have been a hefty carrot dangled in front of people who might have otherwise balked at the rule changes.
It also didn't hurt that WotC had rescued D&D from copyright litigation hell. I think there was a substantial amount of relief among some quarters that there was an actively supported D&D being worked on, no matter what its rules looked like.
So, 3e's changes, such as they were, probably had more related or overlapping positives going for them than 4e's did.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

I still get gaslit to this day when I say 4E isn't the best for roleplaying.

It's not because you can't RP but combat length takes so long irl you have less time for everything else in a typical session.

Every edition the best tactic is always kill stuff fast. To enable 4E style tactics you need to slow things down. Even then I remember sone fans of 4E doing striker heavy parties to speed things up.

 

[Pedantic]

So, 3e's changes, such as they were, probably had more related or overlapping positives going for them than 4e's did.

Yeah, fundamentally I think PF is a pretty good argument that general existing player sentiment at the time wasn't calling for big changes or a relaunch, which led to 4e's level of change being perceived more like an imposition by WotC than a natural evolution.

That being said, I was pretty excited about 4e when it launched because I originally thought it was going to be a consolidation of late 3.5 material back into the core, and a chance to redesign some earlier stuff with those lessons learned. Something more like the level of change PF1 brought, and I recall some general optimism to that effect at the time, a lot of it focusing around SW Saga Edition as a potential model.

Honestly, I think Pathfinder, thanks to the time pressures and need to connect to legacy for marketing, ended up being more conservative than it needed to be on that front.