but not even the OGL of the 3.5 era was able to produce a competitor within the d20 ruleset that seriously challenged WotC's dominance and control of the rules and ideas normally associated with D&D.
That is literally exactly what happened. The fact that D&D had been bumped up by (half) an edition aside, the OGL is unquestionably responsible in large part for Pathfinder's meteoric popularity.
but not even the OGL of the 3.5 era was able to produce a competitor within the d20 ruleset that seriously challenged WotC's dominance and control of the rules and ideas normally associated with D&D.That is literally exactly what happened. The fact that D&D had been bumped up by (half) an edition aside, the OGL is unquestionably responsible in large part for Pathfinder's meteoric popularity.
But 3.5 was still strong enough to keep all other would be contenders in the wings, and so kept WotC as the keepers of the D&D tradition as a whole. Earlier editions were the same way; they all had their share of competition from other companies trying to copy them, but at no time was there serious consideration that anyone but first OSR and than WotC could produce a true complete alternative to the active and official version. Even most of the OGL copies still looked to WotC for their inspiration and starting point during the 3.5 era. That can no longer be said, and 4E's inability to capitalize on what was essentially a captive audience is a big reason for that. 3PP publishers can now make material that is all but indistinguishable from anything in the 3.5 era without ever mentioning D&D or WotC in any shape or form, thanks to Pathfinder. That has to bug WotC a lot, because it means they can't control that content or the people developing it. That loss of control is the biggest failure of 4E in many ways; before, a new edition had to compete with older editions, but being under the same company, that competition could be contained. Now, they're having to actively compete against another company in their own corner of the table top rpg market. That is going to have a dramatic effect in how Next and future editions are seen, and is a direct consequence of 4E.
While I am a fan of the system, I am not ignorant of its shortcomings. I feel, for instance, that rituals are underutilized, that skill challenges could stand to be tightened up and made more robust, that holes in class design need to be patched, that DDI (valuable as it is) is underdeveloped, and that it lacks the first-party adventure content that makes Pathfinder (and other worlds) compelling on an ongoing basis. And those are just a few. But I don't harp on them, because the system does what I want a tabletop gaming system to do better than any other system I've seen. That's all I can ask for.
What you want from the system...IE your ideal of the system blinds you to the rather large flaws in said system. Namely the Power system and the inflexabilty that system produces.
There is plenty new about 4e, not the least of which is the way it has combined the disparate elements you mention above. I have a similar length and breadth of experience with RPGs, and I would be very surprised if the depth of my experience with RPGs is not greater than yours. So your experience is not nearly enough to invalidate mine, and since we're talking about a system that I am thoroughly familiar with, and that you have relatively little familiarity with, I am comfortable in the knowledge that my understanding of 4e is likely to be correct (see: your confusion with the place that page 42 occupies in the power-action paradigm). Beyond that, measuring our respective nerd packages isn't really worthwhile.
Really what is so new? Please tell me I am dying to know.
Also how old are you(from a picture you once linked I would guess early twenties if you are older I will seriously compliment you on looking so young)? What systems have you played?And what confusion about page 42? It will not allow you to duplicate a power. Actualy it will not even allow you to do anything that there are already rules for like for instance throwing a rock as that would be covered under Improvised weapons rules. As shown by DigitalMage.
This is doing an incredible disservice to the level of talent working on 4e. Those guys could write new content - mechanical or otherwise - forever. They are the best in the business (or, certainly, are nearly equal of any who might be considered the best).
Matter of opinion...I don't think the design staff they had was really all that hot...especialy when it came to fluff. And as I said they were constantly burned out by designing endless powers...why do you think there are yearly lay offs with WotC?
Sure I guess they could have years of development...but I kinda think people will just move on to system that you know you can actualy build more concept with one book that you could do with the entire 4th ed libary.
The power system is very, very solid. And there is acres of design space that could be covered for years. But they've learned things over the past five years, and they are confident that they can make a better game. And, frankly, I think there's a good chance they could pull it off. They're clearly willing to try fairly radical approaches. We'll see.
Ok...who is left from the guys who designed 4th ed? Mike Mearls...who else? Who are these allstar designers that created the system you loved(and obviously is very emotionaly invested in by your emotional reaction here) is left to desin D&D Next?
As others have said, there are plenty of legitimate areas to criticize 4e. Try those (though, actually, criticism for its own sake is kind of an ugly business, so even if it's more acceptable that doesn't mean it's a great idea). But don't pick one of 4e's most valuable tools (page 42) and act like it's made invalid by the very system it's designed to complement.
Wow are you still on Page 42...gee I left that awhile ago.
If it bothers you so much I like the Rule on Page 42...all systems have a very similair rule after all...but it does not in fact as you and others have stated allow you 'Do to Anything'.
Also if you really like 4th ed...I think Hero System Fantasy rules would blow your mind. It is everything 4th ed(and so much more) is in one book. Require a little work but I think you would find much more rewarding.
What you want from the system...IE your ideal of the system blinds you to the rather large flaws in said system. Namely the Power system and the inflexabilty that system produces.
I'd be happy to discuss the power system's flexibility, but I'd advise you not to start by bringing up page 42, as you did. Using page 42 as evidence that the power system is inflexible is not going to get you very far.
Really what is so new? Please tell me I am dying to know.
I'm pretty sure that no matter what I list here, you're going to find a superficially similar subsystem and pull a, "Hah, got you!"
So, instead, how about you list all the truly novel mechanics in your RPG of choice? Not that having novel mechanics is important, at all, but I'd love to see you held up to the standard you want to apply to others.
Also how old are you(from a picture you once linked I would guess early twenties if you are older I will seriously compliment you on looking so young)?
I'm in my late 20's, but I do like to think I take decent care of myself!
By the way, the picture in question? That was what happened the last time you implied that I wasn't legit enough for you.
What systems have you played?
D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, Gamma World (old), MERP, Star Wars d6, Star Wars d20, Star Wars Saga, L5R (tabletop), L5R (LARP), Mage, Vampire, Changeling, Werewolf, GOG, Dogs in the Vineyard, SotC, Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, BESM, Deadlands, Feng Shui, In Nomine, Toon (good lord), Paranoia, a handful of homebrewed systems others briefly tried running, and I'm sure a few extras that I can't recall off the top of my head. Oh, and I'm leaving out anything that I've only played as a con one-shot. Some of those are the name of the setting, not the system itself, but I'm sure you can figure those out.
Now, how about we zip our respective pants back up?
I'd be happy to discuss the power system's flexibility, but I'd advise you not to start by bringing up page 42, as you did. Using page 42 as evidence that the power system is inflexible is not going to get you very far.
I never did...really...people were saying you could so anything with it...that is wrong. My arguement about the flaws of the Power System has absolutely nothing to do with Page 42.
I'm pretty sure that no matter what I list here, you're going to find a superficially similar subsystem and pull a, "Hah, got you!"
So, instead, how about you list all the truly novel mechanics in your RPG of choice? Not that having novel mechanics is important, at all, but I'd love to see you held up to the standard you want to apply to others.
You are the one who is saying it is all innovative and new...
I'm in my late 20's, but I do like to think I take decent care of myself!
By the way, the picture in question? That was what happened the last time you implied that I wasn't legit enough for you.
I am 38...I started playing RPGs when I was around 10...so I do kinda do have more experience with systems...unless you started playing at the age of 1...
Also please recall one given that evidence I did acknowledge it.
Listen Scott...I do found you to be a intelligent person. And have agreed with you before. I also respect your opinions...even if I disagree with you or with just the way you 'argue' and debate at times. And there is alot about 4th ed that I don't like that is entirely based on my preferences...but when I am pointing out the flaws of the Power System...it has nothing to do with preference. I can look at thing objectivbely and distant my emotional impact on it...and the power system is flawed. (It has nothing what so ever to do with the Rule on page 42...can we please drop it.)
You do realize I did predicted when D&D Next would be annouced right? Well to be fair it was between the two Gen Cons I thought it would be annouced at...
The fact is D&D 4th ed was never designed to last long. The Powers mechanic really would tell you that if you actualy look at other systems with similair mechanics. At the rate of their production...and rate of employeee turn over...you really don't see the power system being a flaw?
Anyway if you are just going to come back and bring up the Rule on page 42...that I'll just agree to disagree. If you actualy want to have a discussion on the flaws I see in the power system which I listed earlier without just writting them off as irrelvelant...than I would love to hear your ideas on it.
Though i have a very strong feeling it wilol be time to agree to disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am 38...I started playing RPGs when I was around 10...so I do kinda do have more experience with systems...unless you started playing at the age of 1...
Just keep waving it. Someone will notice eventually.
I am 38...I started playing RPGs when I was around 10...so I do kinda do have more experience with systems...unless you started playing at the age of 1...Just keep waving it. Someone will notice eventually.
Yup...just as I figured...atleast you stopped beating the dead horse on page 42.
Anyway agree to disagree....till next time.
Time spent playing is far from the only factor. If you've played D&D, and only D&D, then I would say you have far less experience than someone who's played a wide variety of games, even if you've been playing for a few more years than they have.
Agreed...I also have played...atleat 20+ systems. I have also read alot of system but never to play them. As I said I have study RPG design for a very long time.
I have listed them many times here.
Personaly I think some most telling anaylisis about 4th ed is from people who have never ever played a D&D game before.
|
but when I am pointing out the flaws of the Power System...it has nothing to do with preference. I can look at thing objectivbely and distant my emotional impact on it...and the power system is flawed.
You seem to be stating your opinion on the 4e Power System as objective fact, when it simply isn't.
Even if everyone agreed that the power system means the system is inherently limited (i.e. if a power exists, then no one without that power can attempt it, thus the more powers that get created the less options a PC has), then to say that is a flaw is not necessarily true.
Such constraints may be a design feature perhaps because the designers realise certain options are severely punishing (e.g. in 4e the ability to disarm someone is not given out lightly, and sundering that actually destroys weapons and armour I don't think exists). Other times it may be by design to ensure niche protection.
If you are trying to argue that the Powers system is flawed as an objective fact, then by that same reasoning I would argue that all class based RPGs are flawed - why can't my fighter character be as good in the Knowledge Arcana skill as a wizard? Why can't I create an arcane magic user who specialises in Cure spells unless I take some specific class or prestige class?
I am 38...I started playing RPGs when I was around 10...so I do kinda do have more experience with systems...unless you started playing at the age of 1...
Just so you know, this does indeed sound like you're trying to engage in a p!55ing contest with Scott, trying to make out that you're a more qualified gamer than he is - to be honest in regards to 4e despite you perhaps having more experience in RPGs (and that is debatable) I think Scott has more experience of actually using 4e and so I would give his opinion more credence.
It is possible to be a fan of an RPG system but still see its shortcomings.
Unfortunately the evidence is really clear. 4E was successful when compared to other editions. All the way into late 2009 they had several books on major best seller lists, when 3E did not. So sales wise they sold better than 3E. They beat out Pathfinder in the IcV sales reports which is a combination of store and online...Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.
And I find your tired insistence on repeatedly and deliberately failing to understand the basics of the system disappointing.
The difference is, of course, that I use the system regularly and it works great, so I'm actually speaking from a place of some level of experience.
Scott, you have spent a great time using the system because you are a fan. It is ok...but fans often can't look at things without emotion.
You are a fanboy...so you will ignore all the problems...or have learned to work around them.
But if you want to talk experience...well I have been playing RPGs for over twenty years...in that time I have played every edition of D&D, I have played probably 20 systems...and have read and learned about 10 others. There is really nothing new about D&D 4th ed...it has been done before.
And I saw the rather large problem that the Powers system will cause for the game right when I read the rule book.
They have come up with a new system not because of some unreachable sales figures that can't be reached set by their evil overlords from Hasbro...if that was true I doubt we will be seeing D&D Next. It is being replaced because they have ran out of ideas to sell books...because it was built on a faulty fondation of the Power system.
Hey it is ok that you love the game with all the warts and all. Just because something is faulty does not mean it can't be fun...especialy if you work with it. I love playing Rifts despite all the problems with the system(which I will gladly admitt 4th ed is a better system).
Sold better than 3.5 IIRC on release, did not outsell 3.0, 1st ed and probably BECMI.
3.0 300 000 PHB in 1 month
Keep of the Borderland 1 million + sold.
Dragon early 90's 100+ sold per month.
I don't think anyone is denying 4E sold well initially but it was outsold by Paizo while it was in print, they canceled product lines reasonably early on as well. After that 1st year bump in sales based on the brand name.
Also Mearls is on record as saying 4th ed drove away their customers and that is why they went with essentials and that is straight from Mearls himself. If 4th ed sold so well they would be doing a 4.5 and not a reboot.
TSR stuff
http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html
History of D&D
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndarchives_history.asp
Mike Mearls on Essentials and driving away their player base. Circa 2010
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box -Renaissance
4th ed did outsell OD&D though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway instead you have these greatly inflexable power system they came up. The limition of such a system is...
1) I think there are about a handful of character concepts I could have built in 3.5/PF that would be impoosible to build with all the souce books 4th ed churned out. So it gives you a illusion of choice that you had in 3.5/PF...without delivering it.
I think 3.5/PF likely allows more possible options, though there are many that don't feel the same, but its not really an illusion of choice. Both systems offer vastly more options then one will ever get to play...even if you stick to just this system until they lay you in your grave. Furthermore its not completely one sided. One of the strengths of the power and multi-classing system was that it made many popular options function well. The most obvious being Gish. Hence there are concepts that one can realize in 4E much more easily the in 3.x.
2) The power system made multi classing almost impossible...when they finally gave rules for it it came with large warnings: "This may break your game." Which again cuts deeply into character flexabilty...goner are the Wizard/Rogues and Fighter/wizards...probably replaced with new classes...but those came with even more Powers...also driving up the complexity needlessly.
Well they never did break the game and in fact work very well. If I had to guess I'd say the Paladin/Warlock is probably the most popular combination. It is not needless complexity any more then it is needless complexity to add more spells then just the ones in the core book to Pathfinder. More spells offer some more options and this is especially important if one wants to introduce different kinds of spell casters.
4E starts off with making it so that newbs can learn and be effective very easily but there is a very large and deep system to master for those that want to delve into it. Obviously that is the kind of game WotC wants to make because it allows many splat books but then it happens to be true of 3.5 and Pathfinder as well.
3) Almost every concept need Powers made to make that concept workable...again this is highly ineffective and complicated...as you need to look though how many books? Even looking though DDI could be tough. And if they did not have powers to cover your concept...well than you have to either hope your GM has the time and ability to make them..or will allow you to do so.
In fact you handle this the same way as one handles spell casters in 3.x. There is no requirement to have memorized every spell in the game to pick a spell caster in 3.x because you know what the casters pretty much do. You can skip memorizing their 3rd level spells until you get to a level you can cast them. Same in 4E. You have a rough idea what sorts of things the class can do, after that you focus on picking their powers when you actually get to choose them. This is especially true because I don't think you build character concepts based on specific powers but on the broad gist of what the kinds of powers the class gets access to. Any specific power outside of the at wills chosen at 1st level are only used at most once per combat. The result is that the important element is the general thrust of your powers. Most classes however have a number of possible general thrusts that once can take. The more advanced players learned to mix and match general thrusts to get even more honed toward whatever concepts they where aiming for...well presuming they where trying to get laser like focus. Sometimes one is going for utility and trying to cover all the bases that one can.
4) And than you had the endless power books...what at one time two a month...so you having powers made at agreat speed...chances are they will mess up...which was the reason why there was endless errata.
Well yes. Upon initial release there clearly was a need to get a lot of powers out there. The initial offering was kind of giving one the tools to make just a couple of themes per class because one generally only had a few power choices per level. The extra books put a lot more options on the table which I think was needed early on. Became much less common later in the edition when that initial need had been filled. It also meant that the ways one can make a class grew somewhat exponentially because you had the obvious themes that where being supported but advanced players figured out whats of mixing and matching the themes to create new concepts.
In the end however I think your pretty much slamming the system for being a class based system. Worse yet its a class based system that your only going to become truly versed in by actually playing for long hours.
For example there are different reasons to take the different leaders in the game. Clerics have the best healing and depending on how the cleric is built that can go from very good for example with many melee focused cleric meant to also fight to the truly unreal (a pacifist cleric being the epitome of a healing cleric). Meanwhile a Warlord can heal but really shines in granting his allies actions and saves. Other leaders have strengths and weaknesses as well and one does not get to know all the subtlety's without playing. Its easy to look up what a class more or less does but if you want to be an advanced player and understand which leader is the best at granting debuffs then that takes time at the table.
This just happens to be a feature of large games with tons of supplements detailing vast numbers of options. I'd not know all the ins and outs of all the classes in Pathfinder without playing a lot of Pathfinder and if I decide to, from the outside, try and master Pathfinder just by reading the books I soon realize that there is simply far too much material to do that. This was true of 3.5 as well. This does not make either of these systems uselessly complex. It just makes them complex.
This is what stands out most with your complaints. The things that you seem to really be slamming 4E for happen to also be true in some significant element for 3.5 and Pathfinder. In every case you mitigate the issue through experience with the system. Play for some time and you master the systems and learn their subtleties. Your issue seems to be that you can't go from expertise in 3.5 straight to expertise in 4E.
I didn't mind the power system; it did what it was designed to do well enough. It really didn't feel like DnD to me because it took the whole simple to complex class range that had been present in all of the earlier systems, and made it all one flat complexity, which left me feeling that the system was a bit bland. Also, they didn't have nearly enough powers out at first to really cover the full range of character options, which really hurt the initial reception of the system as a whole. On the whole though, it's not a bad concept, even if the execution left me with a very distinct blah feeling. If the rest of the inovations, like the rituals and the skill challenges, had done a better job in play, chances are I could have lived with the powers, but the powers to me were not enough to sell the system, and most of the rest of the concepts implemented fell flat on execution.
Unfortunately the evidence is really clear. 4E was successful when compared to other editions. All the way into late 2009 they had several books on major best seller lists, when 3E did not. So sales wise they sold better than 3E. They beat out Pathfinder in the IcV sales...
A lot of people almost certainly bought the books and never opened them more than once or twice, or bought any more books at all. Also, a big part of what made 3.5 the commercial success it was wasn't the core books, it was the many splat books and world books; individual books doing well wasn't nearly as important. 3.5 may not have had as much success with individual books, but it had more books overall, and more quality books overall, at least at first. With DDI, WotC may well have ended up making more money in the 4E era, but their books probably did very little overall aside from the initial burst and the essential books. For a company that still relied heavily on book sales because they were clearly not internet experts, that had to be a problem; individual books are great, but they make their money off of multiple purchases by the same individual. Having 100 people buy one book is not the same as having 10 people buy 10 books each; there is a critical retention factor in the latter that WotC needed, and probably never got.
|
Probably more true in the case of 4e though. I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of the anger expressed towards 4e was more because folks bought the books expecting DnD made better but got an entirely different game instead, thus likely feeling cheated having got something other then what they thought they were paying for.
Just supposition on my part.
A lot of people almost certainly bought the books and never opened them more than once or twice, or bought any more books at all.Probably true. And you can probably apply the same statement to Pathfinder, 3.5, 3.0, 2E, and 1E.
To some degree, yes, but all the evidence I've seen makes it fairly clear that it happened more with 4E than the others. It just didn't have the word of mouth network or the wide spread support that 3.x enjoyed, and that hurt 4E in the long run, no matter how good the initial sales or the DDI subscriptions did. It simply lacked a sustainable and renewable community of support, and that is where it fell short of what the earlier editions had. It was much more love or hate with almost no in between.
And you don't think there was any shock at how much 3.0 changed?
I think one of the significant elements was that 2nd edition ran for 11 years. People where ready for something new. With 3rd we got 3.0 for three years and then 3.5 for four years and yet actual campaigns probably take on the short side about 18 months with two, three and even four years probably being more the norm. Hence people where most definitely not really ready for change. Most had only managed a couple of full on campaigns of 3rd edition in total and probably had gotten through one in 3.0 then went along for the reboot in 3.5 and managed just one in that system as well...maybe they where in the earlyish stages of campaign #2 when the new edition was announced. Comparatively few people want to buy a pile of books worth many hundreds of dollars and then get just one campaign out of it and lots of people where likely thinking about what improvements they where going to go with when they ran their next campaign...only now WotC was saying start everything from scratch again. They set themselves up for this steep cliff to climb just to get some buy in from the fan base.
And you don't think there was any shock at how much 3.0 changed?
There was but here 3.0 more or less buried everything and it was very popular and still is. AD&D was also 23 years old when 3.0 came out and they sold you the books for $20 a pop which was 1989 prices as well.