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

[Ratskinner]

Not responding to any particular recent post, but mostly the thoughts expressed by [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] and to some extent [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]....

I'm a big Fate fan...and its a game that let's you (by default) play literally anything you can make up (subject to group approval, etc.). I like it for that, its very simple and straightforward. If you wanted to play a Fire Priest, Warlord (as 4e meant it or as it generally means), or whatever...you could. We just talk a little bit about what that means to you, maybe write an aspect and stunt or two to reflect it and presto, there you are. You don't have to pour over lists of classes or feats or anything (which are, by nature, guaranteed to miss something).

Now, there's plenty of differences between D&D and Fate. (Lack of grid-friendly tactical combat, funky dice, etc.) However, I just don't think the typical gamer is so concerned with getting some special unusual character represented by the mechanics, or we'd see games like Fate ripping players away from D&D left and right...and we don't. I think by far the vast majority of players are just fine playing something out of the box and with maybe a little tweaking.

Just my $.02

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, I just don't think the typical gamer is so concerned with getting some special unusual character represented by the mechanics, or we'd see games like Fate ripping players away from D&D left and right...

D&D's place in the market is unique. It's the only RPG with name recognition outside the hobby, so it's where virtually all of us start. If you like D&D, or at least tolerate it long enough see some potential with the concept of RPGs, you probably, eventually, become aware that there are other RPGs out there. If you try D&D once and don't care for it - say because you wanted to play a certain character from genre, and just couldn't or were frustrated by the way it was modeled (but potentially for a /lot/ of pretty good reasons) - well, you likely decide the hobby's just not for you, and you never encounter anything you might like better.

FATE is one of many games that does a lot of things a lot better than D&D, sure. But, most people, even those who might like it a lot more than D&D, just don't know it exists and, by the time they've been in the hobby long enough to maybe hear about it, they've gotten /used/ to D&D, have effort sunk in learning it, and probably find it easier to play a d20 game in some genre that FATE covers, instead.

D&D's not just a gateway to the hobby, but a gatekeeper. And it's been that way for 40 years. You can't deduce much about an RPG from it's popularity relative to D&D, other than that it's not D&D (or, in the case of PF1, that it /was/ D&D).

 

[Garthanos]

However, I just don't think the typical gamer is so concerned with getting some special unusual character represented by the mechanics, or we'd see games like Fate ripping players away from D&D left and right...and we don't. I think by far the vast majority of players are just fine playing something out of the box and with maybe a little tweaking.

Just my $.02

I see people playing a metric ton of homebrew classes but it may indeed be the people with whom I interact are different. The prevalence on the web of homebrew classes makes me think my contacts are not so rare.

To me is demonstrates the lacking in 5e character design flexibility is explicitly not serving everyone. Just as the lack of support for the tactical warlord is not supporting everyone.

As for fate? it is an interesting game which supports improvisational support of most everything its definitely not about well defined ability providing tactical predictability in play.... heck even having explicit spell lists is basically putting aside fates strengths in my opinion.

 

[Garthanos]

FATE is one of many games that does a lot of things a lot better than D&D, sure.

Like readily supporting Aragorn and Frodo in the same party

 

[Parmandur]

I see people playing a metric ton of homebrew classes but it may indeed be the people with whom I interact are different. The prevalence on the web of homebrew classes makes me think my contacts are not so rare.

To me is demonstrates the lacking in 5e character design flexibility is explicitly not serving everyone. Just as the lack of support for the tactical warlord is not supporting everyone.

As for fate? it is an interesting game which supports improvisational support of most everything its definitely not about well defined ability providing tactical predictability in play.... heck even having explicit spell lists is basically putting aside fates strengths in my opinion.

I've never been in a game that allowed homebrewed Classes, or really heard of people using them in any major fashion. The Internet hobby talk scene is a pretty small representation of the people playing the game. Most character concepts that I can think up would be more about Background details, mechanics are pretty secondary.

 

[Garthanos]

I've never been in a game that allowed homebrewed Classes, or really heard of people using them in any major fashion

The real life people I speak to generally have DMs who ply the web for tools ... but may not themselves and that I know few are on here too shrug.

I suspect game shop play is a different arena than more pure home games as well.

 

[Parmandur]

The real life people I speak to generally have DMs who ply the web... but do not themselves and that I know few are on here too shrug.

It's not that home brewing is super hard for undesirable: the DMG provides guidelines to help. But I'm not so sure there is a huge hunger for it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I see people playing a metric ton of homebrew classes but it may indeed be the people with whom I interact are different. The prevalence on the web of homebrew classes makes me think my contacts are not so rare.

As others have mentioned, the web D&D community is a relatively small subset of gamers. If anything has been demonstrated to me on these forums, its that all our local communities and experiences are relatively unique. RPGs let alone D&D are far from monolithic. The group I play with now is fairly accustomed to each GM mucking with the rules, but my kids' several groups usually run right out of the book(s).

To me is demonstrates the lacking in 5e character design flexibility is explicitly not serving everyone. Just as the lack of support for the tactical warlord is not supporting everyone.

Not getting into the Warlord thing too deeply, but I think when 5e backed off of 4e's detailed tactical framework that it lost the ability to support a lot of what people are used to in the 4e warlord.

As for fate? it is an interesting game which supports improvisational support of most everything its definitely not about well defined ability providing tactical predictability in play.... heck even having explicit spell lists is basically putting aside fates strengths in my opinion.

Definitely true about the tactical predictability. I also agree about the spell lists. However, my feeling and experience are that lists of things in a game (equipment, classes, feats, etc. which can support such a tactical predicatbility) are about defining that game's world. I don't think there's any way to have them both, outside of an explicitly unskinned tactical game like Strike!, which is still rather thinner than 4e.

EDIT: FWIW, the Warlord was probably my favorite 4e class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've never been in a game that allowed homebrewed Classes, or really heard of people using them in any major fashion.

They were more a thing back in the day, when classes were even more like straightjackets, you had to get them custom-tailored. I played a Bandit out of The Dragon, I saw more than a couple Archer-Rangers, and, come 2e, the class-creation guidelines did get used, now and then.
More often, though, you'd just tweak a class, or bend the MCing rules to accommodate a concept that didn't fit neatly into the existing options.

3e really changed all that, even though it added tons of classes, not to mention PrCs, it's version of MCing really opened things up. It's classes could've been designed to work a /lot/ better with that kind of MCing, the way saves & caster levels were handled were problematic for instance (5e solved those, while, ironically, messing up Extra Attack very much the way Caster levels were in 3e), and the same goes for 5e where it's an option. 3e also explicitly let players re-skin their PCs appearance (thus, essentially, race) & gear, which also made it easier to accommodate some concepts, and the Fighter and Sorcerer were particularly amenable to build-to-concept.

The Internet hobby talk scene is a pretty small representation of the people playing the game. Most character concepts that I can think up would be more about Background details, mechanics are pretty secondary.

The impression I get from folks who don't see an issue with classes as an impediment, or at least, less functional than could be desired tools, for building to concept, is that they get concept ideas from looking at classes. Which is a legit & convenient way to get an idea for a character - and one of the strengths of having classes in the first place.
It's just the game needn't sacrifice potential for customization to avail itself of that strength. And, no, I don't think it's mainly the hardcore forumites who step up to a table with a character concept in mind that the classes in the game might not cover - I just think we're the ones who stuck around in spite of that.

 

[Parmandur]

They were more a thing back in the day, when classes were even more like straightjackets, you had to get them custom-tailored. I played a Bandit out of The Dragon, I saw more than a couple Archer-Rangers, and, come 2e, the class-creation guidelines did get used, now and then.
More often, though, you'd just tweak a class, or bend the MCing rules to accommodate a concept that didn't fit neatly into the existing options.

3e really changed all that, even though it added tons of classes, not to mention PrCs, it's version of MCing really opened things up. It's classes could've been designed to work a /lot/ better with that kind of MCing, the way saves & caster levels were handled were problematic for instance (5e solved those, while, ironically, messing up Extra Attack very much the way Caster levels were in 3e), and the same goes for 5e where it's an option. 3e also explicitly let players re-skin their PCs appearance (thus, essentially, race) & gear, which also made it easier to accommodate some concepts, and the Fighter and Sorcerer were particularly amenable to build-to-concept.

The impression I get from folks who don't see an issue with classes as an impediment, or at least, less functional than could be desired tools, for building to concept, is that they get concept ideas from looking at classes. Which is a legit & convenient way to get an idea for a character - and one of the strengths of having classes in the first place.
It's just the game needn't sacrifice potential for customization to avail itself of that strength. And, no, I don't think it's mainly the hardcore forumites who step up to a table with a character concept in mind that the classes in the game might not cover - I just think we're the ones who stuck around in spite of that.

People think in broad archetypes: it's mythological type-casting.