will 4.0 succeed?

[Lord Mhoram]

This is informational, so hopefully it can be taken that way.



Things in 3e that broke that camels back...could be seen as

No real limits on multiclassing and making it very easy to do. 4e reintroduced restrictions, or more stringent restrictions on multiclassing to try to make it less easily abused.

Classes as true archtypes. In otherwords, along with making it so that characters were not a conglomeration of ten different classes and such, to make it so that the classes were stronger in and of themselves. Hence a fighter was truly someone who had trained for years and could really fight! as opposed to a multiclass character that had simply gotten to be a fighter over the past day because...well...just because.

Characters and monsters were NOT the same types. They were different and hence used different rules. Aka...1e. Monsters are not heroes, and heroes are not monsters.

I like what you pointed out here, very insightful. I had left D&D shortly after 2nd ed hit. I found Champions/Hero system, and that became my One True RPG for decades. When 3rd came out I was skeptical (as I felt 2nd didn't change the stuff I felt should have changed, and changed things I thought worked) - but I read the PH - and the specific things you mention above as the things 4E was designed to compensate for - is exactly what I loved about it. I read the multiclassing and prestige class rules and though "This is the D&D for me!". Not surprisingly I didn't care much for 4E - but that is all about taste and playstyle.

I really can't wait for the Next core books to come out - I am really interested to see what it looks like with the modules there, and what options are around.

 

[Mistwell]

I have nothing against 13th Age, and I'd love to try it some day.

But, it's a very very tiny segment of the D&D-like RPG market.

In terms of what D&D-like games people are talking about, it's garnering 1.8% of the discussion, while Next is over 40% of the discussion.

That doesn't make it a failure, as we're talking about a very small company that made 13th Age, and their criteria for success is completely different from Hasbro's criteria for success.

But, 13th isn't a good comparison for 5e in terms of "See, you can make a successful game cheap and in a short period of time". It's just not even in the same vague league, in terms of sales, discussion, rules scrutiny, players, money, risk, pretty much any measure you can apply to an RPG.

 

[joethelawyer]

nothing to add, just funny to see a thread i started 4 1/2 yrs ago resurrected. also funny to see the optimism many had in 4e. wishful thinking? how many of the optimists feel the same way about 5e now? is it similarly misplaced i wonder?
i'm more optimistic about 5e than 4e, but who knows. i used to be optimistic about 4e, based on all the pre-publication fluff, then i read the thing. we'll see what 5e looks like in print, then i'll weigh in.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

That's not what I see when I see the 13th Age book. I see, "DAMN! That art cost must have cost a ton!"

That may be why the artists have their names on the cover.

As well as unburdened by expectation. That being said, 13th Age is a damn good book, even if you never play it (like me; I just like to read it and mine it for ideas). It's the kind of jewel that really only comes around once in an era, and really by chance. I would not use it as a standard for how indie RPG's usually turn out.

It's also what happens when you get a team who are in sync with each other, have a very clear design direction, and simply go for it.

nothing to add, just funny to see a thread i started 4 1/2 yrs ago resurrected. also funny to see the optimism many had in 4e. wishful thinking? how many of the optimists feel the same way about 5e now? is it similarly misplaced i wonder?
i'm more optimistic about 5e than 4e, but who knows. i used to be optimistic about 4e, based on all the pre-publication fluff, then i read the thing. we'll see what 5e looks like in print, then i'll weigh in.

When I saw the thread title in a list of suggested threads, I popped over and noted some of the predictions that were on the money. I thought it would be interesting to revisit the thread rather than start a new one. Fortunately a few people seemed to agree.

I missed it the first time around as I had no interest in 4E so I stopped following anything to do with it and avoided all the edition warring. I got into a year later when I had a look at the books while I was prepping for my high level 3.5E game. Starting cold, I created a stat block for a level 20 anti-paladin that was I about to create in 3.5E. Less than an hour later I had a functional stat block which - 4+ years later - I could still use today after a few damage adjustments for the post-MMIII monster maths. Less than an hour in a system I knew nothing about vs about 4 hours in 3.5E to try and make it a proper challenge for the CR.

I was hooked and still am.

But it is funny going back and reading some of the predictions - like in this thread - and also some of the designers' flagrant edition warring (I was reading a KQ interview last night and one of the former designers was simply obnoxious in his arguments for 4E). It reminds me, too, how glad I was to miss it all the first time around.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's probably not for you, and that's fine.

For me, 13th Age is the core of what I'd have expected from an actual 5th edition of D&D, that Next wasn't living up to. Something simple like the D&D I grew up on with some of the character customization from 3rd or 4th, but without most of the baggage of both.

In play, it runs very simple and sweet, which is definitely something for which I'm ready after 14 years of pushing the wargaming envelope the other direction.

That said, it definitely has some problems, and I'd tinker with it. Same with every D&D.

I also think they shot themselves in the foot a little bit by putting the Icon stuff up front (literally) and center, rather than easing into it.

Problem with 13th Age is t is probably oly oing to appeal to a small % of the 4E player base.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Problem with 13th Age is t is probably oly oing to appeal to a small % of the 4E player base.

Perhaps.

But it's also appealing to a "small" percentage of the 3.xE base, Pathfinder base, AD&D1E or 2E base and the other non-D&D bases.

Pelgrane Press also has a solid fanbase - largely because they make absolutely outstanding games - and I can imagine that some of them might be interested in Pelgrane's take (and, yes, I know Pelgrane published it rather than designed it) on an FRPG.

Also, as 13th Age was punched out without WotC's massive corporate overhead and funded by way of Kickstarter, it doesn't really to capture too much of the existing player base to be considered successful because, in the eyes of its owners, it has already succeeeded.

That's not to actually disagree with what you wrote, per se; it's just another perspective to consider.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think 13th age will be around in a couple of years.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I don't think 13th age will be around in a couple of years.

I'll still have my copy.

 

[Incenjucar]

4E is, unfortunately, very much unfinished. What did manage to get out was, for me, the best rules for the game I want to play, but it was riddled with gaps that demanded experimentation and fleshing-out. We never got elemental or shadow classes in any meaningful sense, and we never saw all the obvious things actually built out. I would have loved to have eventually seen a 4.5, revising everything into a cohesive, clean, sound whole, with all the silly math mistakes and the like fixed, and everything balance afresh with the knowledge gained, and with better tools for players to make their own stuff.

4E, ironically, ruined me for "classic" D&D. I can't go back to that now, because 4E made me realize what RPG I really do want, though it sadly will never be made now.

At least in my case, D&D going forward is a victim of 4E's success.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Problem with 13th Age is t is probably oly oing to appeal to a small % of the 4E player base.

Given that 13th Age is releasing books and 4e is not, I think it's going to appeal to a lot of them.

13th Age will also appeal to 4e players who:

- Appreciate the elegance of the 4e ruleset but are getting tired of hauling out the battle mat for every single combat.
- Enjoy tactical combat but are ready for a system where fights are a little quicker.
- Feel that WotC hadn't completely explored the 4e design space before they killed it.

Intentionally or not, the 13th Age rules are going to feel really familiar to 4e players in all the right ways. The game has ongoing support, unlike 4e. It simplifies combat without entirely throwing away the tactical aspect, which should appeal to a lot of 4e veterans. And it's eminently moddable, which should appeal to their DMs.

If you're a 4e player who is disappointed by the direction 5e appears to be taking, 13th Age is looking really good right now.

Will it be around in a few years? It's an indy game, so it's hard to say. But the core book has been so wildly successful (by indy standards) that the publisher is rushing out more books for it (the Bestiary and an 'unearthed arcana'-style expansion called 13 True Ways should appear within the next 3-4 months). If ever an indy game had a shot at long-term success, this is it.