Quote from: finarvyn;963269I have to confess that this was one of the things that really turned me off to 4E. I felt like magic was no longer special, since everyone could do it. Oh, I know that some of the "spells" and "magic" were just fighter moves, but they all felt like spells.

I enjoyed a lot of the concept of 4E -- the fact that they were reorganizing things and streamlining somewhat from 3E was a real plus -- but somehow 4E never really caught on with my group. I had this huge mountain of 4E rulebooks and no players.

I think the weakness you point to is a result of how the implemented the idea, not anything intrinsic to the notion of level-based 'slots' for non magical characters. A major goal of 4E's design is to flatten the combat powers of all classes, so basically everyone has a path to achieving a similar balance of offensive and defensive capacity in a fight, and has something to do in a fight most rounds. This was a terrible choice, and then it was compounded by the drab choices they made designing the list of feats, very few of which are interesting. What I think could have worked would have been to keep the class roles and power balance as they were in 1E or 2E, but fold in the idea that fighters and thieves (and their sub classes) have level based slots to do things associated with their class. e.g., this mechanic could be used as the way you implement extra attacks for fighters, or thieves lock picking abilities and so forth.

I just started a new 4e campaign - will be sticking to Heroic Tier this time (maybe a bit of Paragon) not like my last 1-29 5.5-year epic.

Gamma World 4e - nice game, went a bit too gonzo in places with eg the ever-changing mutations deck and the heal-all-every-fight. Looks like it could easily be tweaked though, and the basic idea is very good. Monsters are notably well done.

Overall I loved 4e's Powers approach, giving Martial PCs cool things to do. There are some issues with excessive fiddliness and players having to explain to GM what is happening, rather than vice-versa as in normal D&D.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;963197Everyone I knew who was really into 4e was either a hardcore math nerd/baseball stat-cruncher or an actual diagnosed high-functioning autistic.

No joke or insult intended. Dead serious. Make of this what you will for good or ill.

That's not true, I uh...played...4e...with...uh...the other guys in my math PhD program.

Nevermind.

D&D 4e was brilliant in presented a RPG with a detailed combat system that was easy to learn. But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall. The adventures up into the Esstentials reset were combat scenarios with a some plot and roleplaying as window dressing. This extended to the organized play material as well. Organized play material so cookie cutter that I quickly learn the beats of how one worked.

• Start off with a little bit of roleplaying to set the scenario
• First combat encounter lasting for a hour or hour and a half
• A little bit more roleplaying
• The second and more elaborate combat encounter filling up all but the last 15 minutes of the time slot.
• The concluding bit of roleplaying.

Also D&D 4e was interesting in that combat took as long to resolve as GURPS. Mainly due to the ease of being healed. So it took a while to crater the hit points of one side or the other.

In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D. A good deal D&D 4e trouble are a result of what Wizard choose to do with it rather than some major flaw with the system. That in combination with the fact that its mechanics were not rooted in a prior edition of D&D is what lead it to its downfall.

I really liked some of the ideas behind 4e monster design. The Minion/Lurker/Skirmisher/Soldier/Brute/Artillery structure made it pretty easy to put together a combat with interesting tactical situations coming up. You didn't have to put in work to make 8 goblins an interesting encounter. Four minions, two blackblades, and two sharpshooters are going to give you more out of the box than just "eight little dudes with the same hp and attack/damage" in earlier editions. Obviously, you can modify monsters to your heart's content in any edition, but I found it more convenient to have them already written up; that's why I buy monster manuals in the first place.

Some of that is still around. Most monsters in 5e have at least one interesting twist beyond "has hit points as does attacks," but there are rarely sub-types within a species.

Quote from: estar;963287D&D 4e was brilliant in presented a RPG with a detailed combat system that was easy to learn. But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall. The adventures up into the Esstentials reset were combat scenarios with a some plot and roleplaying as window dressing. This extended to the organized play material as well. Organized play material so cookie cutter that I quickly learn the beats of how one worked.

• Start off with a little bit of roleplaying to set the scenario
• First combat encounter lasting for a hour or hour and a half
• A little bit more roleplaying
• The second and more elaborate combat encounter filling up all but the last 15 minutes of the time slot.
• The concluding bit of roleplaying.

Also D&D 4e was interesting in that combat took as long to resolve as GURPS. Mainly due to the ease of being healed. So it took a while to crater the hit points of one side or the other.

In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D. A good deal D&D 4e trouble are a result of what Wizard choose to do with it rather than some major flaw with the system. That in combination with the fact that its mechanics were not rooted in a prior edition of D&D is what lead it to its downfall.

I agree with that. It's even possible to have fast combats in 4e - you just can't have fast combats that threaten to TPK the party. In my new game I lowered the healing surge recovery rate to 1/4 per day (1/3 in town) which has been a huge improvement. It raises the spectre of attrition and allows for quick fights that gradually wear down the PCs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963235The "setting" for the new GW is threadbare. It begins with an okay premise (the Hadron supercollider causes all possible Earths to slam together and mix up) and then its basically just a combat boardgame unless the GM takes the initiative to create a coherent world. It went too gonzo in chargen, but the monsters were mostly well done and the streamlined and deadlier system made combat faster.

"Its the Year Ten Monkey Slap Slap" or something like that and some other elements. It calls back to 4e GW and the Mutant Cannibal Biker Librarians and the Bi-Polar Bear etc from the EQ book. The main problem though is the schizo nature of the thing. Pretty much you have three different ideas of what the game was as if none of the developers were talking to eachother. The "Wacky World" slapstick setting which the designers really pushed, the relatively serious standard GW setting and the "Circus Freaks" look. Combined with the CCG needed to get the rest of the mutations and equipment.

Its a mess. But a well written mess. And yeah encounters are plotted out like a board game. But thats between the general exploration and adventuring. YMMV on that since WOTC was still pushing the board game aspects. But then GW has allways been a very hostile setting, moreso than Dark sun in some ways. Combat does tend to happen alot. d20 GW for all its problems at least took it in a different direction and put alot more emphasis on interactions. Though some of that devolved down to literal social combat. Which makes sense in context.

All said though it does 4e D&D well and the one time I DMed it was ok. But yeah even the players unfamilliar with 4e commented on the heavy board game feel whenever combat broke out. But we also played one encounter without the map and pogs and it flowed along well enough.

Id like to see more of 4e D&D to get a feel of what they really changed and streamlined.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;963237There have been a few attempts over the decades to create a "Very casual" RPG, something halfway between a board/minis game and an RPG, a party game that would give you an RPG-like experience without a lot of GM prep, rulebooks, etc.

I got to play the 4e Gamma World twice and felt it was the closest anyone ever came. It was a blast even with a mediocre GM. Really underrated product line. Shame WotC didn't pursue it (Or similar projects in different genres, like maybe a rebooted Gangbusters or Boot Hill with the same approach) farther.

I have seen one or two comments that it could, or even should have been produced as a board game akin to HeroQuest or Dragon Strike. Or merged with HeroScape like they did D&D.

The trouble (for me) with 4E as a tactical combat board game is that it isn't as good as other games built for just this purpose. The Fantasy Trip or Man-to-Man (proto GURPS) are cheap, exciting, fast-playing and arguably richer tactical games than 4E. So, this edition just fell between the rpg/board game stools, as I see it.

Quote from: estar;963287But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall.

This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

Quote from: Omega;963326This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

I think this is spot on.

If someone told me - WotC made this cool skirmish-game and presented what is 4e. I'd probably have liked it a lot more. Due to my other gaming habits (tabletop and otherwise) 4e never clicked for me as "D&D".

It also was the point where I recognized my lifelong affair with D&D had essentially ended. The game went off in a totally different direction - and I, personally, was looking at other games and systems, and my own tastes were changing. 5e didn't really reconcile that gap for me either.

I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

Quote from: Omega;963326This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

It's a really common issue with creatives. Most people don't really want to make minor iterations on someone else's design; they want to make their mark. They have their own ideas about what's best and are sure consumers will see it their way. And if the consumers don't? Well, it's the consumers who are wrong! Look at how over at Nintendo, Miyamoto's been relentless in trying to make 3D Mario games sell to people who just like the 2D game, to the point of shipping Galaxy 2 with an instructional DVD. Guy's got his vision, customers aren't buying it, and he's sure it's because he just hasn't gotten the message across.

Still flooring the gas pedal... :cool: Still visible, not yet far enough for me.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.