|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:04AM
#231
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
Anyway, I agree that 4E had its positives, but it wasn't as solid a system as some have claimed. It did what it was designed to do quite well, but it did suffer from a more restrictive approach, and it certainly didn't address... certain aspects that aren't worth arguing over and so will be left unmentioned. As to it being revolutionary... eh, it was different.
I'll never claim that 4e was perfect. I don't like playing it without a not-insignificant amount of house rules to increase the lethality and put more emphasis on exploration and non-combat challenges. It also had a pretty narrow vision on how to play it - cinematic, combat-heavy heroic high-fantasy (it was kind of a "fantasy seen thru Michael Bay's eyes). Some of the claims for why it's bad however, are absolutely ridiculous - this is my major complaint here.
Oh, and you mentioned 13th Age in one of your posts in another thread. What's your impression of it thus far? Myself, I'm quite impressed with what I've seen in the .pdf. It has addressed a number of my 4E peeve points, whilst keeping the more entertaining mechanics that might have actually sold me on 4E. Oh, and independence from minis is a big plus in my mind.
I honestly haven't picked it up yet, but everything that I've read from reviews and heard from people that have makes it sound like it's what D&D 5e should have been. I'll probably be more apt to rave about it once I pick it up, which should be here before too terribly long.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:29AM
#232
|
|
|
I suspect that ren1999 is onto something very real. Compare sales of 3e to that of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Both did a lot to introduce new players to the core classes and rules structure that would define most of 3e.
4e didn't get a video game and because of that there wasn't a "safe" environment for new players to learn and experiment with the rules. Nor was there a fan-base that had developped any personal interest and investment to narrative settings like the Forgotten Realms. While they drastically innovated the design of the game, they then mistakenly relied on the fandom for their old system and settings in a hobby where fans regularly reject anything new. I'm actually convinced that the video game approach is probably the most effective way to court new players to any table-top game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:33AM
#233
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
4e had a video game. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Drago...More importantly, this is more in the area of "marketing" and not "game design".
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:41AM
#234
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
OP: I think you're making some mountains out of some molehills on most of your points, but I completely agree with (3) Killing the Ecosystem. (I also think (6) Ugly Books is true, but I doubt it mattered that much.) Fewer people than you think really care about designer names, magazines, and some kind of digital table that I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
To me, the main thing that killed 4.0 was the updating: the CONSTANT updating. It became really clear really quickly that purchasing a book was a complete waste of money, because in a month it'd be changed and errata'd all to hell. That works great on a software project, but really, really poorly on a print product that involves character choices and designs that weren't intended to be updated every month with new rules. I guess that is really a "technology fail." Hopefully 5.0 will have a very solid, stable set of core rules and one book purchase will last for years!
Also, I didn't really care for the endless, endless options that kept getting cranked out: not only did it mean there were far too many options for any given anything, but combined with bad copy editing this meant there were tons and tons of junk flying out there that wasn't properly balanced. I'm not saying I think everything should be balanced: but when "everything is core" and "balance" seems to be your main goal, you can't just skimp on it. "Business model fail?" However I think 5.0 already fixed this one: they're working on a core set of rules and making everything else additional options: meaning, not everything is core and you can just pick and choose swaths of stuff you like instead of having it all. Definitely a lesson that seems to have been learned.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:50AM
#235
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
In my opinion 4th edition did not fail as a system.....but.
It is a vey combat focused system and that might not have been what people where looking for in a new edition of DnD.
What also seemed to upset people that campaign settings where changed to fit things that where asumed to be core in the new system, like the changes in forgotten realms to fit in the new races.
If it would have been introduced as this is a alternative ruleset you can use if your runing more combat intensive games it might still have worked as a product.
I come from a group that plays all kind of roleplay systems and the system is chosen by the DM/game master depending on what system would best represent the world and game style he had in mind.
4th edition still often comes up as the best system for fantasy games/settings that are very combat focused
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:55AM
#236
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
Oh, and you mentioned 13th Age in one of your posts in another thread. What's your impression of it thus far? Myself, I'm quite impressed with what I've seen in the .pdf. It has addressed a number of my 4E peeve points, whilst keeping the more entertaining mechanics that might have actually sold me on 4E. Oh, and independence from minis is a big plus in my mind.
I honestly haven't picked it up yet, but everything that I've read from reviews and heard from people that have makes it sound like it's what D&D 5e should have been. I'll probably be more apt to rave about it once I pick it up, which should be here before too terribly long.
I like it. It's definitely more of a "4.5" in some ways: character sheets still are focused around combat powers, skills go up each level for no reason other than to meet checks that also go up for no reason, magic items are still just extra encounter powers. But they did a good job of abstracting things that didn't matter and can easily be abstracted, like weapon types, armor, and money. They also thought of a few ideas that 5.0 did as well (monster damage is all averaged, both races and classes add to ability scores, theater-of-the-mind supported playstyle), and there are some really great ideas that are easily - and intended to be - cherry-picked for 5.0 games or many other types of D&D games (like the escalation die and "one unique thing"). On the other hand, some really good 5.0 ideas scream to be used in 13th Age as well (like advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, and getting rid of minor actions).
To me, it was worth picking up just to see some of the wilder, edgier ideas that 5.0 should but will probably never do that I can steal and put into 5.0 games. At the same time, 5.0 has already influenced my idea of what D&D should be to the point that I liberally borrowed from it as well to play 13th Age. My main takeaway is that between the two of them, you can really make one great D&D system!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 10:00AM
#237
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
-3- Killing the Ecosystem
3rd edition thrived in part because the system was open - any small publishing house that wanted to contribute to the game could do so. As a consequence, even gamers who had no plans to play D&D itself were purchasing Wizards products to use with their D20 campaign. An smaller companies filled the niches that WotC couldn't serve, keeping more players with the system. 4th edition was not open, so no ecosystem. Instead, the 3rd ed ecosystem gave birth to what is now D&Ds biggest rival.
Strategy + Legal FAIL.
I'm on board with this, and I'd add:
a) No pdf books. Seriously, in the digital age? You could as well been asking for piracy.
b) Not supporting the system with a constant stream of high quality adventure material.
c) Inadequate digital tools, with the Builder and the Adventure Tool not being able to run on any tablet or smartphone on the market. Shortsighted would be an understatement.
NOT -8- Game design
Surprisingly, 4th edition is a well-designed game that is buckets of fun to play. It's really everything around it that failed. All of these mistakes drove many more people away from the system than a mere rules update would have.
And this. Regrettably.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 10:04AM
#238
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
It is threads like these that remind me why the entire mission statement regarding 5th edition means it is doomed to failure.
It also reminds me how many people are spectacularly ignorant on rules, how they work, and how to make them work for your system; how other RPGs actually compare and contrast against 4e; what the actual strengths and weaknesses of the 4e system are; how people will try to shoehorn a system that does not fit their gaming style as well into their campaign and then blame the resulting failure on the system; and I'll say again how absolutely and blindly ignorant so many people are of how so many rules actually work and how to make them work well in your campaign.
PF wins because people that accomplished system mastery in 3.5 like making characters more than they like playing them - a game that makes system mastery less useful and reboots the entire time they spent learning that mastery in 3.5 will not sell for people like that. The same goes for people that have a hard time picking up new systems and rules (especially without having pre-concieved notions make them blind to the obvious).
More inline with the discussion; if 4e "failed", it was far more a factor of external influences - the 3.5 OGL and Pathfinder, market woes, recession, the advent and popularity of internet piracy, the decisions WotC made in handling 4e distribution.
But the real crux of the matter is that 4e didn't fail. It was a good system for what it was designed for; it was a logical evolution of D&D that started with later-years 3.5 material; and while it had/has its problems, it was an overall benefit to the gaming industry for a leading giant in the market to actually use the decades of experience to make a newer, better product.
But some people really like carburetors in their engines, even if fuel injection is better, cleaner, easier to start, use, and maintain.
This is very much the case. I think DDN is going to be a huge shock to WotC when it putters along. Not quite bombing but not as profitible as they hoped. They NEED to embrace what MtG has embraced and that is proper electronic support for the game. The competition is just too fierce now.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 10:04AM
#239
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
Alrighty. This zombie thread is getting pretty edition warry in some parts, so I'll be closing it.
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
