D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Parmandur]

The 4e fans were already removing themselves tacitly pushed from the playtest too. Shrug.

If that is true, and I do not believe we have reason to assume it is true across the board, then the growth was even greater, as anybody who left was replaced and then some.

 

[Garthanos]

and the wild continued growth of the game with that playstyle becoming dominant again.

Again with the assumptions that sales means something it doesn't necessarily (in this case that players are keeping things open air instead of house ruling - no i do not know that is occurring either), but I will grant that if the options were only PF with its well excessive complexity and the 5e combination of flexibility with a simple understandable core 5e would also be my pick. I will say the paradigm of change the game if you want something different is making for huge amounts of fan created content. And in the groups i know they seem to be using as many 3rd party stuff as WOTC stuff. Oh I am playing a noble (it's basically the lazy lord from 4e) . And he is playing a channeller which is sort of like Ashaman from wheel of time and so on.

 

[Parmandur]

Again with the assumptions that sales means something it doesn't necessarily (in this case that players are keeping things open air instead of house ruling - no i do not know that is occurring either), but I will grant that if the options were only PF with its well excessive complexity and the 5e combination of flexibility with a simple understandable core 5e would also be my pick. I will say the paradigm of change the game if you want something different is making for huge amounts of fan created content. And in the groups i know they seem to be using as many 3rd party stuff as WOTC stuff. Oh I am playing a noble (it's basically the lazy lord from 4e) . And he is playing a channeller which is sort of like Ashaman from wheel of time and so on.

Well, I know what I am doing, and I am seeing what other people are doing on and offline, including all of the popular streaming shows.

Based on what I have seen, and what WotC has said, the statements about how people actually play appear to be true. I am unaware of any evidence that would suggest WotC was dishonest about this.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, I know what I am doing, and I am seeing what other people are doing on and offline, including all of the popular streaming shows.

Its also possible that all the new people are playing the way 5e pushed playing cause and effect.

 

[Parmandur]

Its also possible that all the new people are playing the way 5e pushed playing cause and effect.

Sure, but that was also the way people played when the game was big in the 80's. It is what works for people.

 

[Campbell]

I do not dispute Fifth Edition's broad appeal. I actually agree that it captures the way most people have always played Dungeons and Dragons and most other mainstream roleplaying games. What I do dispute is that popularity is indicative of a more flexible and diverse way to play roleplaying games instead of just being a different way with its own advantages and limitations.

Basically I dispute that there is more diversity in play of adventure gaming games than the character exploration games I tend to prefer. I reject the claim that Apocalypse World is more focused and narrow than Dungeons and Dragons. I have seen its diversity of play up close, at a personal level. I have also crashed against trying to use games like Dungeons and Dragons for more character focused play.

These days I embrace Dungeons and Dragons for what it is and enjoy that. I really do enjoy it. Fifth Edition is a great game. When I want something it is not good at providing I look elsewhere.

The thing about this argument is that it implies there is no value in games like Apocalypse World. It makes the claim that Dungeons and Dragons can easily provide the same play experience without a disciplined approach to running the game, impacting rules that showcase how broken these characters are, or unity of purpose at the table. I know this is false because I tried to do this for years before I found Apocalypse World.

If the game is supposed to be a big tent game that should include building a more inclusive play culture that values what everyone has to say. A play culture that sees there is value in doing things differently even if those ways are not appropriate for this game or the way they want to run their own home game.

 

[Parmandur]

I do not dispute Fifth Edition's broad appeal. I actually agree that it captures the way most people have always played Dungeons and Dragons and most other mainstream roleplaying games. What I do dispute is that popularity is indicative of a more flexible and diverse way to play roleplaying games instead of just being a different way with its own advantages and limitations.

Basically I dispute that there is more diversity in play of adventure gaming games than the character exploration games I tend to prefer. I reject the claim that Apocalypse World is more focused and narrow than Dungeons and Dragons. I have seen its diversity of play up close, at a personal level. I have also crashed against trying to use games like Dungeons and Dragons for more character focused play.

These days I embrace Dungeons and Dragons for what it is and enjoy that. I really do enjoy it. Fifth Edition is a great game. When I want something it is not good at providing I look elsewhere.

The thing about this argument is that it implies there is no value in games like Apocalypse World. It makes the claim that Dungeons and Dragons can easily provide the same play experience without a disciplined approach to running the game, impacting rules that showcase how broken these characters are, or unity of purpose at the table. I know this is false because I tried to do this for years before I found Apocalypse World.

If the game is supposed to be a big tent game that should include building a more inclusive play culture that values what everyone has to say. A play culture that sees there is value in doing things differently even if those ways are not appropriate for this game or the way they want to run their own home game.

I can dig it: this all got started around the claim that 5E's rules made improvised play more difficult, which is probably true for many people: but for me, that as hoc approach is pure liberation on either side of the screen.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, but that was also the way people played when the game was big in the 80's. It is what works for people.

Is it? I was there I certainly saw OCD like players with yellow notebooks listing step by step methods for never ever relying on thiefs abilities and others utterly endorsing the monty haul style gaming with bags of holding full of every toy in the box and so on I am not clear exactly what way a particular table might have been played (some were obviously ignoring the DMG)... I also seen the habit of ditching D&Ds magic system fast was a thing. Putting skill systems on top also happened. Some of the tricks people on here have for making the fighters not useless at level 9 - I am sure somebody in 1e/2e were interrupting the casters regularly and providing Fighters with awesome magic items. By mid to late 80s I saw people going to other games to be honest myself among them.

 

[Garthanos]

I can dig it: this all got started around the claim that 5E's rules made improvised play more difficult

So how awesome can a fighters jump get in 5e when he makes that athletics check to jump farther than normal... without it walking on some spell.

OR walking on the monks class ability....

To me there are things defined in 5e that should inform that but they are not presented in a way that really allows it to be done

 

[Parmandur]

So how awesome can a fighters jump get in 5e when he makes that athletics check to jump farther than normal... without it walking on some spell.

OR walking on the monks class ability....

I dunno, but he can certainly try.