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

[Umbran]

The argument from popularity continues to not impress me.

It isn't an argument from popularity. It is an argument from economic reality. It is an argument from statistics.

We are talking about a product of a business. The things in the game should match the target audience, and do well for the business that creates it. When you are looking at what seems to be the largest economic success in gaming in decades, making it better would be hard. And it just happens that your pet peeves would be the things that would do that? Isn't that... rather unlikely, statistically speaking?

The quality of a game design element does not stand separate from the players it serves. It may be the elements and design you want are awesome... in the right product. And that product may not be D&D.

And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.

Have you considered the idea that D&D is not the game to "accomplish more" with? That D&D ought to be, and for the health of our hobby really needs to be, a sort of good, solid, but bog standard game, and that "accomplishing more" is for games focused on other, smaller niches of gaming desire?

D&D is a game accessible to pretty much everyone in the market. It is not the best at most things, but it may be the best collection of second-best parts we are likely to get.

 

[Garthanos]

It isn't an argument from popularity. It is an argument from economic reality.

The person I last talked to about this has an economics degree (though not an advanced one) and he likes D&D rather broadly 4e and 5e (doesnt care about my criticisms either) = he rejected the idea that the games quality or any particula change between the editions themselves resulted in the rise in popularity citing the right time and in the right place for cultural shifts. OK I admit it also got a bit odd about current psychology trends and the most social game for anti-social cliques in an age of rising antisocial memes. OK admitting I didnt follow it too well.

Too many factors involved was really the gist. Do you really think with how markets work this is something we can know?

To be clear I am not arguing with economic success you are merely trying to assert it means something you cannot prove it does.... nor that it really has anything to do with features that bother me and not better marketing choices and cultural climate.

This thread is arguably about 4e and potential development before its design paradigm was ditched and sorry but what i see as failings in the eventual design direction D&D took seem a pretty natural element of that. Especially since the thread branched into all the 5e focused off topica on this thread.

D&D is a game accessible to pretty much everyone in the market. It is not the best at most things, but it may be the best collection of second-best parts we are likely to get.

"may be" and maybe that is just what it is now I didnt expect to ever find D&D attractive enough to bring me back even in the mid 80s other games were pulling me away yet 4e brought me back. Dresden Files/Fate was a close second when 4e came out. They might even make a 6e I like more too who knows.

 

[Campbell]

I believe that several features of Fifth Edition's design are responsible for its widespread appeal. I do not believe that speaks to design quality. It is a strong design that consistently delivers the experience it was built to deliver. I absolutely believe experience is the right word here. The designers were much more concerned with the cultural experience of Dungeons and Dragons then building the best game possible. Do not get me wrong here. I happen to believe they still built a fairly good game.

One of the design features that has led to the game's mass appeal is that focus on the cultural experience of Dungeons and Dragons. This could be seen pretty readily in the play test surveys. There were not many questions that were concerned with quality of game play, decisions, or difficulty. The overwhelming theme was if it felt like Dungeons and Dragons. Overwhelmingly they want things to feel familiar and comfortable, not just for existing players, but also for returning players. They want new players to feel like they are taking part in something ancient with a storied tradition.

Juxtaposed against this was Fourth Edition's approach. It was more like Marvel's Ultimate universe. It had an attitude and an edge. It was not your father's Dungeons and Dragons. It was your Dungeons and Dragons. Everything was different. The classes were different. The races were different. It was visceral and violent. The world was on fire. From a marketing standpoint this was a misstep, but it allowed for what was at that time some pretty compelling and innovative game play.

Another feature that has really helped the appeal of Fifth Edition is that it does not really reward deep engagement.

The difference between more skilled and less skilled play is fairly marginal when compared to other versions of the game. As a casual player you can sit down with a Champion Fighter and perform nearly as well as the more advanced melee classes like the Monk or Paladin. Neovancian casting is more fluid and forgiving to players. The Concentration mechanic and generally low rate of interactions between spells and other abilities serve to make playing a caster for the first time an easier experience.

The Beliefs, Instincts, Flaws, and Traits generally reward light characterization instead of deep protagonism. Like Fourth Edition before it Fifth Edition continues the trend of reemphasizing alignment and removing character constraints. This includes things like Dexterity to damage, rage having no meaningful downside, no penalties to attributes, and special ways to guarantee sneak attack damage.

This is helpful for players who just want to go on adventures and is less intimidating for new players. To that end the Organized Play experience for Fifth Edition is extremely streamlined. It is pretty much pick up and play. Scenarios are resolved in a couple hours and are generally tuned to err towards success with maybe a hiccup or two along the way.

The thing I find most interesting about Pathfinder 2 is that it has doubled down on deep engagement and difficulty. It kind of feels like it is trying to be the Dark Souls of the table top scene by rewarding deep engagement in both lore and game play. It has doubled down on things like encumbrance, alignment, spell preparation, monster immunities, and deep interactions between mechanics.

In many cases it has even gone further. Champions come in three varieties : Paladin (LG) , Redeemer (NG), and Liberator (CG). Beyond their alignment requirement each has a specific code with a matching set of Anathema, actions which can result in the loss of certain abilities until they have the Atone ritual performed on them by another member of their clergy. Champions and Clerics both have Anathema that depend on the god they serve. Barbarians also have an Anathema based on their Instinct, the source of their rage.

Pathfinder's new Bulk system brings encumbrance back as an expected part of play. Some classes even have trouble starting play unencumbered if they neglect strength in character generation. Exploration is also a big part of play with skilled use of Exploration activities having a strong impact on success in combat encounters. Things like searching specific areas both in and out of combat is an expected part of play.

While martial characters are only about as complex as a Battle Master the 3 action economy has put skilled play on the map for martial characters. Skilled use of actions, new martial focused consumables, special actions, combat maneuvers, and the like are necessary to succeed. Casters have had their spell lists revamped to build risk back into playing a spell caster. Now there are always a range of possible outcomes for any given spell and even effects like Nondetection, True Seeing, Remove Disease and the like require countering rolls. Timing and risk management are now a big part of playing a caster.

Monsters now usually have a wide range of immunities, resistances, weaknesses, and unique mechanics to contend with. Some like the hydra even have special ways you need to kill them. There is an increased emphasis on learning the monsters and becoming skilled at killing individual monsters again. They also inflict some pretty nasty long term consequences again.

Because of these features I am pretty sure that while it will find an audience it will never have the mainstream appeal that Fifth Edition does, but that does not mean that Fifth Edition is the better game. The more appealing game sure, but mass appeal does not have a lot to do with quality. Moldvay B/X is a far better designed game than Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, but AD&D had more mass appeal.

Again not saying Fifth Edition is a bad game. I think it's a pretty good game. So is Fourth Edition. So is Pathfinder 2. Fifth Edition would not be this popular with a discerning young audience if it was not good, but appeal is not just based on design quality. There are a lot of other factors that go into it.

 

[Garthanos]

Again not saying Fifth Edition is a bad game. I think it's a pretty good game.

Neither have I and I like some of its features. Working on stealing some of them for my play.

 

[Hussar]

If it was subjective the DC would change depending on the character?/level?/... well something, in my example it doesn't change. Your inability to grasp that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Because determining whether it's appropriate to roll and determining the DC are two different steps.

Lol... The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.

That seems like a pretty finicky line to draw. "Oh, we're not changing the DC, we're just saying that because you don't meet my requirements, you can't actually make a check". How is that not a subjective DC?

It's nothing to do with badwrongfun. It's everything to do with your mischaracterization that this is somehow objective. It's not objective if the DC changes from Impossible to Possible based entirely on whether or not the DM feels like it.

It's very subjective.

 

[Imaro]

That seems like a pretty finicky line to draw. "Oh, we're not changing the DC, we're just saying that because you don't meet my requirements, you can't actually make a check". How is that not a subjective DC?

It's nothing to do with badwrongfun. It's everything to do with your mischaracterization that this is somehow objective. It's not objective if the DC changes from Impossible to Possible based entirely on whether or not the DM feels like it.

It's very subjective.

It's really not... unless everything is "subjective" since the DM is the one setting the DC's in the first place. n fact your definition of "subjective" means I would have to run an entire game without deciding a single DC since otherwise it would be subjective... do you see how absurd that is?

The number doesn't change (and thus the DC doesn't change) but your ability or inability to make a roll to achieve said DC can... it isn't that hard of a concept to grasp so I'll try one more example but beyond that I don't have enough invested in trying to get you to understand to keep going with this conversation...especially since, as you haven't addressed when you've been mistaken or wrong in our previous exchanges in this thread, I don't think this will be any different.

cliff face X is a Very Hard climb... the DC is 25. However your character has been dumped at its base with arms and legs bound and no equipment...

You state..."My character climbs the cliff face."

As DM I rule a roll to climb the cliff face is inappropriate and impossible for your character. Did the DC change...nope it's still a DC 25/Very Hard cliff face in the game world and barring some drastic change in the fiction it will always be an objective DC 25 cliff face. However, I've ruled your character cant make the roll to achieve it because his legs and arms are bound (apparently in your game irregardless of the fiction, method or whatever if you can roll a 25 you should be able to climb the cliff face.... I gues the bound character does it Fonzie style ) that's not how I run my game. The cliff face has an objective DC but your character is not guaranteed a chance to achieve said DC. They are 2 different axis

 

[Eric V]

Neither have I and I like some of its features. Working on stealing some of them for my play.

Which ones?

 

[Garthanos]

Which ones?

So far movement,inspiration and attunement

 

[Garthanos]

I am considering the flexibility of using Dex or Strength for any Martial Attack Power too. More bigger backgrounds too. -- I know not exactly a system feature but.

Pathfinder 2 split out skill feats I am wondering if they solved anything interesting with that or if that is just the utility power system of 4e with a different name

 

[Campbell]

Generally there are no clear dividing lines between class feats and skill feats. Both have options that are primarily used in Exploration Mode and Encounter Mode. Encounter mode, initiative, and action economy are also not just used for combat encounters. They can also be used for social encounters, handling traps, and action scenes like chases. Some encounter mode feats are designed more for social encounters. Some things like Demoralize are useful in both social and combat encounters.

Generally the only thing that separates a class feat from a skill feat is that a class feat reinforces the themes and core competencies of that class while skill feats extend on a skill's uses and themes that go along with it. For Rangers feats can include things like snares, monster knowledge, and tracking as well as combat and action adventure oriented abilities. One of the Hunter's Edge choices is actually oriented to exploration and social encounters. Some skill feats like Titan Wrestler are exclusively combat oriented while some like Swift Sneak are useful in multiple modes of play and encounter types where some like Impressive Performance are exclusively not combat oriented.

In general there are no lines.