Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7460417" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>My impression is that both 2e and 4e came at a time when a large number of players felt the game needed to be fixed, and would generally welcome a new edition. These people had developed some theories about what was wrong and had expectations about what would be fixed by the new edition. However, both groups were largely surprised by the actual changes that came about. 1e players for example didn't really want to get rid of Paladins, Barbarians, and the like. They didn't want a change of content or a reboot of content. They wanted new cleaner rules for running the long established games and game worlds that they already had. Instead they got an edition that seemed to be throwing out things they were comfortable with and fiddling with areas they were comfortable with, while not making a enough changes to overhaul areas that had been persistent irritants. </p><p></p><p>2e was fine if you were introduced to it, but it was still a rather old fashioned clunky system and it frequently felt like it was telling you how to play rather than giving you the tools to play how you wanted. For 1e players it didn't modernize the game enough, while at the same time not supporting fully the game you were already playing.</p><p></p><p>I honestly feel 3e was successful because it was the version of the game that the 1e players had wanted to see. It modernized the game while at the same time supporting the game's sacred cows, and I think it largely correctly identified the sacred cows of the game.</p><p></p><p>By late 3.5 era, whether you came into 3e from 1e or whether 3e was your system, it was clear the system needed some tweaks and that the RAW was increasingly in trouble because of poor play testing of the glut of content that had been produced. I for one was ready for a new edition, just like I had been in the late 80's/early 90's. But just like before, I had some expectations about what would be fixed and what would be retained, and when 4e came along it had a few ideas that I thought were pretty cool, but by and large it changed things I was comfortable with while not necessarily dealing with actual problems that I had with the system. This was heavily reinforced by the marketing of 4e which was mostly about running down 3e as this terrible system. I tried to like 4e, but fundamentally it was not the game I wanted, and what I thought it would be good at it turned out in practice to impose a huge mental burden on actual design that was just not fun compared to the normal way I prepped for a game. Maybe it did make running set piece battles awesome, but it didn't make turning what was in my imagination into set piece battles that worked within the system easier. Rather, kind of encouraged you to come at the problem in the other direction - what would make a great set piece battle, and in turn make your imagination conform to that.</p><p></p><p>4e succeeded for certain groups, but not for the core D&D player base. If you were looking for deep tactical complexity and tactical interplay it was the system for you. If you wanted a light weight rules engine to support the Nar version of D&D you always wanted, you could with a bit of imagination make it that game, while still having a big portion of the game support the aesthetic concerns of the most gamist player in your group. At that 3e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Fallout 1 & 2, and when 4e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Diablo 1 & 2. I enjoyed both video games, but the game I played at my table was more like Fallout than it was like Diablo. </p><p></p><p>I had one 'encounter' with 4e during its run. I had two new players in my group and they were super excited about playing, so much so that they would have happily met several times a week I think. Anyway, after a while it came out that they were 'cheating' on me with another DM who ran a 4e table. And after a few months of that it came out that they'd quit his table, so I asked them about there experiences and one of them said, "The game felt kind of video-gamey." I didn't in any way prompt that, it was just an impression that they'd picked up on their own.</p><p></p><p>Again, I think 5e is successful because it's the game that 3e players expected from 4e, whereas 4e is a classic example of what happens when you market a product to customers that don't like your existing product.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7460417, member: 4937"] My impression is that both 2e and 4e came at a time when a large number of players felt the game needed to be fixed, and would generally welcome a new edition. These people had developed some theories about what was wrong and had expectations about what would be fixed by the new edition. However, both groups were largely surprised by the actual changes that came about. 1e players for example didn't really want to get rid of Paladins, Barbarians, and the like. They didn't want a change of content or a reboot of content. They wanted new cleaner rules for running the long established games and game worlds that they already had. Instead they got an edition that seemed to be throwing out things they were comfortable with and fiddling with areas they were comfortable with, while not making a enough changes to overhaul areas that had been persistent irritants. 2e was fine if you were introduced to it, but it was still a rather old fashioned clunky system and it frequently felt like it was telling you how to play rather than giving you the tools to play how you wanted. For 1e players it didn't modernize the game enough, while at the same time not supporting fully the game you were already playing. I honestly feel 3e was successful because it was the version of the game that the 1e players had wanted to see. It modernized the game while at the same time supporting the game's sacred cows, and I think it largely correctly identified the sacred cows of the game. By late 3.5 era, whether you came into 3e from 1e or whether 3e was your system, it was clear the system needed some tweaks and that the RAW was increasingly in trouble because of poor play testing of the glut of content that had been produced. I for one was ready for a new edition, just like I had been in the late 80's/early 90's. But just like before, I had some expectations about what would be fixed and what would be retained, and when 4e came along it had a few ideas that I thought were pretty cool, but by and large it changed things I was comfortable with while not necessarily dealing with actual problems that I had with the system. This was heavily reinforced by the marketing of 4e which was mostly about running down 3e as this terrible system. I tried to like 4e, but fundamentally it was not the game I wanted, and what I thought it would be good at it turned out in practice to impose a huge mental burden on actual design that was just not fun compared to the normal way I prepped for a game. Maybe it did make running set piece battles awesome, but it didn't make turning what was in my imagination into set piece battles that worked within the system easier. Rather, kind of encouraged you to come at the problem in the other direction - what would make a great set piece battle, and in turn make your imagination conform to that. 4e succeeded for certain groups, but not for the core D&D player base. If you were looking for deep tactical complexity and tactical interplay it was the system for you. If you wanted a light weight rules engine to support the Nar version of D&D you always wanted, you could with a bit of imagination make it that game, while still having a big portion of the game support the aesthetic concerns of the most gamist player in your group. At that 3e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Fallout 1 & 2, and when 4e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Diablo 1 & 2. I enjoyed both video games, but the game I played at my table was more like Fallout than it was like Diablo. I had one 'encounter' with 4e during its run. I had two new players in my group and they were super excited about playing, so much so that they would have happily met several times a week I think. Anyway, after a while it came out that they were 'cheating' on me with another DM who ran a 4e table. And after a few months of that it came out that they'd quit his table, so I asked them about there experiences and one of them said, "The game felt kind of video-gamey." I didn't in any way prompt that, it was just an impression that they'd picked up on their own. Again, I think 5e is successful because it's the game that 3e players expected from 4e, whereas 4e is a classic example of what happens when you market a product to customers that don't like your existing product. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
Top