Damn you Alphastream. I like you, but you really have to stop formulating your answers in such a way that I am reduced to that most horrible of internet forum clichés...
+1
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
The game fixed core gameplay problems. Issues like needing a cleric, the x-hour adventuring day, low level play being so haphazard, arcane rules like grapple/disarm/sunder, spellcaster vs melee issues at high levels, monsters not scaling well/easily... these were massive issues that truly hurt play in previous editions. They were largely all fixed, or at the very least true innovation was brought to them.
Well, they painted the "cleric" in different colors, but you still needed to pick one of them. The x-hour adventuring day was still complained about from day one. Spellcaster vs melee was indeed fixed. Monster scaling wasn't fixed until MM3 damage overhaul.
The game had a far more stable math and defined rules. This was the first edition where gamers had very few arguments.
Really? Threat of 20 pages and more of arguments in the RQ&A boads show a different picture. Unclear formulations, formulations changing without any reason and mix of words used in a game mechanic form and colloquial form all caused just as much rule arguments than before
I think it will carry the same legacy as New Coke.
Too much deviation from the original product in an attempt to make money and compete with rival producers of similar products (Pepsi, or in this case, the video game / MMO industry).
Conversely you could say the same legacy as Crystal Pepsi
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
Damn you Alphastream. I like you, but you really have to stop formulating your answers in such a way that I am reduced to that most horrible of internet forum clichés...
Well, they painted the "cleric" in different colors, but you still needed to pick one of them. The x-hour adventuring day was still complained about from day one. Spellcaster vs melee was indeed fixed. Monster scaling wasn't fixed until MM3 damage overhaul.
I'm speaking to the broad legacy, not the fine points. There are zillions of stories of tables doing just fine without a leader. Can it be a problem? Sure. Can PCs do without? Yep. That was not true of any previous edition. In fact, various editions fell apart if you took away band-aids (such as wands of cure l. wounds in 3E). The same is true of the adventuring day. By and large daily powers weren't so incredibly important that you either couldn't have a single encounter in a day or that you couldn't press forward and have four in a day. Totally fixed? No. But the innovation was tremendous. It is beyond rare to have what was a very common scenario:
DM's plan: Last episode the party visited the first floor of the Moathouse. This gaming session they will explore its second level. But, to keep this feeling like a fun campaign, I'll have a short bit involving some of the NPCs of the town of Hommlet. And, to make things interesting, I'm gonna throw a few wolves at them on the way to the Moathouse to replace the frogs they killed.
Actual event: Wolves are brutal and nearly cause a TPK. Party heads back home, and now the DM has to scramble to create more town events (or have the town be lame/background) and then head back to the Moathouse the very next day. Depending on the edition, weeks might pass as the party heals, with those who aren't hurt having nothing to do (except perhaps explore the town).
Now, imagine that when they finally head out again they reach the first room, and slime and zombies send them right back to town again!
That stuff happened all the time! It led to handwaiving rests, or to bizarre things like half-empty dungeons and the other inhabitants not realizing it, etc. 4E was insanely innovative here.
While monster damage needed adjustments, we still had tons of great encounters without them (most of LFR had a great challenge level for most tables before the math fix). The core concepts were incredibly sound and innovative.
Really? Threat of 20 pages and more of arguments in the RQ&A boads show a different picture. Unclear formulations, formulations changing without any reason and mix of words used in a game mechanic form and colloquial form all caused just as much rule arguments than before
I really disagree. The number of discussions we had with AD&D, 2E, and 3E were insanely huge. Worse, they could have no solution. They made the early Rod of Reaving discussions look like walks in the park. Simple things like charm person had just no definitive solution in early editions. And, there was no common basis. Just read the AD&D section on vision and try to ever have a proper AD&D argument about what Gary or another AD&D designer meant!
People (and gamers) like to argue (especially on the Internet). But the number of at-the-table arguments was vastly lower than previous editions. What a power does was clear almost all the time. How a skill check worked, how an item worked... these were all clear, largely due to being built on a common language and basis. Also decreasing, and for the same reason, were house rules. Home campaigns used to have pages of DM house rules and endless discussions over how something worked. That a session of Lair Assault can run without the table falling apart is incredible. It wasn't like that in 3E, and the thought of it wasn't possible in 2E. It is a sea change, in my book.
And, I note that one of the D&D Next design goals is to empower the DM. An effect of 3E and especially 4E was that the player knew the rules better than the DM. The number of options, and the presence of a stable core system, allowed the DM to largely trust the player to say what their PC could do. But, the impact of this was also that non-attack actions had very little value, as did improvisation. As a result, the DM didn't have an active role in the game's narrative (especially during combat). In an era where RPGs (especially indy games) delved in collaborative story-telling (and making things up on the fly), 4E was cemented in a very on-off reality of what worked. A beautiful system, but with very little creative improvisation. The same was not true of prior editions (a spell like Grease, for example, or many illusions). It will be interesting to see where D&D Next ends up on this and even to see over time how other future D&D editions and even other RPGs innovate or go back to the 4E model.
Alphastream, I agree with you in terms of what 4th edition set out to do and what they acomplished. In its own right, from a mechanical stand point, it was an improvement. But despite that, its still not what 4th edition will be remembered for because ultimatly the punch line of 4th edition was "1st, 2nd and 3rd edition players didn't like". That's a generalization of course, I'm sure there are plenty that did from all previous editions, but the only place where I have ever seen a consistant consensus that 4th edition is a better game (noting that even I put it above 2nd edition in my all time top 10 list) is here on this forum, exclusively.
I have never seen this level of consensus anywhere online, any gaming group I play with or participate with, at conventions.. anywhere. All I ever here anywhere except on this forum is how much people dislike it.
I think evidence of that is starting to come to light with what the NEW GOAL of D&D is in 5th edition. Suddenly their seems to be an interested in reuniting the D&D community and its because 4th edition fractured it so badly. This is why I think it will always be known as the edition that chopped the D&D fan base in half. And I agree with you on every point, but when you discuss what's wrong with the game with someone who doesn't like it, they would use the same points to describe what it was about the edition that they hated.
Its kind of a strange phenomen where people agree what the game set out to do and what it acomplished, but some uses as a basis to describe what is great with the game and other use it as examples of what is wrong with it.
New and casual players flocked to this edition. Character generation was much easier, there were almost no bad builds/choices, and one rules component for the most part worked like another similar component.
People mostly learn D&D from friends, and this brings them into whatever version their friends are playing. I know just as many people who started with Pathfinder after 4e came out as started with 4e. Character generation was easier only in that that the character builder had all of the latest rules in one place. Building a character by hand from the books was just as hard as always once a bunch of books came out. And while it is generally hard to build a bad leader or striker, it is very easy to build a bad defender or controller.
For example, in previous editions some people saw spellcasters as just too complex. Now, all classes were on the same footing.
Actually, this turned out to be a flaw, not an advantage. Putting all of the classes on the same power structure did help mechanical balance, but at the expense of variety. People who wanted to play complex classes found the 4e structures boring, while those that wanted simplicty felt they where still too complex. The first group was too small of a minority to matter much, but the second was big enough that even WotC was forced to act. The Essentials classes favor the second group with mechanically simpler classes.
The 15 minute work day problem was actually worse in 4e then in 3e. In 4e everybody had daily powers, letting the party dump a huge amount of fire power into a fight when everybody choose to use their daily powers, and it gave the party even more reason to rest after having done so.
Alphastream, I agree with you in terms of what 4th edition set out to do and what they acomplished. In its own right, from a mechanical stand point, it was an improvement. But despite that, its still not what 4th edition will be remembered for because ultimatly the punch line of 4th edition was "1st, 2nd and 3rd edition players didn't like". That's a generalization of course, I'm sure there are plenty that did from all previous editions, but the only place where I have ever seen a consistant consensus that 4th edition is a better game (noting that even I put it above 2nd edition in my all time top 10 list) is here on this forum, exclusively.
I have never seen this level of consensus anywhere online, any gaming group I play with or participate with, at conventions.. anywhere. All I ever here anywhere except on this forum is how much people dislike it.
I think evidence of that is starting to come to light with what the NEW GOAL of D&D is in 5th edition. Suddenly their seems to be an interested in reuniting the D&D community and its because 4th edition fractured it so badly. This is why I think it will always be known as the edition that chopped the D&D fan base in half. And I agree with you on every point, but when you discuss what's wrong with the game with someone who doesn't like it, they would use the same points to describe what it was about the edition that they hated.
That's an odd perspective, IMO. 4e certainly wasn't perfect, but it didn't chop the D&D fan base in half. The thing that has created the largest rift in D&D fans is the GSL + OGL combo platter that made pathfinder possible. With every other edition of D&D, if you wanted to continue to play D&D, you really only had two choices when it ended: continue to play with the edition that you've got, which will go unsupported from that point on, or adopt the new edition. However, the GSL + OGL allowed a 3rd party to resurrect 3e. Now, you have a 3rd option: continue playing the edition you already like, and just buy your stuff from a different company. This eliminates part of the incentive to adopt the new edition. And let's face it, adopting a new edition is a pain; you have to reinvest in the books, which means either taking a total or partial loss on your old books, and invest quite a bit of time learning the new rules.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
That's an odd perspective, IMO. 4e certainly wasn't perfect, but it didn't chop the D&D fan base in half. The thing that has created the largest rift in D&D fans is the GSL + OGL combo platter that made pathfinder possible. With every other edition of D&D, if you wanted to continue to play D&D, you really only had two choices when it ended: continue to play with the edition that you've got, which will go unsupported from that point on, or adopt the new edition. However, the GSL + OGL allowed a 3rd party to resurrect 3e. Now, you have a 3rd option: continue playing the edition you already like, and just buy your stuff from a different company. This eliminates part of the incentive to adopt the new edition. And let's face it, adopting a new edition is a pain; you have to reinvest in the books, which means either taking a total or partial loss on your old books, and invest quite a bit of time learning the new rules.
An excellent point but I would like to add, that one thing that made the transition from AD&D to 2e, to 2.5e to 3e and finally 3.5 easier, was that despite of the edition changes there was still enough of a resemblance to the previous editions that one could, with out too much effort, adapt pervious edition material to the new edition (which helps when you have invested many $$$ in various edition material). Hence adoption of new edition was easier; I mean I still used many 1e and 2e source books during the 3e days.
The same could not be said about 4e, the system was far too different. I think that's a point that really made your "third choice" the more adopted choice as people could continue to play 3.5e and still get books. My group didn't pick that option and just continued our 3.5 campaign and when it was done just switched to a different system. But other groups I know kept to 3.5 and are now huge Patherfinder fans.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
I also have to disagree with the arguements quote.There were still just as many arguements on various things as there was before.I can remember plenty of arguements/disagreements involving interpretations of the powers and combat system.
Also I kind of got the feeling that the game was trying to streamline things too much.Someone pointed out that there was more balance within the classes .Yes things were way more balanced but to the point that everything had such a familiar build to it that the balance gave way to repetition.Far less variety for classes within the game at least in my opinion.
Also in regards to the streamline effects was how it was set up in regards to adventuring.It felt very much like a video game to me in this way.Things like "If the party has characters that use a bow,greatsword,mace and shield etc,then they will find a magic bow,greatsword,mace and shield as treasure from the parcels you reward.This was further backed up by decreasing the money rewarded for selling magic items.This felt very much like playing something like final fantasy to me.The weapons/armor you find are always spot on upgrades for the adventurers involved.
Now the above was not set in stone by any means and I did scrap that silly idea from day one.
That's an odd perspective, IMO. 4e certainly wasn't perfect, but it didn't chop the D&D fan base in half. The thing that has created the largest rift in D&D fans is the GSL + OGL combo platter that made pathfinder possible. With every other edition of D&D, if you wanted to continue to play D&D, you really only had two choices when it ended: continue to play with the edition that you've got, which will go unsupported from that point on, or adopt the new edition. However, the GSL + OGL allowed a 3rd party to resurrect 3e. Now, you have a 3rd option: continue playing the edition you already like, and just buy your stuff from a different company. This eliminates part of the incentive to adopt the new edition. And let's face it, adopting a new edition is a pain; you have to reinvest in the books, which means either taking a total or partial loss on your old books, and invest quite a bit of time learning the new rules.
An excellent point but I would like to add, that one thing that made the transition from AD&D to 2e, to 2.5e to 3e and finally 3.5 easier, was that despite of the edition changes there was still enough of a resemblance to the previous editions that one could, with out too much effort, adapt pervious edition material to the new edition (which helps when you have invested many $$$ in various edition material). Hence adoption of new edition was easier; I mean I still used many 1e and 2e source books during the 3e days.
The same could not be said about 4e, the system was far too different. I think that's a point that really made your "third choice" the more adopted choice as people could continue to play 3.5e and still get books. My group didn't pick that option and just continued our 3.5 campaign and when it was done just switched to a different system. But other groups I know kept to 3.5 and are now huge Patherfinder fans.
What material are you talking about, specifically, that could be translated without too much effort pre 4e but could not be done without too much effort after 4e? I ask this question seriously, because I still have my 3e books and a few of my AD&D 2e books. Campaign settings are largely fluff; if I wanted to run a forgotten realms game for 4e, I could just open my 3e FR setting book. If I wanted to run a Ravenloft game for 4e, I still have all my 3e Ravenloft books and my AD&D 2e Van Richten's Guides.
Going to things that are not entirely fluff, we can look at adventures. Adventures are largely easily adaptable. The map and plot stays the same. The only thing you need to change is the encounter makeup (4e made encounter design much more streamlined than it was in 3e) and the XP/treasure.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
