Quote from: jeff37923;538731Hasbro/WotC was the final arbiter of whether or not 4E was a failure.

Their answer was, "Yes".

And that's really the pertinent judgment, isn't it?

JG

I am no 4e hater, but there are some fallacies here I wanted to address.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538721Why?  Because a bunch of ONETRUEWAY Warriors desperately desire it to be?

No, because sales were too low, inferior to other editions, and actually another edition of the game (Pathfinder) is outselling 4e. That is a failure in business terms. Not the absolute tanking that some haters would make, but a failure nonetheless. This hasn't happened ever to any previous edition of the game.

QuoteWhat did fail is 1e, 2e, 3e, and now 4e.   game system to stick with any kind of relevance has to change to what is going on and the days of OSR are long gone.

That is quite the unfounded opinion. 2e seems to have been an effort to get rid once and for all of the Gygax' legacy, and the failre of TSR seems to be due more to mismanagement than to the system itself. 2e has spawned some of the most popular D&D settings, after all.

The OSR success in commercial terms seems to demonstrate that you are wrong too about that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538727The corebook is a WotC 3e concept.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538734Show me  where this core concept is on pre3e products.

This is ridiculous.

The concept of corebook is as old as OD&D, where some books were called "Supplements" because they were, you know, optional. Like "not core." The core of the game is the Player/GM/Monster book trinity since 1e, and in OD&D you had 3 core books all the same.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538733Really?  Aren't you one of them that is saying 4e failed, yet they are getting more and more people signing up for the DDI.  Now perhaps that means people are just throwing money out the window for old times sake....

The DDI is still a useful tool if you play 4e, so as long as you play 4e it makes sense to use it. Now, the game is still being prematurely replaced because it was outsold by Pathfinder, because it got a lot of negative reputation, because the massive trainwreck of errata, and the huge division it created across the fanbase because it is the least compatible ed ever published.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538735So you're saying that tsr felt 1e was a failure.

No, you are saying it. TSR felt that they needed to get rid of Gygax. Corporate politics at its best.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538740I'm hurt you said WoW simulator.  well then you can go back to your osr shit where you can beg the Dm to see if he passes or fails your narrations.

If you think that is how an RPG works, you are wrong about that, too.

So, in 2007 Real Life kneed me in the junk, and I had to drop off the face of the planet for 4 years. No RP'ing, no seeing my friends, no emailing, no list/board participation. Basically, I missed the entire 4e Era (and most popular culture of the time).

I came back just last December and since then I have been, and am, astounded at the bitterness, divisiveness, and ideological rigidity of RPG fans. It's surprised me.

But after the last 3 pages of this thread, I get it now. This argument has been bad enough, and I can only imagine that similar donnybrooks were more vitriolic, more frequent, and involved far more participants at the height of 4e's lifespan.

4 years of that might have made me a 4e-hater and 4venger hater, too. I'm glad I missed it.

From what I've seen, 4e failed in the marketplace. It's approach has been renounced by WOTC, and they're trying to win back the customers they drove into the arms of OSR and Pathfinder.

OTOH, 4e seems to have several mechanical issues, but just because a mechanic was in 4e doesn't automatically mean it (or something loosely resembling it) is shit.

RPG's shouldn't be about rigid design ideology, but about enjoyment. It's a hobby, a past-time, not a civil war.

But what do I know? I'm the guy who's RPG motto is:

Your Game. Your Rules. Your Fun.

Obviously I'm insane.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;538810So, in 2007 Real Life kneed me in the junk, and I had to drop off the face of the planet for 4 years. No RP'ing, no seeing my friends, no emailing, no list/board participation. Basically, I missed the entire 4e Era (and most popular culture of the time).

I came back just last December and since then I have been, and am, astounded at the bitterness, divisiveness, and ideological rigidity of RPG fans. It's surprised me.

But after the last 3 pages of this thread, I get it now. This argument has been bad enough, and I can only imagine that similar donnybrooks were more vitriolic, more frequent, and involved far more participants at the height of 4e's lifespan.

4 years of that might have made me a 4e-hater and 4venger hater, too. I'm glad I missed it.

From what I've seen, 4e failed in the marketplace. It's approach has been renounced by WOTC, and they're trying to win back the customers they drove into the arms of OSR and Pathfinder.

OTOH, 4e seems to have several mechanical issues, but just because a mechanic was in 4e doesn't automatically mean it (or something loosely resembling it) is shit.

RPG's shouldn't be about rigid design ideology, but about enjoyment. It's a hobby, a past-time, not a civil war.

But what do I know? I'm the guy who's RPG motto is:

Your Game. Your Rules. Your Fun.

Obviously I'm insane.

if you think this thread is bad, you should check out some of the edition flamewars on rpg.net and enworld.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538812if you think this thread is bad, you should check out some of the edition flamewars on rpg.net and enworld.

Yup, that was most of my point. I guessed such was the case, without even having to look.

And it's disturbing and I'm glad I missed it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;538810OTOH, 4e seems to have several mechanical issues, but just because a mechanic was in 4e doesn't automatically mean it (or something loosely resembling it) is shit.

RPG's shouldn't be about rigid design ideology, but about enjoyment. It's a hobby, a past-time, not a civil war.

This I completely agree with. I don't like having spiteful edition debates but discussions about which aspects of each were good.

4e has some strong points which add to the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;538769The gauntlet is thrown down.

Ryan and Lisa have been pimping that for a while now and their source is.....icv2, now just how much do you know about icv2?

Quote from: Imperator;538806I am no 4e hater, but there are some fallacies here I wanted to address.

Right back at ya

Quote from: Imperator;538806No, because sales were too low, inferior to other editions, and actually another edition of the game (Pathfinder) is outselling 4e. That is a failure in business terms. Not the absolute tanking that some haters would make, but a failure nonetheless. This hasn't happened ever to any previous edition of the game.

And you know this...?  Perhaps they are making a new edition because of the failures of the people in charge, you know those people who no longer work for them.  Yes I think they made mistakes, they added too much too fast especially through Dragon magazine.

Quote from: Imperator;538806That is quite the unfounded opinion. 2e seems to have been an effort to get rid once and for all of the Gygax' legacy, and the failre of TSR seems to be due more to mismanagement than to the system itself. 2e has spawned some of the most popular D&D settings, after all.

Nothing lasts forever, especially a hobby like this.  More creative people come along, more exposure to new ideas, etc. sticking to 'tradition' isn't going to work.  The game has to evolve.

Quote from: Imperator;538806The OSR success in commercial terms seems to demonstrate that you are wrong too about that.

What success?  You have no idea who or how many is buying into the OSR 'movement'

Quote from: Imperator;538806This is ridiculous.

The concept of corebook is as old as OD&D, where some books were called "Supplements" because they were, you know, optional. Like "not core." The core of the game is the Player/GM/Monster book trinity since 1e, and in OD&D you had 3 core books all the same.

No it's not, it's purely a fan concept.
I'm looking at MMII 1e, printed in 1982 reading the preface by Gary, no where does he mention anything about 'supplements' 'optional', in fact it is the direct opposite of that mentality.  Looking at the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, front cover "this essential sourcebook..."  Not optional, not supplemental, essential.  

Quote from: Imperator;538806The DDI is still a useful tool if you play 4e, so as long as you play 4e it makes sense to use it. Now, the game is still being prematurely replaced because it was outsold by Pathfinder, because it got a lot of negative reputation, because the massive trainwreck of errata, and the huge division it created across the fanbase because it is the least compatible ed ever published.

Please don't regurgitate what icv2 says as true.

Quote from: Imperator;538806No, you are saying it. TSR felt that they needed to get rid of Gygax. Corporate politics at its best.

And the same thing couldn't happen with 4e?  Why give a pass for one, but not the other?

Quote from: Imperator;538806If you think that is how an RPG works, you are wrong about that, too.

Why?
  4e has more to the combat part of the game, yet somehow that instantly makes it a 'tactical skirmish game'  There is more pages in the 4e phb dedicated to roleplaying than any other phb of D&D.

Quote from: Sommerjon;5388484e has more to the combat part of the game, yet somehow that instantly makes it a 'tactical skirmish game'  There is more pages in the 4e phb dedicated to roleplaying than any other phb of D&D.

People call it a board game because it is designed to be played strictly on the grid, with gamist power mechanics (that feel very "cardlike"). It feels like a board game, so peope call it one. Heck, it is more board gamey than the old hero quest board game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538854People call it a board game because it is designed to be played strictly on the grid, with gamist power mechanics (that feel very "cardlike"). It feels like a board game, so peope call it one. Heck, it is more board gamey than the old hero quest board game.

That's fair, but it is an exaggeration to call it only a board game.

I dislike the overly gamist mechanics (but think that some were well-intentioned and may have just needed better 'flavour') and the fact that a grid/board is necessary.

Not sure why you've said 'cardlike', other than the powers being depicted on cards it's not as if it plays like a card game (ie they're not randomized).

Quote from: pryingeyes;538855That's fair, but it is an exaggeration to call it only a board game.

I dislike the overly gamist mechanics (but think that some were well-intentioned and may have just needed better 'flavour') and the fact that a grid/board is necessary.

Not sure why you've said 'cardlike', other than the powers being depicted on cards it's not as if it plays like a card game (ie they're not randomized).

I don't consider it an exageration to say it feels like a board game. I don't think it is literally a board game.

For me the powers always struck me as very card like for some reason. Partly because they resemble card entries but also because using one feels like playing a card to me....not all card-board games are random.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538857I don't consider it an exageration to say it feels like a board game. I don't think it is literally a board game.

For me the powers always struck me as very card like for some reason. Partly because they resemble card entries but also because using one feels like playing a card to me....not all card-board games are random.

Fair. I feel like it feels like a board game with an RPG wrapped around it - I think the consensus is that the two should be on some level, more connected.

I don't really get the card-like criticism, still. You could probably say the same about Vancian spells - little discrete entries, and you even 'discard' it from your memory when you've used it!

Quote from: jeff37923;538731Hasbro/WotC was the final arbiter of whether or not 4E was a failure.

Their answer was, "Yes".

If D&D4 had been actually that much of a failure at corporate level, we wouldn't be discussing D&D5 now. D&D, in our market segment, would just be over.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538740So how about showing me from the books the chapters on roleplaying from say 1e or 3e?  I mean hell aint no fucking way that 4e has that, right?

I'm hurt you said WoW simulator.  well then you can go back to your osr shit where you can beg the Dm to see if he passes or fails your narrations.

Hey, I just picked up this toy. Did it fall out of your pram?

Quote from: Imperator;538806No, because sales were too low, inferior to other editions, and actually another edition of the game (Pathfinder) is outselling 4e. That is a failure in business terms. Not the absolute tanking that some haters would make, but a failure nonetheless. This hasn't happened ever to any previous edition of the game.

To be fair, D&D has never had to directly compete against itself like this before.

If you must be pendantic about it switch tactical miniatures grid based game for boardgame if it's more comfortable.

He's saying the powers feel card like because of the refresh mechanisms and the eerie feeling that you're tapping et al like MtG. By the way only daily powers are vancian.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538848And you know this...?  Perhaps they are making a new edition because of the failures of the people in charge, you know those people who no longer work for them.  Yes I think they made mistakes, they added too much too fast especially through Dragon magazine.

I know this because of the data provided by Ryan Dancey, and other indicators that have abundantly been cited at the moment Pathfinder outsold 4e.

As other people have pointed out, certainly D&D has never competed against itself before, and the fact that the 4e allowed people to do just that is a huge huge mistake.

QuoteNothing lasts forever, especially a hobby like this.  More creative people come along, more exposure to new ideas, etc. sticking to 'tradition' isn't going to work.  The game has to evolve.

I agree, and that is why I don't hate 4e, I don't think is a pox meant to destroy the hobby, and I own it, have run it and enjoyed it. Not my favourite version of the game, but fun enough to deserve playing.

QuoteWhat success?  You have no idea who or how many is buying into the OSR 'movement'

The fact that many kickstarters are getting significant amounts of money is one indicator. I am seeing OSR games even in Barcelona, Spain, which says something about the exposure of the movement. This far, most publishers affiliated with the OSR are reporting increases in sales. So yeah, I think there is ground to say that the OSR is gettimg some success.

QuoteNo it's not, it's purely a fan concept.
I'm looking at MMII 1e, printed in 1982 reading the preface by Gary, no where does he mention anything about 'supplements' 'optional', in fact it is the direct opposite of that mentality.  Looking at the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, front cover "this essential sourcebook..."  Not optional, not supplemental, essential.

I don't think you are serious if you read in that "essential" anything more than marketing-speak. If you want to play D&D, the only books you need are the initial 3 of any edition. Period. There's never been any edition of D&D where you really needed any supplemental book to play the game, so please, spare us the attempt to make you look like a fucking idiot by pretending that you believe that marketing blurbs are literal truth.

QuotePlease don't regurgitate what icv2 says as true.

I honestly don't know what you mean by that.

QuoteAnd the same thing couldn't happen with 4e?  Why give a pass for one, but not the other?

Because circunstances are radically different, as is the people involved. Also, there's many people who were involved in 4e working in 5e, Mike Mearls, for example. So it cannot be compared.

QuoteWhy?

Because what you describe is not a good example of good GMing by any standard of description, so you cannot say that's the way old-school games are supposed to work by any means. Well, you can say it, but you will be super-wrong.

Quote4e has more to the combat part of the game, yet somehow that instantly makes it a 'tactical skirmish game'  There is more pages in the 4e phb dedicated to roleplaying than any other phb of D&D.

Of course 4e has  more than only combat, and the pretension of the opposite is idiotic. You are not arguing that with me. No edition of D&D has ever made significant advances in including mechanics that involve roleplaying apart of the shit-pie that is the alignment system, and people managed to roleplay their PCs nonetheless. D&D mechanics neither helped or hindered any player who wanted to make dramatic decisions on behalf of his PC.