Poll: Are they missing the point of the 4E things they put in 5E?



I personally think that they don't understand why people liked 4E and have missed the point of the mechanics they have included.
The bigger question is I think can they sell 4th ed material. 4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Bellchanger, could you maybe give some examples of the sorts of things that you mean?

4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

The differences between 4E and other editions is often vastly exaggerated.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Bellchanger, could you maybe give some examples of the sorts of things that you mean?

4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

The differences between 4E and other editions is often vastly exaggerated.



 Maybe but if you don't like vancian/AEDU it really does limit your options. I do not like class roles at al, and I do not like AEDU applied acrsoss all of the classes. I did like some AEDU clases with my favourites being the Rogue, Wizard and Bard. Thats why I have been big on the warlock at least resembling the 4th ed warlock even though it did exist in 3.5. An AEDU class existing alongside a vancian class I could dig that or even an AEDU wizard varient could be sweet. 4th ed didn't give me that option though and it cut alot of stuff 3.5 could actually do and it cut alot of the 3.5 classes and races from the core rules because they did not have enough space to fit them in due to AEDU class design.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
D&D Next is basically taking off where 3.5 left with a dash of 4E, a pinch of innovation, a dose of progress and a torrential of old school- it's going backwards but some new bells and whistles. Most of those bells and whistles are because of 4E (the future!).
"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.



 I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.

 If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.

 Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.

I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.

If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.

Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.

I'm sorry, this is going to sound like I'm just being snarky, but I'm asking this sincerely: Is there a point somewhere in there that I missed that was meant to be a response to what I said? Because your response seems totally non sequitor.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I think they're missing the picture when it comes to 4E but whether or not it's because they just don't know or are choosing to ignore it is up for debate. I think WotC is trying to regain a huge swath of lost customers and they probably think catering to their playstyles is likely the best place to start. That means full-vancian, HD, weapon/spell progression, classes designed off of concept rather than roles/functionality, and loosely descripted spells.
Bellchanger, could you maybe give some examples of the sorts of things that you mean?

4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

The differences between 4E and other editions is often vastly exaggerated.



Like how they implemented hit dice which is supposed to be like healing surges, but completely missed the point that healing surges were there to limit healing over the course of a day.

How at will spells were meant to put you on par with other classes with encounter and daily powers pushing you over the edge for one round or one battle. Instead we get at will spells that you only use once you run out of daily spells because they are so underpowered and unimaginative. I went through in another thread and posted a wall of text to explain.
D&D Next is basically taking off where 3.5 left with a dash of 4E, a pinch of innovation, a dose of progress and a torrential of old school- it's going backwards but some new bells and whistles. Most of those bells and whistles are because of 4E (the future!).



"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.



 I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.

 If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.

 Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.



This is off topic. Do they or do they not understand why people liked 4E? Do they or do they not realize they missed the point of the mechanics they included from 4E? That's on topic.
"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.

I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.

If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.

Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.

I'm sorry, this is going to sound like I'm just being snarky, but I'm asking this sincerely: Is there a point somewhere in there that I missed that was meant to be a response to what I said? Because your response seems totally non sequitor.



 You are claiming that the differences between 4th ed and other versions of D&D are not that great. The differences are quite signifigant. If you don't like tactical minis 4th ed may not be the game for you. If you hate vancian pre 4th ed may not be for you. Its an absolute and if one of those bothers you to the extent it ruins oyour game you are not gonna like 4th ed/pre 4th ed. If you like 2nd ed and hate d20 3rd ed or 4th ed won't be for you.

 Some things are just so fundamental to that edition if you don;t like it it is kind of hard to get around it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.

I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.

If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.

Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.

I'm sorry, this is going to sound like I'm just being snarky, but I'm asking this sincerely: Is there a point somewhere in there that I missed that was meant to be a response to what I said? Because your response seems totally non sequitor.



 You are claiming that the differences between 4th ed and other versions of D&D are not that great. The differences are quite signifigant. If you don't like tactical minis 4th ed may not be the game for you. If you hate vancian pre 4th ed may not be for you. Its an absolute and if one of those bothers you to the extent it ruins oyour game you are not gonna like 4th ed/pre 4th ed. If you like 2nd ed and hate d20 3rd ed or 4th ed won't be for you.

 Some things are just so fundamental to that edition if you don;t like it it is kind of hard to get around it.



yep.
The problem I see with some of the 4th type things they have tried in next is that they dont want to admit that the ideas came from 4th so they do it in a inferior way( im looking at you mooks).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I'm not sure who the 'they' in the poll refers to, but I voted yes assuming that 'they' are the D&DNext developers and several prolific posters on this site.

I have played and loved all editions of D&D. I haven't playtested D&d Next but I like the look of it so far. However I do feel that 'they' don't have a clue what 4E is about. This is because 4E is many different things to different people, as all previous editions of D&D were, and every group probably plays it differently.



Thus Zardnaar in post 4 above suggesting the vancian/AEDU is an issue separating 4E from pre-4E editions. Well, it's not an issue for me. I like the 'Essential 4E' classes where warriors and thieves focus on at-will powers, while wizards on memorising dailies.



AEDU vs Vancian (a totally false opposition) is nothing to do with why I like 4E or what I consider important in 4E. In my case, I like how the underlying mechanics of character creation allow each PC to shine in combat in a specific role; and how outside combat the underlying mechanics of character creation mean that no single PC can do everything themselves. Both of these mechanics happen invisibly (for players who are starting out anyway, and don't have a clue about roles and whatnot) and serve to bring out teamwork, binding groups of PCs (and therefore groups of players) together quickly, in a way that did not happen so effortlessly in previous editions, in my experience anyway.



For me, its this idea of team-building which is so important and unique to 4E, built-in as it is into the very core mechanic - because each and every class and role has one or two flaws during roleplay/non-combat encounters and combat encounters that can only be mitigated by relying on other members of the team. I think that this is a GOAL that would have been worth keeping it D&DN even if they ditched the (unnecessary) EADU/classes/roles/complex tactical-combat and so on.  


You are claiming that the differences between 4th ed and other versions of D&D are not that great. The differences are quite signifigant. If you don't like tactical minis 4th ed may not be the game for you. If you hate vancian pre 4th ed may not be for you.

Wow, is that really all that it takes for you to consider the differences "fundemental"? Because if so, then the problem is just clearly that we have very different definitions of "fundemental".

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I think 4th. is the most changed edition, but at the same time its still D&D too me. I always felt that most people who claimed it was warcraft or an MMO were smoking some crazy stuff, in fact the people I play with that play warcraft dont think they are anything alike.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I think there is a bit of both going on. On some things I think they have missed why people liked 4e. Particularly the people who liked the tactical aspects of the game have simply been missed. On some things, I think they are well aware that people liked certain features of 4e but are intentionally not building 5e around them because they need to produce some comprise with the people who disliked those features of 4e. Classes tightly pinned to specific roles and balance through identical power structure are probably the big two here.
I think they do not understand why 4e didn't sell and are repeating the same mistakes.

No.  This argument does not hold up. 

Hint:  1e, 2e, and 3e aren't selling very well either. 

Stop edition warring.  The red herring that is 4e sales success/failure is nothing more than a way for people who already hate 4e to go "SEE!  Look!  I was right all along!"

No.  Explain your position without resorting to edition war tropes, and you might be taken seriously.

+1

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
What I feel like 4e was missing is non mechanical.    Everything about 4e worked great mechancially like a machine.   Everyone had a role, every monster had a role, every encounter worked great for the level it was built for.    The problem is every thing that had no purpose in combat was removed.  Their adventures were a string of encounters without any real story between.  There was very little advice on world building, city building, or story building.  Their sourcebooks were filtered down to basically cliff notes.  All the interesting portions of spells and magic items were removed.  Monster background and climate info was removed.   Now it was more important that the monster fit the encounter instead of the world.  Were their GMs that were able to get around this stuff?  Yeah there were but I bet almost all of those GMs were from older editions.   But even I found myself falling into encounter builder role instead of the story builder role.  

We are much to blame as WotC too.  Everyone said "We don't need stats for Good aligned monsters! Give us more monsters we can use in our game!"  "The staff of magi broke my game, nerf it!" "Why do they have the cost for a mule in the equipment list?  Who buys a mule?  It only has 11 hit points!"
    

It was turned into a card game, with all the rules printed on the power cards or monster blocks without any real fluff to educate the GMs and players.  And WotC figured this out!  We started getting books more that had all that stuff back in them.  The Monster Vault, Mordenkanians, the Feywild book were all fantastic books and I really think that 4e could have been corrected without the need for new edition.   Do I think WotC understands what we liked?  Yes.  I do.  The real question is whether they understand that 4e was missing elements to make it into a roleplaying game instead of just a tabletop tactical game. 

The game needs the ability to build good GMs as well as awesome characters for the players.  They can do that by making good adventures, good sourcebooks, and good tools for GMs to make their own.  They need advice on how to turn the ideas players have into actions, instead of listing all the actions the players can do on their character sheet.   But most of all, story elements should not be trumped by mechanics.
What I feel like 4e was missing is non mechanical.    Everything about 4e worked great mechancially like a machine.   Everyone had a role, every monster had a role, every encounter worked great for the level it was built for.    The problem is every thing that had no purpose in combat was removed.  Their adventures were a string of encounters without any real story between.  There was very little advice on world building, city building, or story building.  Their sourcebooks were filtered down to basically cliff notes.  All the interesting portions of spells and magic items were removed.  Monster background and climate info was removed.   Now it was more important that the monster fit the encounter instead of the world.  Were their GMs that were able to get around this stuff?  Yeah there were but I bet almost all of those GMs were from older editions.   But even I found myself falling into encounter builder role instead of the story builder role.  


That's because they had you develop the story, rather than the rulebook do it for you.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

That's because they had you develop the story, rather than the rulebook do it for you.




I'm well aware of that but anyone that could do that from scratch could do it just as well with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon. There was hardly anything in the first couple years of 4e that helped the GM do anything but make encounters.   I never said that the rulebook is supposed to develop a story.  But there needs to be more than stat blocks and mechanics for a GM to work with.

There was very little advice on world building, city building, or story building. 

Monster background and climate info was removed.

Check out the DMG.  Chapter 8, "Campaigns", is 18 pages on designing and running campaigns, including story.  Chapter 9, "The World", is 24 pages on world building.  Chapter 11, "Fallcrest", is an example town that can easily be used as a template for your own city building.

Or DMG 2: Chapter 1, "Group Storytelling", is almost 30 pages focused only on story building.  Chapter 5, "Adventures" includes information on organizations and campaign arcs.  And Chapter 6, "Paragon Campaigns", gives a number of great examples for plots as well as detailing Sigil, the City of Doors.

The MM was certainly on the dry side, but I suggest checking out the later monster books (like Monster Vault).  They are chock full of story and background information.

Truth creates butthurt.
...
Less butthurt now?

This phrase "butthurt" that's become popular with the kids lately, what's that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be something homophobic? Or just a crude **** joke?

All of the above.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Truth creates butthurt.
...
Less butthurt now?

This phrase "butthurt" that's become popular with the kids lately, what's that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be something homophobic? Or just a crude **** joke?


Honestly, I always just assumed kids liked saying butt.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
It's a reference to spanking babies.  He was calling mand12 a baby.
Like how they implemented hit dice which is supposed to be like healing surges, but completely missed the point that healing surges were there to limit healing over the course of a day.

One of the Alt Healing Systems presented in the last couple packets is a nod to 4e style healing. Is it "there" yet? Obviously not. I don't think we have a finished product to critique yet. When all is said and done, do I think there will be a 4e-esque healing system? Yes. I don't see why we wouldn't.

I also don't pretend that the healing surge mechanic of 4e was the end-all-be-all of healing systems. It has its flaws as well. Like everything else, good and bad luggage.

How at will spells were meant to put you on par with other classes with encounter and daily powers pushing you over the edge for one round or one battle. Instead we get at will spells that you only use once you run out of daily spells because they are so underpowered and unimaginative.

Um... dude, that was all AEDU. Generally, every class' best choice was to open with their Encounters and Dailies. Only resorting to At-Wills when they were out of other, better options.

BTW, when you say "spells", are you alluding to wizards specifically?
"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.




Well, me not liking some things (chiefly AEDU) was fundemental enough for me to stop buying WoTC stuff.....

 
Bellchanger, could you maybe give some examples of the sorts of things that you mean?

4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

The differences between 4E and other editions is often vastly exaggerated.



This. 3.5 is, IMO, more different from 2e than 4e is from 3.5.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome


 Some things are just so fundamental to that edition if you don;t like it it is kind of hard to get around it.



4e can be played without minis, and can be played non-tactically. it's not even hard.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I think there is a bit of both going on. On some things I think they have missed why people liked 4e. Particularly the people who liked the tactical aspects of the game have simply been missed. On some things, I think they are well aware that people liked certain features of 4e but are intentionally not building 5e around them because they need to produce some comprise with the people who disliked those features of 4e. Classes tightly pinned to specific roles and balance through identical power structure are probably the big two here.



You do understand that 4E fans don't care about those two things right? I mean I'd love to see a controller style fighter as long as it continues to be able to contribute equally in most situations like combat, exploration, and socialization. I haven't seen anyone complain about not having identical power structures.
Bellchanger, could you maybe give some examples of the sorts of things that you mean?

4th ed was very different and there is a fundamental breakdown between 4th ed and other D&D versions.

The differences between 4E and other editions is often vastly exaggerated.



This. 3.5 is, IMO, more different from 2e than 4e is from 3.5.



I disagree.  The changes in 3.5 were for the most part natural progressions of what 2e was doing.  Lots of what 4e did were completely new and not progressions at all.  There were some progressions, but the many completely new ways of doing things overshadowed them.
I didn't vote in the polls, because I haven't talked to the designers, so I don't know what their thoughts are in regards 4E mechanics. What I do see, however, is that the designers are EXPERIMENTING with similar mechanics in the playtest, which is objectively a good thing, even if they haven't got it right yet. It so happens that you dislike the implementation of these systems and subsystems, and on a general level, I think I agree with you, but this doesn't indicate that the designers are disconnected and oblivious to how 4E worked.

It just means that they're trying something different. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I didn't vote in the polls, because I haven't talked to the designers, so I don't know what their thoughts are in regards 4E mechanics. What I do see, however, is that the designers are EXPERIMENTING with similar mechanics in the playtest, which is objectively a good thing, even if they haven't got it right yet. It so happens that you dislike the implementation of these systems and subsystems, and on a general level, I think I agree with you, but this doesn't indicate that the designers are disconnected and oblivious to how 4E worked.

It just means that they're trying something different. 



I voted that the knew.  Why?  Because they've said that they know.  Given all the complaints on these forums and actual feedback via the playtest and other avenues spelling out what they want, it's completely unreasonable to think that the designers don't know.
I haven't seen anyone complain about not having identical power structures.



This. In fact, I see a lot of 4e fans complaining about all martial classes getting ED. I'm one of them. This is what we're talking about when we say they're missing the point.
I disagree.  The changes in 3.5 were for the most part natural progressions of what 2e was doing.  Lots of what 4e did were completely new and not progressions at all.  There were some progressions, but the many completely new ways of doing things overshadowed them.

Hmmm. Just because  one thing is a progression of another thing, does not necessarily mean they are closely related.

After all, a microwave oven is nothing more than a natural progression of the first caveman's campfire.

There was very little advice on world building, city building, or story building.  Their sourcebooks were filtered down to basically cliff notes.


I am curious: you did read the adventure and campaign building sections of the DMG and DMG2, right? You read the sample settings they included with those books (Nentir Vale and Sigil), right? You read through the background information provided in the campaign setting books they released, right? You read the background information they provided with each race and in the sections in each of the splat books, right? You found all of that text lacking or just lacking in comparison to something else?
I disagree.  The changes in 3.5 were for the most part natural progressions of what 2e was doing.  Lots of what 4e did were completely new and not progressions at all.  There were some progressions, but the many completely new ways of doing things overshadowed them.

Hmmm. Just because  one thing is a progression of another thing, does not necessarily mean they are closely related.

After all, a microwave oven is nothing more than a natural progression of the first caveman's campfire.




Clearly the changes I refered to are FAR closer than fire v. microwave ovens. As in, closely related. 
What I feel like 4e was missing is non mechanical.    Everything about 4e worked great mechancially like a machine.   Everyone had a role, every monster had a role, every encounter worked great for the level it was built for.    The problem is every thing that had no purpose in combat was removed.  Their adventures were a string of encounters without any real story between.  There was very little advice on world building, city building, or story building.  Their sourcebooks were filtered down to basically cliff notes.  All the interesting portions of spells and magic items were removed.  Monster background and climate info was removed.   Now it was more important that the monster fit the encounter instead of the world.  Were their GMs that were able to get around this stuff?  Yeah there were but I bet almost all of those GMs were from older editions.   But even I found myself falling into encounter builder role instead of the story builder role.  

We are much to blame as WotC too.  Everyone said "We don't need stats for Good aligned monsters! Give us more monsters we can use in our game!"  "The staff of magi broke my game, nerf it!" "Why do they have the cost for a mule in the equipment list?  Who buys a mule?  It only has 11 hit points!"
    

It was turned into a card game, with all the rules printed on the power cards or monster blocks without any real fluff to educate the GMs and players.  And WotC figured this out!  We started getting books more that had all that stuff back in them.  The Monster Vault, Mordenkanians, the Feywild book were all fantastic books and I really think that 4e could have been corrected without the need for new edition.   Do I think WotC understands what we liked?  Yes.  I do.  The real question is whether they understand that 4e was missing elements to make it into a roleplaying game instead of just a tabletop tactical game. 

The game needs the ability to build good GMs as well as awesome characters for the players.  They can do that by making good adventures, good sourcebooks, and good tools for GMs to make their own.  They need advice on how to turn the ideas players have into actions, instead of listing all the actions the players can do on their character sheet.   But most of all, story elements should not be trumped by mechanics.



I wish people would actually read the rule books before commenting.

4E DMG 16-29 Is all about how to run a great game covering things like preparing, modes of the game including exploration, conversation, encounters, and passing time, narration, pacing, props, dispensing information, improvising.

4E DMG 70-93 is all about skill challenges, puzzles, traps and hazards.

4E DMG 94-117 is all about fixing story problems, building an adventure, quests, adventure setting, cast of NPCs.

4E DMG 130- is all about campaigns, themes, super adventures, story, beginning, running, and ending campaigns.

4E DMG 148-172 is all about the game world, civilization (and cities), the wild, the planes, the gods, artifacts, and languages.

4E DMG 198-205 is filled with an entire village created with very little stats and mostly role playing information.

4E DMG 206-208 is filled with a campaign setting created with very little stats and mostly role playing information.

4E DMG 210 is a massive story filled page for the adventure following it.

We understand that you don't like 4E, but please just mark the third option on the survey and go somewhere else, somewhere that you will be less tempted to edition war.


I personally think that they don't understand why people liked 4E and have missed the point of the mechanics they have included.


I think they do not understand why 4e didn't sell and are repeating the same mistakes.

No.  This argument does not hold up. 

Hint:  1e, 2e, and 3e aren't selling very well either. 

Stop edition warring.  The red herring that is 4e sales success/failure is nothing more than a way for people who already hate 4e to go "SEE!  Look!  I was right all along!"

No.  Explain your position without resorting to edition war tropes, and you might be taken seriously.

Wow. Truth creates butthurt. 

It didn't sell cause it was not compatible with 3e. They are doing it again. If they want it to be successful they should make an improved version of Pathfidner. A 3.85, if you will. 

Less butthurt now?




They stopped producing 3E, so that must mean 3E failed too right? No the answer is wizards failed.
In my opinion none of the editions were failures.

Is the purpose of this thread to presume that if they understood what made 4e fans like 4e, that somehow the playtest packets would be different? That seems awfully presumtious.

My mind is a deal-breaker.