D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[EzekielRaiden]

4e PHB did outsell 3e PHB. You are correct. But not nearly as much as their growth margin predicted. On top of that, extended sales declined much faster and to a larger extent than 3e. I mean, at one point in time, Pathfinder was outselling D&D. An unheard of case with 3e or 5e. But you are correct in that the PHB for 4e did sell more than the PHB sold for 3e. But that number alone doesn't tell the tale.

So, as is basically always the case, cherry-picking data to show failure instead of success. It did succeed. It just didn't succeed as much as it was intended to. It did sell. It just had the worst possible situation anyone could have inflicted upon it besides total economic collapse (an unprecedented massive recession, the collapse of a major book retailer, severe internal problems, literally creating their own biggest rival, etc.)

4e was not a failure--unless we define "failure" to mean "not being a smashing, stunning success." Which, I mean, you can define it that way if you want. But that would mean almost every edition of D&D has been a failure. 5e and (IIRC) Basic would be the only ones that meet that standard.

This is an interesting analogy. I am still digesting it, but I think I like it - a lot.

Glad to have contributed something then.

Can I ask a clarifying question. Are you saying the DMs ran it according to the rules?

No. I am saying they ran it according to less than the rules. That's the problem.

When GMs are stuck in unfamiliar rules territory, I find that they almost always freeze up. They cease to embrace creative and unexpected proposals. They go with only those things they can be absolutely certain are within the rules.

This directly leads to the vast majority of complaints about 4e. That you cannot roleplay--except you can, if you bring creativity and flexibility to the table. That you're only allowed to do things you have powers for and absolutely nothing else--except that that is explicitly not true, the rules directly state that that is not true, and give repeated examples of it being not true. That anything not allowed is forbidden--which is never said anywhere in any 4e text. That absolutely every combat must be in perfect lockstep to the party--except that the text explicitly says not to do that, and in fact is very clear that you should offer a wide variety of challenges, both combat and non-combat, across a range of levels including several levels up and down. Etc., etc.

"Anything not allowed is forbidden" is exactly the stance I find GMs fall into when they're in unfamiliar rules territory. When they're in familiar territory, however, when they know what the rules are and are thus comfortable and eager to use the tools available to them, the statement reverses entirely: "anything not forbidden is permitted," usually but not always with the caveat, "...but it might be harder to do."

4e felt unfamiliar. Some of this had to do with the actual mechanics being a bit different. The vast majority, however, had to do with the presentation. I used to at least partially defend that presentation, saying it merely needed more polish, but as I get older I have come to understand that 4e's presentation was absolutely, positively awful. It needed at least another year in the oven, and a really, really savvy graphic designer to preserve as much as possible of the mechanical clarity and simplicity while VASTLY improving the aesthetic flair.

Excellent experience. And I know everyone is sick of me saying it, but my friends and I had a blast with 4e. It was great in my opinion. I just think 5e is better. Our only problem with 4e is that combat was too bogged down with modifiers, extraneous details one had to track, and bloat. But I am glad your experience was as fun as mine.

With the way things are moving, especially given how the pandemic radically expanded the interest in online tabletop gaming, I think 4e will be seen as quite prescient in another, say, 10-15 years. Had the tablet-and-podcast boom happened in 2007 instead of 2014, 4e would have been right at home--and all the things you speak of as bog/bloat/etc. would have been invisible.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, as is basically always the case, cherry-picking data to show failure instead of success. It did succeed. It just didn't succeed as much as it was intended to. It did sell. It just had the worst possible situation anyone could have inflicted upon it besides total economic collapse (an unprecedented massive recession, the collapse of a major book retailer, severe internal problems, literally creating their own biggest rival, etc.)

4e was not a failure--unless we define "failure" to mean "not being a smashing, stunning success." Which, I mean, you can define it that way if you want. But that would mean almost every edition of D&D has been a failure. 5e and (IIRC) Basic would be the only ones that meet that standard.

Just to be fair, I never used the word failure. I actually refrained from using it because it was not a failure, and I didn't want it characterized as such. But what it was, was unsuccessful compared to what the company expected, compared to the effort and marketing they put in, and compared to how much WotC outsells other TTRPG companies.
You are right, timing did play a factor. But, even if you had timing* such as Stranger Things, podcasts, Twitch streams, etc. and you combined them with the 4e ruleset, you still may not have had the success of 5e. We'll never know, but in my opinion, it would not have happened. Heck, there's a chance Pathfinder might have gained even greater ground. And that is because the 4e ruleset (as much as I like) does not play well for the average player.
Here is an example: My wife was a new player during 4e's early years. We built her a character. She played a campaign for six months. And every time she used her daily, it was either: unsuccessful or mediocre. It never translated to fun table play. This is just one small example of how their ruleset impacted the feeling of the game.
*On a different note, this was in fact the time these things were becoming incredibly successful, and the fantasy genre as a whole was blowing up all of media. From the Lord of the Rings happening a few years before and culminating in massive success to Harry Potter groundbreaking books to the ungodly amount of cheap fantasy shows being released and the constant references to D&D in all types of shows. Fantasy and the cultural phenomenon did exist when 4e was out. It's just 4e never really captured the general public's imagination.

No. I am saying they ran it according to less than the rules. That's the problem.

If most DMs were doing this, then that must be a problem with the ruleset, no? It must be a problem with the interpretation. I mean, all these 3e and 3.5e experienced DMs find themselves in unexperienced territory and can't run it correctly. That is a problem with the system. Per your example, you found someone that could bend and break it to run it successfully. A game's feeling and rules shouldn't have to be broken by a DM to be able to run successfully.

I found this to be true when I would read people who criticized 4e. They pointed out the flaws, and the comeback would always be they're not playing correctly. Much like any edition war, I guess. But your example, I believe, alludes to the actual problem the masses had with it, and also why it didn't become a cultural phenomenon like 5e.

With the way things are moving, especially given how the pandemic radically expanded the interest in online tabletop gaming, I think 4e will be seen as quite prescient in another, say, 10-15 years. Had the tablet-and-podcast boom happened in 2007 instead of 2014, 4e would have been right at home--and all the things you speak of as bog/bloat/etc. would have been invisible.

This might be true. Or, there might become two types of players. One that plays at home, on a computer, using a 4e style of game, where they hire a chat bot that mimics Matt Mercer, and maybe, just maybe, they get together with a friend to play with. The other type is the one that still likes getting together with friends at a table, buying miniatures, rolling non-computer-generated dice, doing the math in their head, and using a ruleset like 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This might be true. Or, there might become two types of players. One that plays at home, on a computer, using a 4e style of game, where they hire a chat bot that mimics Matt Mercer, and maybe, just maybe, they get together with a friend to play with. The other type is the one that still likes getting together with friends at a table, buying miniatures, rolling non-computer-generated dice, doing the math in their head, and using a ruleset like 5e.

Wow.

Even for Enworld this is hyperbolic, rude and dismissive.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Started writing a homebrew skill system. Thing is the rules in 5e are so lacking that it feels like if I add a new skill system I kinda need to design not only a new stealth system but also a survival system and a proper exploration system... Since there are so few mechanics, there's nothing to interface with.

I'll make a new thread with that system once I have something that's a bit more presentable.

 

[Scott Christian]

Wow.

Even for Enworld this is hyperbolic, rude and dismissive.

Serious question: How is this dismissive? I started my statement by saying what he said could be true. Meaning, he could be right. Then I stated two other alternatives, one in which he is right again. And these alternatives could co-exist, meaning he could be right and the alternative could be right. Maybe I didn't clearly communicate it, but I was not being dismissive at all.

As far as hyperbolic, I really wasn't trying to be. In ten years, I do see players being able to hire an AI chatbot that mimics the voice and phrasing and uses ideas similar to Matt Mercer or any other celebrity DM. I assume (maybe the correct word is hope) those DMs might make a lot of money on it as well. I see this being done directly through D&D's VTT.

And of course, the obvious disclaimer, that many players will still do both. But considering how many players have a difficult time with scheduling, many may choose to play in a campaign by themselves.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to be fair, I never used the word failure. I actually refrained from using it because it was not a failure, and I didn't want it characterized as such. But what it was, was unsuccessful compared to what the company expected, compared to the effort and marketing they put in, and compared to how much WotC outsells other TTRPG companies.
You are right, timing did play a factor. But, even if you had timing* such as Stranger Things, podcasts, Twitch streams, etc. and you combined them with the 4e ruleset, you still may not have had the success of 5e. We'll never know, but in my opinion, it would not have happened. Heck, there's a chance Pathfinder might have gained even greater ground. And that is because the 4e ruleset (as much as I like) does not play well for the average player.
Here is an example: My wife was a new player during 4e's early years. We built her a character. She played a campaign for six months. And every time she used her daily, it was either: unsuccessful or mediocre. It never translated to fun table play. This is just one small example of how their ruleset impacted the feeling of the game.
*On a different note, this was in fact the time these things were becoming incredibly successful, and the fantasy genre as a whole was blowing up all of media. From the Lord of the Rings happening a few years before and culminating in massive success to Harry Potter groundbreaking books to the ungodly amount of cheap fantasy shows being released and the constant references to D&D in all types of shows. Fantasy and the cultural phenomenon did exist when 4e was out. It's just 4e never really captured the general public's imagination.

I mean, you did explicitly say, and I quote:

I mean to be fair to @EzekielRaiden , there are certainly a rather vocal group that carries on about how terrible 4e was. And, on top of that, they have the sales figures to prove it. So, while there may be positive affirmations out there, there are also negative affirmations as well. And it is easy to fall into being surrounded by one category.

If you did not mean to say or imply that it was a "failure," saying that the "vocal" trash-talkers "have the sales figures to prove" "how terrible 4e was" is a pretty bad way to go about it.

If most DMs were doing this, then that must be a problem with the ruleset, no? It must be a problem with the interpretation. I mean, all these 3e and 3.5e experienced DMs find themselves in unexperienced territory and can't run it correctly. That is a problem with the system. Per your example, you found someone that could bend and break it to run it successfully. A game's feeling and rules shouldn't have to be broken by a DM to be able to run successfully.

Is it a problem with the system, or is it (as I have repeatedly said) a problem with the presentation? Because that's been my thesis for quite some time now. 4e is a great system. It crit-fumbled its own presentation, during a really really bad business climate, with multiple horrible errors (some self-inflicted, at least one an unpredictable tragedy), including creating its own greatest competition.

The feeling and rules don't need to be "broken" to run successfully. Again, as I have said repeatedly, people literally claim the books say things they don't. How can you possibly overcome someone claiming that the books explicitly instruct perfect lockstep encounters when they spend multiple pages in multiple places saying exactly the opposite? How can you overcome someone crapping on the books without ever reading them--as many 4e critics were often forced to admit. (Guess what--I was one of them, at one time!)

I found this to be true when I would read people who criticized 4e. They pointed out the flaws, and the comeback would always be they're not playing correctly. Much like any edition war, I guess. But your example, I believe, alludes to the actual problem the masses had with it, and also why it didn't become a cultural phenomenon like 5e.

I mean, when someone literally claims that the rules require something that the very text explicitly, and repeatedly, rejects...what are you supposed to conclude? That the "real" game is the one invented in the critic's head, and you shouldn't trust your lying eyes?

This might be true. Or, there might become two types of players. One that plays at home, on a computer, using a 4e style of game, where they hire a chat bot that mimics Matt Mercer, and maybe, just maybe, they get together with a friend to play with. The other type is the one that still likes getting together with friends at a table, buying miniatures, rolling non-computer-generated dice, doing the math in their head, and using a ruleset like 5e.

That's an incredibly insulting way to refer to 4e play, and if you meant it the way you've phrased it, I'm not exactly happy about that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, you did explicitly say, and I quote:

If you did not mean to say or imply that it was a "failure," saying that the "vocal" trash-talkers "have the sales figures to prove" "how terrible 4e was" is a pretty bad way to go about it.


Is it a problem with the system, or is it (as I have repeatedly said) a problem with the presentation? Because that's been my thesis for quite some time now. 4e is a great system. It crit-fumbled its own presentation, during a really really bad business climate, with multiple horrible errors (some self-inflicted, at least one an unpredictable tragedy), including creating its own greatest competition.

The feeling and rules don't need to be "broken" to run successfully. Again, as I have said repeatedly, people literally claim the books say things they don't. How can you possibly overcome someone claiming that the books explicitly instruct perfect lockstep encounters when they spend multiple pages in multiple places saying exactly the opposite? How can you overcome someone crapping on the books without ever reading them--as many 4e critics were often forced to admit. (Guess what--I was one of them, at one time!)


I mean, when someone literally claims that the rules require something that the very text explicitly, and repeatedly, rejects...what are you supposed to conclude? That the "real" game is the one invented in the critic's head, and you shouldn't trust your lying eyes?


That's an incredibly insulting way to refer to 4e play, and if you meant it the way you've phrased it, I'm not exactly happy about that.

As was said, many people never got past the early books in the 4e line, and thus are unfamiliar with updates and clarifications from later sources. How familiar do you have to be with 4e to be allowed to level criticism at it?

If the specific passages to which you refer are from the original core books, then I withdraw the question.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As was said, many people never got past the early books in the 4e line, and thus are unfamiliar with updates and clarifications from later sources. How familiar do you have to be with 4e to be allowed to level criticism at it?

If the specific passages to which you refer are from the original core books, then I withdraw the question.

Original three books. The DMG has at least two (possibly three) sections discussing encounter design. All of them explicitly state that you should provide a variety of encounters, both in terms of combat and non-combat, and in terms of what components those encounters provide (monsters, terrain, traps/puzzles, environmental effects, etc.) The section specifically about building encounters goes into more detail. The first in page order is as follows (bolded for emphasis, italics in original):

Encounter Level​

A standard encounter should challenge a typical group of characters but not overwhelm them. The characters should prevail if they haven't depleted their daily resources or had a streak of bad luck. An encounter that's the same level as the party, or one level higher, falls into this standard range of difficulty.
You can offer your players a greater challenge or an easier time by setting your encounter level two or three levels higher or one or two levels lower than the party's level. It's a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary the other elements of encounters to keep things interesting (see "Encounter Mix," page 104).
Encounter level is relative to the number of characters in the party. The Monster Manual and published adventures show encounter levels based on an assumed party size of five characters. However, notice that a 9th-level encounter for five characters (2000 XP) is a 7th-level encounter for six characters or a 10th-level encounter for four characters.

The only even partially misinterpretable thing here is that it uses the term "standard" to mean "this is the calculated baseline," as in the standard against which other things are judged, rather than "standard" in the sense of "most things should be like this thing." The text explicitly says you should vary encounter difficulties.

In the aforementioned "Encounter Mix" section on page 104 (again, bold for emphasis):

When you're building an adventure, try to vary the encounters you include, including combat and non-combat challenges, easy and difficult encounters, a variety of settings and monsters, and situations that appeal to your players' different personalities and motivations. This variation creates an exciting rhythm. Adventures that lack this sort of variety can become a tiresome grind.

Complexity​

Encounters can be complex in several different ways. An encounter with five kinds of monsters is complex for the players and for you, so mix those up with wolf pack encounters (a group made up of a single kind of monster; see page 59 in Chapter 4) as well as more straightforward encounter types.
Some encounters are complex in their relationship to the plot, such as a tangled interaction in which the characters have to unravel each adversary's motivations and hidden agendas, or even a combat encounter that raises new questions about what's going on in the adventure. Make sure to mix those up with encounters in which it's completely clear what's going on.
Rooms with lots of interesting terrain, cover, and room features make for great combat encounters, but you should keep some variation in that level of complexity. You don't have to resort to a straight-up, face-to-face melee in a tiny room, but some encounters can be less tactically interesting than others.

Difficulty​

If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn't significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters' survival--or even makes them flee.
The majority of encounters should be of moderate difficulty--challenging but not overwhelming, falling right about the party's level or one higher. Monsters in a standard encounter might range from three levels below the characters to about four levels above them. These encounters should make up the bulk of the adventure.
Easy encounters are two to three levels below the party, and might include monsters as many as four levels below the party. These encounters let the characters feel powerful. If you build an encounter using monsters that were a serious threat to the characters six or seven levels ago, you'll remind them of how much they've grown in power and capabilities since the last time they fought those monsters. You might include an easy encounter about once every character level--don't overdo it.
Hard encounters are two to three levels above the party, and can include monsters that are five to seven levels above the characters. These encounters really test the characters' resources, and might force them to take an extended rest at the end. They also bring a greater feeling of accomplishment, though, so make sure to include about one such encounter per character level. However, be careful of using high-level soldiers and brutes [read: monster roles] in these encounters. Soldier monsters get really hard to hit when they're five levels above the party, and brutes can do too much damage at that level.
Monsters that are more than eight levels higher than the characters can pretty easily kill a character, and in a group they have a chance of taking out the whole party. Use such overpowering encounters with great care. Players should enter the encounter with a clear sense of the danger they're facing, and have at least one good option for escaping with their lives, whether that's headlong flight or negotiation.
On average, it takes characters eight to ten encounters to gain a level, with the possible addition of a major quest. [snipped table description because it's irrelevant here.]

This is all right there, in the book. I just typed this all out by hand.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Original three books. The DMG has at least two (possibly three) sections discussing encounter design. All of them explicitly state that you should provide a variety of encounters, both in terms of combat and non-combat, and in terms of what components those encounters provide (monsters, terrain, traps/puzzles, environmental effects, etc.) The section specifically about building encounters goes into more detail. The first in page order is as follows (bolded for emphasis, italics in original):

The only even partially misinterpretable thing here is that it uses the term "standard" to mean "this is the calculated baseline," as in the standard against which other things are judged, rather than "standard" in the sense of "most things should be like this thing." The text explicitly says you should vary encounter difficulties.

In the aforementioned "Encounter Mix" section on page 104 (again, bold for emphasis):

This is all right there, in the book. I just typed this all out by hand.

Well then. Question withdrawn, as promised.

 

[Scott Christian]

That's an incredibly insulting way to refer to 4e play, and if you meant it the way you've phrased it, I'm not exactly happy about that.

Let's start with this. I honestly don't see how this is insulting. I am literally taking what you said:

With the way things are moving, especially given how the pandemic radically expanded the interest in online tabletop gaming, I think 4e will be seen as quite prescient in another, say, 10-15 years. Had the tablet-and-podcast boom happened in 2007 instead of 2014, 4e would have been right at home--and all the things you speak of as bog/bloat/etc. would have been invisible.

And then I am using it as an example to indicate, that indeed, the rules of 4e should be used for online purposes, and indeed, without the bloat, it will be a great ruleset. The part of hiring an AI DM is just more flavor - because I believe it will happen soon. And guess who will try it out and pay for a campaign and play with that great ruleset? Me.
But for the table, the players not online, and the DMs that still make maps or use terrain or use minis, 5e is king and for good reason.

I do apologize if you took offense to my statement. But honestly, once people are able to hire an AI DM, you will have two types of D&D players.

If you did not mean to say or imply that it was a "failure," saying that the "vocal" trash-talkers "have the sales figures to prove" "how terrible 4e was" is a pretty bad way to go about it.

Again, this is not personal. My statement was about what I have seen other people do. They is the keyword. They did trash-talk it. They did have the sales figures to prove it. This is what I have seen. I assume you've seen it too.

Is it a problem with the system, or is it (as I have repeatedly said) a problem with the presentation? Because that's been my thesis for quite some time now. 4e is a great system. It crit-fumbled its own presentation, during a really really bad business climate, with multiple horrible errors (some self-inflicted, at least one an unpredictable tragedy), including creating its own greatest competition.

The presentation is part of the system. It single handedly is the most important aspect for creating the "feel" of the game. If you don't think it's a part of the system and is some different entity, then you are correct. But to me, the two are so intricately woven together, that they help shape one another.

The feeling and rules don't need to be "broken" to run successfully. Again, as I have said repeatedly, people literally claim the books say things they don't. How can you possibly overcome someone claiming that the books explicitly instruct perfect lockstep encounters when they spend multiple pages in multiple places saying exactly the opposite? How can you overcome someone crapping on the books without ever reading them--as many 4e critics were often forced to admit. (Guess what--I was one of them, at one time!)

I have not seen these claims, but I believe you. I feel like people talk out of their you know what all the time.

I mean, when someone literally claims that the rules require something that the very text explicitly, and repeatedly, rejects...what are you supposed to conclude? That the "real" game is the one invented in the critic's head, and you shouldn't trust your lying eyes?

Those were certainly not the claims I was referring to. I even gave an example.