You know 4th edition has succeeded when...

[Imaro]

WOTC inherited D&D from TSR. TSR didn't update as frequently as it should have, which is why it went down the tubes. When you're trying to win the game with a quarterback with a wooden leg, you can't expect to get very far. 2e survived for so long because TSR, or more specifically Lorraine Williams, was sinking cash into the bleeding cow to keep it on life support. After WOTC acquired TSR, then they gave the game some tweaks they thought would work. Being the original 2e D&D crew, they kept the sacred cows because they didn't realize the sacred cows were the problem. But as new blood was infused they could see them for what they were. 3.5 was hemorrhaging in the same way as 2e, despite the so-called "fundamental" differences. Now we have a properly redesigned game that is already showing its strength. The sacred cows are slaughtered and their worshipers are throwing themselves on the fire. That's fine with me. That just means fewer elitists to bog things down.

Uhm, how about Lorraine Williams was sinking money into Buck Rogers...
This is really close to the whole edition war thing...
Supplements always sell less than cores and as more are put out less sell, the same thing will eventually happen with 4e....
Yeah, fewer elitists huh...

 

[Corjay]

By "elitists", I should have said "rules elitists". People who think that crunching rules and numbers is what roleplaying is about. Last I checked, the definition of "roleplaying" is that you are "playing a role". But that's another issue. Let's get back to the topic at hand. By the way, for those who didn't quite understand the very plain English in the OP, this thread is for those who like 4e. You got a million 4e bashing threads to play in. Go play there. There's no reason to play here unless 1) your looking for a reason to be convinced to play 4e, in which I just say play it (with a GM who likes 4e. It's too easy for a GM who doesn't like the game to make it look bad to other players), or 2) you think this is prime territory to stir up trouble and renew your 4e bashing buzz. In either case, please just let the 4e players have one thread they can enjoy without being bogged down by 3.5 sour grapes negativity.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is disingenuous. You are redifining two weapon fighting.

Huh? Fighting with two weapons isn't two-weapon fighting? The poster said that he couldn't create a Rogue in 4e that was capable of wielding two weapons -- a false statement. Rogues can wield two weapons in 4e. He also said that Rogues couldn't fight with two weapons in D&D 4e. This is also false. Rogues can fight with two weapons (even gaining attack and defense bonuses for wielding two weapons in combat).

The one thing that that a Rogue can't do with two weapons in D&D 4e is qualify for an extra attack per round for holding two weapons at the same time. That's it.

Like I said earlier, if you narrowly construe "two weapon fighting" to mean only "attacking simultaneously with both weapons" or "gain an extra attack per combat round" then, no, you can't do that as a Rogue in D&D 4e. If, however, you're falling back on the English language (crazy!) and defining "two weapon fighting" as "fighting with or wielding two weapons in combat", then D&D 4e has you covered and any class can do it.

Period.

 

[Jack99]

What were you using the spreadsheets for?

I've used them to calculate xp because of the way 3.5 does cr vs level but that's about it. Curious as to what other people use 'em for.

Never used them myself as a DM, but I had a player who used them to figure out his tohit and damge. He was a fighter-barbarian-ranger-scout-dervish (or something along those lines) and between weapons with variable modifiers, favored enemy bonuses, flanking, dancing, moving, haste, polymorph to troll and a host of other modifiers, he needed it. Personally I never understood why it was an issue, but I guess not all are created equally, when it comes to math

As to why 4e has succeeded (for me)

Prep time, and it has brought the roleplaying back to my players and into my games.

Cheers

 

[fba827]

You know 4th edition has succeeded when...

... people are having at least (equal to or greater) as much fun as they did when they played previous editions, or, if they never played D&D before, at least had some fun.


Of course, everyone's definition of fun is different and relative. But "level of fun" is the defining value for success of any game (in my opinion).

 

[Relique du Madde]

players are so immersed in ther story arc development that they forget to ask for XP, or leveling up!

You obviously haven't played an XP-less system like True20? In XP based systems, what you said is a sign of playing a good game OR having a good story (or of having a tpk).

You know 4th edition has succeeded when...

... dialgo changes his signature to 'D&D 4th Edition (2008) is the one true game. All others are just poor imitations of the real thing.'

You sir are the thread's winner!

 

[Aus_Snow]

players are so immersed in ther story arc development that they forget to ask for XP, or leveling up!

Some may say that it has not much to do with 4th edition

And they'd be right too, in my books anyhow.

In fact, it's nothing to do with 4e at all (IMO), but regardless of that, if this particular system works for you and yours, more power to you (and them.)

 

[Corjay]

Uhm, how about Lorraine Williams was sinking money into Buck Rogers...

Just to show that my two points are cohesive: Lorraine Williams sank TSR because she was a bad business manager (that was my point about Buck Rogers). Her not updating D&D properly is another example of her mismanagement. In fact, her focus on Buck Rogers is one of the reasons she didn't give D&D its proper focus. Instead of producing games based on perpetually failing franchises, they should have been revamping D&D.

Now back to the topic.

 

[LostSoul]

In what ways hs 4th edition been a success in your table

Players trying "actions the rules don't cover" - and using the rules to resolve them.

 

[questing gm]

When your wife joins ENWorld