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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7460528" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Nod. I thought the point I was making was that it would have happened in the absence of a 4e, anyway. </p><p></p><p>Didn't it really take off in 2009, though?</p><p></p><p> Were you paying attention to the playtest, MM was constantly going on about evoking the 'classic game.' Playtest adventures were call-backs to ancient modules. Heck, Essentials had gone there in a big way, too, with the 'Red Box' and game day character sheets in goldenrod. IDK if it was because of the OSR, or just because MM is a 1e grognard, himself, but it sure seemed like a thing.</p><p></p><p> Honestly, that's how I felt about it, myself. 3.x had only had 8 years, 1e had had 13, and 2e, counting coasting after TSR folded 10, it just seemed too early. I get that 3.5's blistering pace of development had bloated the game like a corpse in a hot climate, but, even so, it was just too early. Plus, with the SRD/OSG, there was a d20 genie that wasn't ever going back in the bottle, so for the first time ever (and the only so far), the prior version of D&D could be cloned, outright, to compete with the new, without getting sued like Arduin was.</p><p></p><p></p><p> There are so many things about D&D that are terrible game design, that there's almost no limit to how much of it you could change before you started making it worse instead of better. But the game(npi)-changing, revolitionary 'RPG better than D&D' has been arround virtually since the 2nd (maybe 4th?) RPG was created later in the 70s, one after another, almost without pause, and has had 0 impact on the dominance of D&D. </p><p></p><p>4e was enough better than, and different from, D&D to be warred against by the old gaurd, as it was, making it more so would only have further marginalized it - as long as it had the D&D logo. Without the logo, it'd've just been the <em>nth</em> game to come out, be hands-down strictly superior to D&D in every way, maybe win an award or two, and never be heard from again.</p><p></p><p> I couldn't. The two-prong approach may have worked for the original game, in the fad years, but I doubt even the come-back zietgiest of today could have overcome the confusion of having two or more versions of the game. To stage a come-back, a brand needs more unity of identity than that.</p><p></p><p> I can't agree with the rest of that, but I did find that, while a 4e combat could take more rounds than a 3e combat, or more table time than a 1e or 5e combat, it was time spent with more of the players engaged in the entire experience. </p><p></p><p>When I did see problems with turns 'taking too long' it was the players who were disengaged when it wasn't their turns - not even all of them, the old 'wake me when the fight starts' type players slipped off into their usual comas - were the ones that complained. That kind of player really needs to be dominant, the center of attention, to be engaged, at all, when someone else is having their moment, they shut down. The most destructive spiral is when you get a player like that, and he gets the idea of 'leading by example' (because he's accustomed to dominating play) and taking really /fast/ turns, which exacerbates his frustration.</p><p></p><p>4e was a good game, but it was being played by D&Ders, some of whom had decades of bad habbits to overcome before they could take full advantage of it.</p><p></p><p> Doesn't that speed up play?</p><p></p><p>[qute]2) too many short duration and/or small value modifiers. That meant a lot of tracking +1s & +2s from a variety of sources, of various durations. You were almost never attacking with the same attack or damage bonuses as the previous round, which meant doing math every turn.</p></blockquote><p>"Did you remember the +2 I gave you?" Yeah, there was a lot of that. It wasn't any worse than 3e itterative attacks & myriad modifiers. Combat advantage was the main situational modifier, so it consolidated a lot of that, much of the rest was probably under the players' control. You could take feats that gave you a constant befit or more situational ones, your leader type could pick fiddly buffs or straightforward healing. That kind of thing.</p><p></p><p>Pregens are a good way to go with new players, and starting at 1st, where the issue is minimized, did not bring with it the problem of the characters being overly fragile. Compared to playing an essentials or other-ed caster, though, 4e classes were fairly streamlined with easy choices among just a few powers, and the choice not being as critical (most rounds you could just use an at will and be fine) vs many, more critical, decisions among spells. </p><p></p><p>Essentials classes theoretically should have helped returning players who had the expectation that starting with a fighter would be 'simple,' but returning players had been thoroughly turned off by then. </p><p></p><p> Acutally, it does handle it simply enough, you just get a quick/easy side encounter, which, compared to a 4e set-piece is hardly worth it (and might well be worth no xp by the guidelines). It's not any worse than it is in another edition, it just seems pointless by comparison. Arguably, it is pointless, in any edition - but other eds were so dependent on multiple encounters/day to siphon off even an odd low-level slot here or there, that it was worth it for the DM to keep the 'wandering monster' and rooms with a few spiders and whatnot coming. </p><p></p><p>When I did want to get an many-little-encounter crawl going, I'd put it together as a skill challenge, with the 'wandering damage' mini-encounters coming on each failed check.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7460528, member: 996"] Nod. I thought the point I was making was that it would have happened in the absence of a 4e, anyway. Didn't it really take off in 2009, though? Were you paying attention to the playtest, MM was constantly going on about evoking the 'classic game.' Playtest adventures were call-backs to ancient modules. Heck, Essentials had gone there in a big way, too, with the 'Red Box' and game day character sheets in goldenrod. IDK if it was because of the OSR, or just because MM is a 1e grognard, himself, but it sure seemed like a thing. Honestly, that's how I felt about it, myself. 3.x had only had 8 years, 1e had had 13, and 2e, counting coasting after TSR folded 10, it just seemed too early. I get that 3.5's blistering pace of development had bloated the game like a corpse in a hot climate, but, even so, it was just too early. Plus, with the SRD/OSG, there was a d20 genie that wasn't ever going back in the bottle, so for the first time ever (and the only so far), the prior version of D&D could be cloned, outright, to compete with the new, without getting sued like Arduin was. There are so many things about D&D that are terrible game design, that there's almost no limit to how much of it you could change before you started making it worse instead of better. But the game(npi)-changing, revolitionary 'RPG better than D&D' has been arround virtually since the 2nd (maybe 4th?) RPG was created later in the 70s, one after another, almost without pause, and has had 0 impact on the dominance of D&D. 4e was enough better than, and different from, D&D to be warred against by the old gaurd, as it was, making it more so would only have further marginalized it - as long as it had the D&D logo. Without the logo, it'd've just been the [i]nth[/i] game to come out, be hands-down strictly superior to D&D in every way, maybe win an award or two, and never be heard from again. I couldn't. The two-prong approach may have worked for the original game, in the fad years, but I doubt even the come-back zietgiest of today could have overcome the confusion of having two or more versions of the game. To stage a come-back, a brand needs more unity of identity than that. I can't agree with the rest of that, but I did find that, while a 4e combat could take more rounds than a 3e combat, or more table time than a 1e or 5e combat, it was time spent with more of the players engaged in the entire experience. When I did see problems with turns 'taking too long' it was the players who were disengaged when it wasn't their turns - not even all of them, the old 'wake me when the fight starts' type players slipped off into their usual comas - were the ones that complained. That kind of player really needs to be dominant, the center of attention, to be engaged, at all, when someone else is having their moment, they shut down. The most destructive spiral is when you get a player like that, and he gets the idea of 'leading by example' (because he's accustomed to dominating play) and taking really /fast/ turns, which exacerbates his frustration. 4e was a good game, but it was being played by D&Ders, some of whom had decades of bad habbits to overcome before they could take full advantage of it. Doesn't that speed up play? [qute]2) too many short duration and/or small value modifiers. That meant a lot of tracking +1s & +2s from a variety of sources, of various durations. You were almost never attacking with the same attack or damage bonuses as the previous round, which meant doing math every turn.[/quote] "Did you remember the +2 I gave you?" Yeah, there was a lot of that. It wasn't any worse than 3e itterative attacks & myriad modifiers. Combat advantage was the main situational modifier, so it consolidated a lot of that, much of the rest was probably under the players' control. You could take feats that gave you a constant befit or more situational ones, your leader type could pick fiddly buffs or straightforward healing. That kind of thing. Pregens are a good way to go with new players, and starting at 1st, where the issue is minimized, did not bring with it the problem of the characters being overly fragile. Compared to playing an essentials or other-ed caster, though, 4e classes were fairly streamlined with easy choices among just a few powers, and the choice not being as critical (most rounds you could just use an at will and be fine) vs many, more critical, decisions among spells. Essentials classes theoretically should have helped returning players who had the expectation that starting with a fighter would be 'simple,' but returning players had been thoroughly turned off by then. Acutally, it does handle it simply enough, you just get a quick/easy side encounter, which, compared to a 4e set-piece is hardly worth it (and might well be worth no xp by the guidelines). It's not any worse than it is in another edition, it just seems pointless by comparison. Arguably, it is pointless, in any edition - but other eds were so dependent on multiple encounters/day to siphon off even an odd low-level slot here or there, that it was worth it for the DM to keep the 'wandering monster' and rooms with a few spiders and whatnot coming. When I did want to get an many-little-encounter crawl going, I'd put it together as a skill challenge, with the 'wandering damage' mini-encounters coming on each failed check. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
Top