|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 11:52PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
4e was less successful because people didn't love it, didn't want to play it and its because one very simple reason. It wasn't a good system.
No, 4E "failed" because deep incompatibilities between it and prior editions meant starting over, or simply rejecting it and continuing to use existing materials (and maybe whatever those Paizo guys were up to).
The contemporary GSL forbidding publishers from simultaneously supporting 3.x and 4E ended up kneecapping 4E before it really had a chance (dragging ass with the digital initiative and issuing an utterly useless SRD certainly didn't help either)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 11:58PM
#182
|
|
|
alot of people dont want to be a fighter/ cleric deal to be a paladin.
do we need more than 5 classes yes.
do we need a class bloat no.
but the following would work:
fighter
monk
ranger
paladin
rogue
sorcerer
wizard
swordmage
barbarian
bard
cleric
druid
others like the infamous psion and the ones from OE could go in a different book
classes like the ones from book of nine swords and tome of magic can just stay gone or end up as class themes instead
could dnd 5e survive with only having 5 classes, well yes, would it get the I left this ruleset players back? no.
for all what 4e got right, it did alot of things wrong
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:31AM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
4e was less successful because people didn't love it, didn't want to play it and its because one very simple reason. It wasn't a good system.
No, 4E "failed" because deep incompatibilities between it and prior editions meant starting over, or simply rejecting it and continuing to use existing materials (and maybe whatever those Paizo guys were up to).
The contemporary GSL forbidding publishers from simultaneously supporting 3.x and 4E ended up kneecapping 4E before it really had a chance (dragging ass with the digital initiative and issuing an utterly useless SRD certainly didn't help either)
I don't agree. If the game was awsome, the books alone would have been enough. Compatibility, digital, competition .. all these things become irrelevant if the game is awsome. Its really that simple. Everything WoTc did to screw it up even further after the fact didn't help and I agree with that, but the moment the 3 books hit the bookshelves and people got a hold of them, the games future was decided. Everything that came afterwards didn't matter because people's minds where already made up, in particular in the forum of digital opinion where today is the only thing that counts. Go on Youtube, search 4th edition D&D and you get hundreds of videos of people dogging the system. Most of these videos where made long before anything else about the systems history was written.
But I disagree with the word failed for the record. It has a following, a small one, but in the world of role-playing games if any other company had released it with lower expectations this game would have been considered a raving success. Its lesser success is based on its expectations of capturing a wider and larger audiance. By pencil and paper standards 4th edition represents a playstyle and a consumer that does exist, its a smaller market, but no less valid or important. Which is why I support the initiative to keep 4th edition alive and I think they should continue to support it, but I do understand the direction of NEXT and the reasons behind it. Wizards of the Coasts has their eye on a larger audiance and 4th edition playstyle simply doesn't support it. Even 4th edition was compatible with everything, even if it had an OGL, even if the writing was better and even if they did everything else right, the amount of people buying and playing the game would be only marginally higher. The simple truth is that the system just didn't speak to the role-playing audiance at large.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:39AM
#184
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
4E is a good system kernel.
A rough analogy of the fan reaction would be, uh, Star Trek 11? It's a good movie, but really it's only superficially Star Trek.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:47AM
#185
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
4E is a good system kernel.
A rough analogy of the fan reaction would be, uh, Star Trek 11? It's a good movie, but really it's only superficially Star Trek.
And yet Star Trek 11 is the highest grossing Star Trek movie in the franchise even with the inflation adjustment vs. Star Trek The Motion Picture.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:53AM
#186
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Oh man. Now I need a different terrible analogy.
Had incandecents been banned in 1995 (old GSL 3E lockout) when those curly bulbs were still stupid expensive (barebones 4E from just the first three books), and had those curly bulbs not used the Edison socket (4E incompatibilities), there would have been a mass revolt (fanbase rejection), and a black market for Mexican lightbulbs would have appeared overnight (Pathfinder).
That's slightly better, right?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:52PM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
And that's why I can't understand wanting to take classes out of core. What does it hurt letting someone play the class they loved in the game they love?
Asked and answered: it makes it less approachable for newbies. Thus additional classes belong in expansion modules, not the essential core which must be marketted to new players as easily as to existing fans.
That doesn't ring true for me. It's not the number of classes that would daunt new players but the familiarity of the archetypes.
Fighters, Warlords, Wizards, Barbarians, and Rogues would be fairly familiar character types from fantasy. Though Fighter and Rogue might be a bit vague, they're still descriptive. Sorcerer and Warlock would at least suggest magic. Druid and Bard might even be familiar given neo-paganism and celtic revivals. Given the inexplicable popularity of Harry Potter, they'd probably fight over the Wizard, expecting it to be a cool wand-wielder rather than a fire-and-forget guy out of the works of some old science fiction writer their grandparents may have read.
Paladin is actually pretty obscure. When I first heard of it, the only image it conjured up was "Have Gun, Will Travel." Cleric, to the modern ear sounds like one of two things. A "clerical worker," a paper-shuffling desk jockey or one of those "Islamist Clerics" who issue fatwas and declare jihads. Monk might bring up images of Friar Tuck or a certain defective detective rather than Kwai Chang Caine, and even then would be out of place.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:56PM
#188
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
And no, Tony, Vancian magic is not contrary to that principal. The most successful iteration of the game to date used a fully Vancian system, and kids had no trouble picking it up.
D&D was briefly a fad in the 80s. It's system - which wasn't as good as many of it's competitors, even in 1980 it was already falling behind the curve - was not the reason for the fad. It's tempting to take a simple correllation - 1e : bad system : tremendous succcess; 4e : good system : dismal faillure - and draw a completely invalid conclusion: bad system = success!
As successful as D&D was resting on it's "first RPG" and 80's-fad laurels, it wasn't a good system, and might well have been even more successful if it had kept pace with the industry, or even just lagged by less than a full decade. In fact, I'd theorize that D&D is the reason we have an RPG hobby at all - and the reason that the hobby is so small and 'niche.' The hobby could have been vastly more successful if D&D had been a more accessible game. D&D, because it was the first and briefly became a household name (albeit, one associated with Satanism), became the 'gateway' to the hobby. It gave many of us our first taste of roleplaying, and those of use who stayed with RPGs and became serious hobbyists have a place in our hearts for it because of that. However, for every one of us, there are many, many people who tried D&D and found it less than appealing, and only some of them gave other RPGs a try.
IMHO, the overwhelming success of MMOs shows how big a market RPGs could have been, if only they had been more accessible and had a flagship or 'gateway' product that sucked less.
I have to say I'm always entertained at watching people struggle to explain the culture that is role-playing and why older editions are more popular than new edition, but it never ceases to amaze me that people just can't or refuse to call a spade a spade.
Look its simple. 1e was successful and beloved because it was a good game and people loved playing.
Meh it was successful because it was first...and roleplaying itself is good, not because it was a good game, it successfully introduced me to roleplaying it did not keeping me or many others playing it not very long at all.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:30PM
#189
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2012
|
Meh it was successful because it was first...and roleplaying itself is good, not because it was a good game, it successfully introduced me to roleplaying it did not keeping me or many others playing it not very long at all.
Right, and not only was the RPG industry in its infancy back then, but in the 70's and 80's there was little or no competition from video games. If there was no such thing as table top RPGs and someone tried to sell 1E today, it wouldn't have anywhere near the success it did and would probably fail completely. There are far more entertainment options available now and they are extremely sophisticated so it would be next to impossible for a clunky, archaic non-electronic game to succeed today. 4E, on the other hand, might have a chance today if it were the first RPG ever because it has clear, consistent mechanics and its flavorful class design for martial characters more easily allows people to create the epic characters they see in movies like Lord of the Rings. Although it still likely wouldn't get a foothold. As with so many things, timing is everything and Gary Gygax came out with his game at the right time.
A giant reason many people prefer older editions is because that's what they grew up on. There is a monumentally huge difference between having an Atari as your first game console, and playing an Xbox or Playstation and then playing an Atari. I love tons of Super Nintendo games and gladly still play them, but there is no way that kids today would prefer an SNES to a PS3. Same thing with RPGs. The reason that the older editions remain popular is because that's what so many people are used to and fond of. If all the editions of D&D had been released at the same time, this would not be true. 4E would be the most popular, followed by 3E followed by 2E and so on. As someone who started with 4E and only later played 2E, this is plain as day. While 2E has some cool elements, it's obviously an early step in a long evolutionary process rather than a marvel of game design. There's no way it would have made it if it had been released after 4E.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 1:21AM
#190
|
|
|
As to dissuading the new players... a question must be raised... how many existing fans must be sacrificed on the alter of attracting new fans?
just the ones who are jerks.
Oh if only they all favoured the same playstyles.
Unfortunately, there are explitive word for anatomical regions people of variable civility on all sides of the debate.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
