|
One of things I find funny about 4e is how the 4e product would have sounded as an RPG Superstar submission and what Messrs. Baur, Mona and Peterson would have thought about:
- Plane-swapping as the basis for odd terrain (per Aber-Toril changes)
- All the dreadful names of creatures, powers and items
- The wonky and un-original reuse of existing gods and NPCs
- The very close approximation to White Wolf's planar layout
- Changes in other fluff that would confuse long-term players
- "Points of light" contrasted with a robust economic model
Note that I am not discussing mechanics here, just fluff. I am sure there are other examples.
After re-reading some of the judges' comments concerning the excellent work we saw in that contest, I wonder if any aspect of the 4e fluff would have made it into the second round (Figuratively speaking. I know the first round was items only). Thoughts?
Honestly, as little as I like 4E as a whole (from what I've seen)I think that quite a bit could have gone on in a campaign setting competition level. Yeah, some of it's a bit wonky but I think the biggest reason people don't say "hey this is kinda neet" is because it is percieved as beong forced upon us by edition change.
I think that people would be far more open to the concepts introduced if the message from WoTC didn't seem to be "dump your boring game and use this new, improved, D&D now with new and improved high-fantasy setting!" Most 4E hate seems to originate from this type of marketing.
One of things I find funny about 4e is how the 4e product would have sounded as an RPG Superstar submission and what Messrs. Baur, Mona and Peterson would have thought
After re-reading some of the judges' comments concerning the excellent work we saw in that contest, I wonder if any aspect of the 4e fluff would have made it into the second round (Figuratively speaking. I know the first round was items only). Thoughts?
I like the thought experiment you propose. Unfortunately, we don't have a similar grouping to what the Superstars had to submit to truly compare. The only place where you could do that would be the Countries round. Unfortunately, most of the criteria you gave above also don't really fit that model. The closest would be "wonky and un-original reuse". There I think the judges and fans would have panned the submission on that round. Assuming that they weren't cleverly renamed or alluded to in ways that hid the fact that they were reused.*
Isn't what you're saying really "I think the Superstars had a lot more fresh and original content than what I see coming out for Fourth Edition?" That's cool to discuss too.
*True Story. Robin Law's Fantasy II setting (Icfrom) for GURPS included a set of great and terrible gods. We discovered in playtest (yes, I playtested some GURPS back in the day) that the gods were really the Winnie the Pooh characters. We mentioned this to Jackson Games. They (or perhaps Mr. Laws) changed it so that one god wasn't so obviously a ripoff. Years later, I appreciate the fabulous irony of this pantheon a lot more. At the time, being uhm, 25, I thought it was juvenile. Little did I know.
Dang. This was my "board spirit barometer" and it sank into oblivion. I can't tell if that is because it was such an obvious troll or if the moderation is working.
I'm going to answer this straight. No sarcasm intended.
I don't think it was so much the message board moderation, but that you sort of skewed it with your personal bias right from the start. And let me add, it's okay to have your own opinion. It's just that you're taking a 'measurement' and at the same time declaring what you think the result of that 'measurement' should be.
"I wonder what would happen if we judged 4th Edition by this criteria, let me tell you I think it would suck eggs."
So why should anybody who agrees with you bother to reply? Lich-loved, you've asked a question and answered it for yourself in one breath.
The only likely ones to reply are those who disagree with your slant, and *then* maybe you'll get some people who want to disagree with them.
As an Edition Neutral Guy, I see this all the time. Posters have a sense of karmic balance. If one side seems to be gaining ground, they'll find a way to bring it back down towards their point of view. It's far too difficult to just ignore it. Especially in the case of the Anti-4th Edition People, they don't ever seem to take comfort in the fact that the majority of the community doesn't like 4th Edition. That gives them no sense of security. If a couple Pro 4th Edition posters start to congregate, Anti-4th Edition people rush in to make their presence known. Let me add that it's okay that they do that, it's just a pattern I see often.
As painful as it may be for you personally, you have to play this sort of "barometric experiment idea" straight from the very start. Step back, and only after everyone else has had a chance to speak then say how you feel about it.
You also have to recognize that the actual Judges of RPG Superstar are not going to take the bait. I good naturedly tried Erik yesterday, and he will not be lured into commenting on 4th Edition (but he was friendly about my attempt). I dare say Wolfgang won't either. And Clark is a Professional, but he's not shy of saying that he's fairly hopeful and optimistic about 4th Edition.
Why did I write just a long thoughtful post? I guess I thought your idea was pretty clever, and I kinda wished it executed cleaner from the start in order to see the responses.
Hey- better luck next time. :)
Honestly, as little as I like 4E as a whole (from what I've seen)I think that quite a bit could have gone on in a campaign setting competition level. Yeah, some of it's a bit wonky but I think the biggest reason people don't say "hey this is kinda neet" is because it is percieved as beong forced upon us by edition change.
I think that people would be far more open to the concepts introduced if the message from WoTC didn't seem to be "dump your boring game and use this new, improved, D&D now with new and improved high-fantasy setting!" Most 4E hate seems to originate from this type of marketing.
Worthwhile comment right here, folks.
There is very little said about the robustness of 4th Edition, or as I say it, how utilitarian is it. (Utilitarian is a multi-syllable mouthful, Erik Mona introduced the word robust to me yesterday.) Part of this is due to the fact that no one has a complete rule set, and that makes this a difficult thing to discuss.
If the system is robust, it should accept some tweaking to in order to be used for whatever campaign setting tone you're looking for.
What we've had so far is a tight focus in on what we do know about the rules, and nothing about how flexible they they are. Coupled with poor marketing that has seemed to invalidate the work of players over the last half a decade.
There have been many comments made about how 4th Edition was designed for younger audiences. I don't think that is necessarily the case. I do think that since last Gencon up to this past January, there was no profiling done on who the established consumer base actually is. That is, the Marketing Department spoke to the established consumers as if they were actually much younger people than they actually are. That left people feeling patronized, condescended to, and defensive about how they've enjoyed their hobby thus far.
Even still, the sales pitch is not the product.