|
Isn't there a rule in PFS that anything from beyond core requires bringing the book by the player to the table? Or does it work differently than I thought?
Yes, but as a GM I don't have time to read a full class write up so I trust the player to run the character. I tend to only ask for a source to read if something seems overpowered or the player isn't sure themselves and ask for a ruling.
|
|
Isn't there a rule in PFS that anything from beyond core requires bringing the book by the player to the table?
Oh there is, but if a player turns up with a Magus, another with a Gunslinger and a third with a Samurai, I don't have time as a GM to read three class descriptions and how their various mechanics work. So I just have to trust that the player knows what they are doing.
The times I ask to see a source for a character attribute (be it a spell, class feature, feat or gear) is when it appears unbalanced or the player isn't explaining how it works well.
|
Isn't there a rule in PFS that anything from beyond core requires bringing the book by the player to the table?Oh there is, but if a player turns up with a Magus, another with a Gunslinger and a third with a Samurai, I don't have time as a GM to read three class descriptions and how their various mechanics work. So I just have to trust that the player knows what they are doing.
The times I ask to see a source for a character attribute (be it a spell, class feature, feat or gear) is when it appears unbalanced or the player isn't explaining how it works well.
I plain don't allow Samurai in my games. The class, in a word, is best represented by a Fighter variant.
|
|
Home games aren't bound by PFS campaign rules.
No but this tangent was started by me responding to Jenner2057 who stated that one reason they were turned off 4e was the rate at which splat books came out, and that some Living Forgotten Realms DMs 'threw up their hands and said "Whatever" when someone used a splatbook power in their games. There was no possible way they could keep up with them.'
My response was that I, as an occasional PFS GM, feel like that with Pathfinder splat books now. Hence the query about players having to bring their resources.
|
Yeah sorry to start the tangent! That wasn't my intention.
The orignial question was why don't people in your gaming group like 4e?
My answer to that was "I like the rules system, it's a fun game, but we got turned off of it due to the massive number of books that came out and were being tossed around in LFR."
That's all. Didn't mean to turn the discussion into what is or isn't allowed in home game. :)
I seem to be the only guy at my lodge to like 4E. I've heard why it's wrong, but can someone please explain it to me?
You're not wrong - people can different tastes. I've played 4E and had a good time. I really like Pathfinder, but again, this a matter of taste.
good gaming to you all!
GRU
|
|
I just realised I never actually answered the OP's question.
I seem to be the only guy at my lodge to like 4E. I've heard why it's wrong, but can someone please explain it to me?
4e is not wrong, it is different from other editions of D&D, be they Basic, AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e or 3.5. Because of that difference it won't necessarily appeal to every D&D player, but equally it may appeal to other RPGers who weren't taken with D&D previously.
For example, 4e seemed to have a more focused design than 3.5 - PCs were meant to be adventuring heroes, and so it doesn't really include detailed rules for professions or crafting. So to anyone who liked those sort of rules in 3rd edition, they would find 4e lacking.
Personally I probably prefer 3.5 over 4e, but I can appreciate that although very similar they do certain things quite differently and that makes me interested in playing both editions. However, because PF and 3.5 are so similar if I want to play a 3.x game I see no need for PF - the only exception to this is convention and organised play (Pathfinder Society is the closest I will get to a 3.5 Living Game that is popular).
Rather than try to explain why 4e is "wrong" here is a link to a post where I try to describe what is good about it (whether that makes it "right" depends on the player): LINK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a hard time GMing 4e.I am curious, what aspects made it hard for you? Was it preparation? Remembering rules? Adjudicating rules?
It was a rules lawyer. He tried to keep me with in the rules the game had set, but I wanted to do things my way. If I wanted big explosions, I wanted big explosions. If I wanted a man like Samson with Cloud Giant Strength, I wanted a man with Cloud Giant Strength.
I had a hard time doing 4e and I'm not going to dm 4e again, because I might attract the same type as a rules lawyer again. It's not that the game is badly written. It's not cool for a DM like me to Dungeon Master. Especially when I'm attracting a rules lawyer like that.
The weird thing is I literately think you had a player pull the wool over your eyes. One of the issues with 4E is that the DM has to be careful because he can do anything - and the system even makes doing that easy...but with such power comes danger. An example from my posts on my campaign is concerns about Dinosaurs and Dark Elves. If I boot up the DDI Monster Builder I can de-level a Tyrannosaurus so that its just a challenge for 3rd level characters. Its simply a matter of lowering the level on the monster and their is a tool to do that in the program that adjusts all the numbers as you de-level. The danger is do you really want to set a precedent that a big dinosaur is only a challenge for 3rd level characters? Faced with this I choose to hold off on that adventure until the PCs where 6th level and then made the Tyrannosaurus a juvenile...but I could have de-leveled it - nothing was stopping me - certainly no rules - heck they even gave me the tools to make doing so easy.
Another example is with an NPC. My players fought a Roof Walker, well the guy walks on the roves so among the various powers I gave him was one that allowed him to climb 10' as a trait. Since the rest of the players would either have to actually climb the wall using athletics or have to leap up my baddie had a real advantage in the fight...could always stay out of melee because he could move over the terrian much easier then they could. If one of them had been a monk or an avenger then this would have not been true because both clases emphasize mobility and the PC would have powers of their own that would likely have allowed them to circumnavigate the changing elevation.
The NPCs do whatever the heck it is you want them to do...in fact you give them powers that allow them to do just that.
So if you want a guy to have Cloud Giant strength you can raise his strength stat or you could give him a power called Rippling Muscles or some such that allows him to do whatever it is you want him to do.
The really odd thing here is that its not just that you can make up powers...you almost have to make up powers. I mean unless you only use monsters from the books and choose never to add an NPC (and therefore ignore the making monsters and NPCs parts of the rules).
It is part of the day to day process of being a 4E DM that you will make up powers - you'll even find yourself hunting around for inspiration from non-D&D sources just so you can think up new and interesting ones. There will always be unique NPCs that figure into the game and once such an NPC is in play the DM is going to have to make up stuff for that NPC...stuff appropriate to the look and feel the DM wants for the NPC. If she is a cat burglar then the DM will make up powers that help her be a cat burglar. Furthermore 4Es high fantasy theme means the powers are going to be stuff like 'she can walk tightropes without having to make checks'.
I have a suspicion that your player either no longer plays 4E or tries to brow beat any DM he has into believing much of the junk he is saying. He'd be shut down fast if he met a 4E DM that had really run a full on campaign because such a DM is going to know full well that in reality all of 4E is the DM making stuff up. Its actually how you make an adventure - the DM makes stuff up and then there are 'by level' guidelines in the rules that allows the DM to convert the stuff he made up into level appropriate mechanics.
So, for example, one does not look up how fire works...the DM looks up the rules for hazards and obstacles by level and then makes up rules for how 'this fire' is going to work. How much damage it will do to what radius and how (or if) it spreads etc. So if my players are in a burning building I'm using a guideline system to translate my ideas on what that means into mechanics...and it means whatever I say it means - maybe this building drops flaming timber on your head every turn...maybe not - I decide because I designed it. I had help in that the guidlines tell me that the burning timber should probably do withing X range of damage for a party of Y level and that any skill checks the PCs are going to make while in the burning building should have roughly this range of numbers for their level.
Adding to my last...
Actually I can think of an example though which might be where you got caught up on things.
Players have powers too and 4E works on a system: X is True, explain X.
For example the player might have a power that says target is restrained until the end of the players next turn. That is true...it might be easy to explain how a stray dog or an Orc is restrained but not so easy to explain how a dragon got restrained...nonetheless the Dragon is restrained unless it has a power that says its not (teleports or can save to remove a condition or some such). Its up to the DM and the players to make up a reason why the Dragon is retrained...maybe the player pinned its tail or some such...what is not kosher for the DM in this case is to nullify the players power. DM can't - or at least should not - say "Dragon is too strong and ignores your power".
So, for example, one does not look up how fire works...the DM looks up the rules for hazards and obstacles by level and then makes up rules for how 'this fire' is going to work.
That right there is a prime example of 4E greatest strength and greatest weakness. In the hands of a skilled DM who can take good notes and keep things consistent, the system can work amazingly. It can also completely fail and create a campaign unbalanced and nonsensical in the hands of a DM that doesn't know what they are doing or can't keep past details straight in their own head/notes. In the end, 4E is not any easier to DM than 3.5; the challenges and prep time simply lie in different areas of the game. Both require a fair amount of preparation and a fair amount of reading to fully capture and take advantage of their strengths.
|
But you aren't running it again, at least not with that group.
Old APs and modules are good to hang onto for they tend to be the only source for maps and detailed descriptions of cities, dungeons, and other areas of interest within a particular setting...
So while the adventure originally contained within a given AP or module cannot be used for a group more than once (normally), you can certainly recycle and reuse the area and adventure sites within the APs and modules that you have previously run with the same group.
|
|
To me that is the positve and negative about APs and modules. Unless your running for a new group it's kind of uesless to run the say Kingmaker again for the same group. Sure as a DM I can change the AP to be different. Yet kind of defeats the purpose. Now if one is lucky enough to have a large pool of players in a area to choose from than a AP will by and large by useful .Once I run Runelord Anniversary edition it's just going to be a pretty book gathering dust unless I can find a entirely new group who has never played the Runelords AP. Which is also never guanrenteed. I'm not saying modules or APs are useless. But I get more use out of rulebooks and sourcebooks than I do APs and modules by a hell of a lrge margin.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to agree with Sunshadow here a bit. 4E was amazing at giving me back the ability to create encounters I wanted with much more flexibility (ie without having to hunt through countless rules and sourcebooks to find powers that let a creature do what I wanted it to do.)
I was good at it, but I was very glad that I was an eperienced DM, because unfortunately the system left non experienced DM's gasping, since there weren't enough structures in place for them. This was demonstrated to me again recently, when the 4E game that has been running at my LFGS closed down because the DM just couldn't work out what he was doing. He was finding combats easy, but it was the other stuff he was struggling with. I sat in on one session there and gave him a heap of pointers (at his request), and at the end of that game he looked at me incredulously and said "How do you come up with that stuff, I can't find any of that in the rules"
4E is great for DM's who are confident in running more freeform encoutners in that way. For DM's learning the ropes, without the confidence to pull that off, I have now seen why it isn't so crash hot.
It was an eye opener for me, since I found it by far the best system to DM I've run to date.
Cheers
|
|
I get more use out of rulebooks and sourcebooks than I do APs and modules by a hell of a lrge margin.
I do too, but I'm not saying change the plot of an AP or module and make it different so you can run it again; I'm saying that an AP or module has a number of maps that are useful in a campaign set within the same region that simply do not appear in any "sourcebook"...
Take RotRL for example, many of the maps in that AP are found nowhere else, and yet are extremely useful for any campaign set in Varisia (including the other APs that are also set within the region).
Im going to agree with Sunshadow here a bit. 4E was amazing at giving me back the ability to create encounters I wanted with much more flexibility (ie without having to hunt through countless rules and sourcebooks to find powers that let a creature do what I wanted it to do.)
I was good at it, but I was very glad that I was an eperienced DM, because unfortunately the system left non experienced DM's gasping, since there weren't enough structures in place for them. This was demonstrated to me again recently, when the 4E game that has been running at my LFGS closed down because the DM just couldn't work out what he was doing. He was finding combats easy, but it was the other stuff he was struggling with. I sat in on one session there and gave him a heap of pointers (at his request), and at the end of that game he looked at me incredulously and said "How do you come up with that stuff, I can't find any of that in the rules"
4E is great for DM's who are confident in running more freeform encoutners in that way. For DM's learning the ropes, without the confidence to pull that off, I have now seen why it isn't so crash hot.
It was an eye opener for me, since I found it by far the best system to DM I've run to date.
Cheers
Yeah - this is true. In many ways 4E harkens back to 1st and 2nd editions DM fiat. The real change is that its DM fiat with guidelines. You do need to know what your doing since the DM has so much power that it is easy to shoot oneself in the foot.
It would not shock me to find that there are a handful of groups that stick with 4E because it is so good at being an imagination converter in the hands of a skilled DM but its just to powerful a toy for a new DM. For them it probably is best to go with a rules robust system where they can look up how fire works and skip the part where the building is falling down around their ears.
Yeah - this is true. In many ways 4E harkens back to 1st and 2nd editions DM fiat. The real change is that its DM fiat with guidelines. You do need to know what your doing since the DM has so much power that it is easy to shoot oneself in the foot.
It would not shock me to find that there are a handful of groups that stick with 4E because it is so good at being an imagination converter in the hands of a skilled DM but its just to powerful a toy for a new DM. For them it probably is best to go with a rules robust system where they can look up how fire works and skip the part where the building is falling down around their ears.
I've found that it helps not only a new DM, but new players as well, to have a bit more robust rule system to start with. It allows people on both sides of the screen to get a good sense of what works and what doesn't, and why, before attempting a more rules lite system.
Wow, weird things sure do happen during edition transitions. I can't remember the last time I've heard "rule-lite" and "4e" in the same sentence.
...Hey, is that Hel freezing over?
I was good at it, but I was very glad that I was an eperienced DM, because unfortunately the system left non experienced DM's gasping, since there weren't enough structures in place for them. This was demonstrated to me again recently, when the 4E game that has been running at my LFGS closed down because the DM just couldn't work out what he was doing. He was finding combats easy, but it was the other stuff he was struggling with. I sat in on one session there and gave him a heap of pointers (at his request), and at the end of that game he looked at me incredulously and said "How do you come up with that stuff, I can't find any of that in the rules"
I'm curious what these pointers were; as a fairly experienced DM, I sometimes forget what it's like to be new.
I've found that it helps not only a new DM, but new players as well, to have a bit more robust rule system to start with. It allows people on both sides of the screen to get a good sense of what works and what doesn't, and why, before attempting a more rules lite system.Yeah - this is true. In many ways 4E harkens back to 1st and 2nd editions DM fiat. The real change is that its DM fiat with guidelines. You do need to know what your doing since the DM has so much power that it is easy to shoot oneself in the foot.
It would not shock me to find that there are a handful of groups that stick with 4E because it is so good at being an imagination converter in the hands of a skilled DM but its just to powerful a toy for a new DM. For them it probably is best to go with a rules robust system where they can look up how fire works and skip the part where the building is falling down around their ears.
Here I don't agree with you. Neophytes need to understand the very basics of how the game works - in 4E that means being able to read their cards. They don't need to understand how the rest of the game works and loads of structure is just a bunch of rules they won't read - and if they do they won't understand. The structure is useless for them and piles of books are just intimidating. 4E is really good for neophytes because it is essentially just 'pick a card'. The DM that is throwing wild, 'out of left field' style encounters at them is just increasing the confusion. Now is not the time to learn how fire works in the game...now is the time to learn when to roll the round die that the DM keeps calling a D20. I had a hellish time teaching new players in 3rd edition and it was an absolute breeze with 4E. The differences where night and day.
What works and what doesn't and why is really an advanced option for experienced players. Knowing how to translate the numbers on your character sheet into game speak mechanics and then wanting to have a concrete number for how fast your character can climb a natural cliff and what the percentage chances are that you will fall is something only a veteran RPG player is looking for. For a new player initially they don't need to know that they can climb at all and for some significant period after that they just need to understand their skills well enough to know if their character is good at it or not. The details are something they can ask the DM about.
I don't mean what works or doesn't in terms of specific game mechanics, I mean what works or not in terms of the world and how to interact with it in general terms. New players don't need to know or remember specific DCs or rules to do things like climb or deal with fires, but with a system like PF, they can still learn enough about those interactions to get a feel for what their characters can reasonably expect when interacting with fire or a cliff face they need to climb. This is harder in a comparatively rules lite system like 4E unless you really have a good DM who can keep things consistent over the course of multiple adventures. The more that players have a basic understanding of basic world interactions, even it is just on general terms, the easier it is for the DM to keep those consistent and put more of his attention on other aspects of the game.
EDIT: My experience is that it's easier for players to learn the type of questions that make it easier to DM a comparatively rules free system under a more robust rules system than under a system like 4E. With PF, I can say as a DM in response to a question, "look on pg x, and tell me what the chart says," and go from there. Neither they, nor I, for that matter, need to memorize the chart, they just need to know where to find it and how to interpret it when they look it up, and if they do it enough, most players tend to learn how to target their questions better so as to save both themselves and the DM time. Under a system like 4E, there is nothing to help them form better questions aside from the DM directly, and that brings us back to the inherent strength and weakness of 4E.
|
|
@ Tequila,
Leading up to the game I sat in on, the DM and I had been swapping tales of our games. He began asking me then how to deal with situations that went off the map of his planned games.
Mostly it was how to work out what skills applied to situations in game and what dc to set. I know the rules have guidelines on these, but he was shooting dc's all over the place because he couldn't really understand how that table applied to his game. Where I found those rules fantastic for letting me set up the situation I wanted, he found it daunting as he had no real bench mark to start from. Previous editions of d&d had static dc's for situations which would've helped this guy no end. Unfortunately, static dc's also give players the ability to game the system a little so I don't like them.
The other thing I advised him on was describing what happens when dice rolls failed or succeeded in a skill challenge. The idea behind a skill challenge is nothing new, but 4e formalised rules for them for some reason, and the maths was wonky, especially if you didn't understand how to set dc's. I suggested he do away with the hard number system of success vs failure, and instead respond to the rolls in an organic way based on the setting at the time.
He ran a scene where the players were trying to brute force a merchant into giving them an item they wanted rather than paying the exorbitant price. The player failed his intimidate, but only just. I suggested the merchant began to act like he was getting the item but triggered a noisy alarm in his shop. Something magical that set of lights and bells. This draws all the attention from people nearby, so I suggest some skill checks he might ask for as the players respond (maybe a diplomacy to convince folks it's a false alarm, perception to see the squad of guardsmen coming, thievery to disable the alarm)
While I could pull that stuff out of my head and set reasonable dc's based on my experience, he just felt absolutely overwhelmed.
The tools were all there, but his experience and confidence weren't. He would have liked more concrete rules in trying to work out some of those dc's rather than leave it up to his judgement.
I don't mean what works or doesn't in terms of specific game mechanics, I mean what works or not in terms of the world and how to interact with it in general terms. New players don't need to know or remember specific DCs or rules to do things like climb or deal with fires, but with a system like PF, they can still learn enough about those interactions to get a feel for what their characters can reasonably expect when interacting with fire or a cliff face they need to climb. This is harder in a comparatively rules lite system like 4E unless you really have a good DM who can keep things consistent over the course of multiple adventures. The more that players have a basic understanding of basic world interactions, even it is just on general terms, the easier it is for the DM to keep those consistent and put more of his attention on other aspects of the game.
EDIT: My experience is that it's easier for players to learn the type of questions that make it easier to DM a comparatively rules free system under a more robust rules system than under a system like 4E. With PF, I can say as a DM in response to a question, "look on pg x, and tell me what the chart says," and go from there. Neither they, nor I, for that matter, need to memorize the chart, they just need to know where to find it and how to interpret it when they look it up, and if they do it enough, most players tend to learn how to target their questions better so as to save both themselves and the DM time. Under a system like 4E, there is nothing to help them form better questions aside from the DM directly, and that brings us back to the inherent strength and weakness of 4E.
Possibly we should be dividing things up so that there is an intermediate level player in which case a rules robust system might allow an intermediate player - one who is capable of looking things up in books - to have an easier time. That player first needs to understand all the sub systems themselves though before having to deal with issues of consistency.
For the beginner looking something up in the book is a waste of your time and theirs and will just intimidate them. I mean first they need to figure out which book. Saying 'look up climbing rules in the book with the half naked chic on the cover...no, no...the one with the half naked chic in green panties'. is useless they don't know where to find climb rules and if they did find them they would not understand the table. Explaining the table to them at this point is too much as well, they won't remember and they'll get frustrated because you'll be trying to speak to them in game speak because that's how such tables are set up.
Initially they don't even need to know that they can climb. When it comes time to teach them skills (session 3 or 4) all they need to know is if they are good climbers or not. There is going to be an extended period when the Dm is going to have to answer all questions of 'Can I...?" with 'yes - that is skill X - roll high' or 'roll over X and add your skill. They don't need consistency at this stage. They don't know enough to recognize inconsistency. For them every single thing is in fact inconsistent since its all new and the idea that it is specifically easier to climb a natural cavern then it is to climb a barn wall is more advanced then is useful at this stage.
This was one of the reasons 4E works well in this department - its easy to set things up so that you never have to look things up. A little DM effort in adventure set up to make sure that the relevant rules are known to the DM but initially the only thing you want them to master is how to understand their character sheet and which die is which. It'll be a long time before you decide to show them the rules and have them try and master that. In fact I'd go so far as to save that for campaign #2 though they'll understand that there are rules much earlier then that...of course you'll get some keener newbs that will fall in love with the idea and they'll actually want the rules and, of course they should be encouraged, but let them make that choice and don't expect it from them. Half your newbs will probably never be interested in reading the massive tomes and you want the game to play just as well for the player that never plans to pick up the rule book as it does for the ones that do.
That really is the strength of using 4E to teach the game - by the time your done with them they'll be able to play and understand the game even if they never plan on reading the rules in their spare time.
EDIT: My experience is that it's easier for players to learn the type of questions that make it easier to DM a comparatively rules free system under a more robust rules system than under a system like 4E. With PF, I can say as a DM in response to a question, "look on pg x, and tell me what the chart says," and go from there. Neither they, nor I, for that matter, need to memorize the chart, they just need to know where to find it and how to interpret it when they look it up, and if they do it enough, most players tend to learn how to target their questions better so as to save both themselves and the DM time. Under a system like 4E, there is nothing to help them form better questions aside from the DM directly, and that brings us back to the inherent strength and weakness of 4E.
Let's just say my experience differs wildly from yours and leave it at that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of 4e, I'll say that right out. I'll also say that no edition of D&D is wrong if people are having fun playing it. But I will say that there may be wrong steps or decisions to take in designing, marketing, and selling a game if your goals are to replace an edition and retain the vast majority of its players.
Wizards created a pretty tough environment for themselves and 4e with a series of decisions that, individually, might have seemed pretty minor but, taken in the aggregate, fostered a less tolerant market.
1) 4e's design goals removed protection for sacred cows, setting the stage for a substantial change in D&D's rule structure and play. Observers may have noticed that something like 4e was coming thanks to the Tome of Battle, so it's not really like WotC wasn't evolving in that direction. However, observers may also have noticed that the Tome of Battle was fairly polarizing - people seemed to love it or hate it. Based on that, both a shift in how D&D plays and difficulties in getting that adopted seemed on the horizon.
2) WotC declined to renew the Dragon and Dungeon licenses for Paizo. For a lot of people, this was the first major evidence that WotC was planning for a new edition release and wanted the magazines back in-house. It did, however, also frustrate a lot of long-time fans who had followed the magazines for years. Though we subsequently learned WotC had been quite accommodating to Paizo, it also looked like a cheap shot at a close ally, threatening their main business plan.
3) WotC design articles didn't seem well vetted for marketing missteps. A certain amount of frankness is welcome, but fairly careless comments were easy to latch on to and raised hackles. Comments alluding to D&D being about killing monsters and taking their stuff (not traipsing through faerie rings) seemed dismissive of alternative styles of play.
4) The license for 3rd parties didn't appear. Despite WotC saying it would be available early for publishers to use to get ready for Gen Con - it wasn't, not even the pay to play early bird version. For those of us watching Paizo and hearing about their concerns from Erik Mona, it looked like another cheap shot at allies or - as WotC was probably viewing them - rivals. And when the license finally did materialize, it was narrow, not the OGL. It was so narrow that the main unabashed cheerleader for supporting the new edition had to turn it down (I'm speaking of Clark Peterson of Necromancer games).
5) 4e marketing was interpreted as bashing previous editions. The videos about internet trolls, gnome monsters, and players unable to understand grappling rules were probably intended to be self-deprecating and edgy, but they ended up annoying a lot of people. If we also consider the pre-release design articles as marketing (which we should), they didn't just focus on how the 4e was new and improved but also shined a light where 3e was old and deficient. And that's contrary to typical marketing advice which avoids criticizing the old product.
6) Building 4e characters was complicated. Each individual step may have been a bit easier than for 3e characters, but the builder application was a virtually necessary element to keeping abreast of any new options or changes to options in the game. Moving from a stand-alone application to web-based one might have widened the market of potential users (to include Mac users, for example) but raised the fears of the tool being withdrawn rather than remaining in the hands of players if (when) 4e was replaced by the next edition. That may have been a minor issue had it not been for...
7) WotC has an abysmal record with software and online products. Though some of the problems were independent of WotC's management (like the tragic murder of a principal person), WotC fell badly short of their desired mark in providing an online playground. This is after failed initiatives to have a good builder for 3e too.
8) WotC pulled all digital copies of 4e and previous edition products citing piracy as the reason. Considering piracy had gone on (and continued) pretty much unabated without them selling any digital versions of their materials, all they managed to do was cut off a minor revenue stream and cut off a market of legitimate users who preferred to buy PDFs or other digital media for their games. After 7 and 8, how much confidence could anyone muster for WotC's online strategy (much less ability to maintain what 4e had online).
9) 4e was supposed to fix the math and extend the sweet spot of the game to encompass the whole of the game. This was much bandied about by 4e's early adherents. Turns out, they were at least partly mistaken and had to issue patch feats (expertise) and revamped monsters in Monster Manual III to fix the "fixed" math. The true depth of this issue took some time to come to light, but early results did note that combat, particularly against solos, could be quite a grind leading to many house-ruled fixes. Nevertheless, despite eventual fixes, the grind probably contributed to a lot of people dropping the game.
That's probably enough of a laundry list to indicate that there was a lot going on that put WotC in a negative light and made 4e's task of winning over the D&D market difficult. Had all of the marketing missteps, licensing issues, and digital strategies not been problems, I think 4e's differences in play would still have faced difficulty in winning over players. Add in those other issues that WotC was responsible for and it starts to look like WotC built quite a hill for themselves to try to get over.
D&D Next, fortunately, is being developed at a time in which all of those WotC problems are old news rather than fresh annoyances. The designers have actively sought out the D&D market's views on design directions as well as what is at the heart and soul of D&D. I think there are indications that someone at WotC has learned something from 4e's experience and that, I believe, is a good thing whatever look and feel the end results have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With item #5, I think the ads with the "I'm a monster" gnome and his pet badger, Francis, were universally beloved, pretty much. That said, comedy springs from pain, and what made the ad funny was the underlying tension of swapping the gnome to the Monster Manual and the tiefling to the Players Handbook, which irked a lot of players, myself included, on the basis of worldbuilding. Having the tieflings given giant horns and crocodile tails so they could be Draenei clones also didn't sit well with many players who preferred a somewhat subtler approach.
The troll and grapple ads, OTOH, were the match and the fuel for the edition wars.
With item #5, I think the ads with the "I'm a monster" gnome and his pet badger, Francis, were universally beloved, pretty much. That said, comedy springs from pain, and what made the ad funny was the underlying tension of swapping the gnome to the Monster Manual and the tiefling to the Players Handbook, which irked a lot of players, myself included, on the basis of worldbuilding. Having the tieflings given giant horns and crocodile tails so they could be Draenei clones also didn't sit well with many players who preferred a somewhat subtler approach.
The troll and grapple ads, OTOH, were the match and the fuel for the edition wars.
The gnome ads were fairly well done; the others left a fair bit to be desired. The biggest problem I had with most of them was they were quick to point out the deficiencies of the earlier systems, but gave no specifics on how 4E handled those things better; the gnome ads contained at least some hard information on the new system rather relying solely on general statements.
I wouldn't call 4E a bad game. I just wouldn't call it D&D. It doesn't meet the expectations I had come to expect from the game, given it's previous incarnations. I'm not certain there's anything wrong with that, but there it is. I've always drawn strong similarities (mostly regarding the backlash) between 3rd-to-4th D&D and Origins-to-II Dragon Age. Change is needed to keep things moving, but change too much and people break out the torches and pitch forks.
My point was more in regards to the very sour reaction from a lot of the Dragon Age fan base. They loved the first one and hated the sequel.
I think DA2 suffered from a very limited development cycle, likely a result of EA's influence. Regardless, the specifics have little to do with 4e or 5e; I was just attempting to draw a comparison between how they were both received by their respective audiences.
My point was more in regards to the very sour reaction from a lot of the Dragon Age fan base. They loved the first one and hated the sequel.
We did? Why I didn't get the memo I should hate the sequel?
|
|
A game system with no adventures is like an operating system with no programs.
The big issue WotC have always had is their unwillingness since 3e to release modules. It was their fatal strategic error and has caused them problems ever since as (a) they nurtured a rival in Paizo and (b) they didn't have sufficient expertise in-house to rival Paizo once they worked it out - knocking out three-or-so adventures once every two months, and then once a month, for years will develop skills that producing the odd adventure once a year or so simply cannot match. (Personally, if I were WotC, I'd poach JJ and get him on the case.)
My point was that the problem may have been of certain sections of the fan base, rather than the game. Which is equally applicable.
I suppose. Blaming consumers for a product's reception seems a strange way of framing it, though (it does to me, anyways). Either way, large portions of the audience did not approve, regardless of whose feet responsibility is laid at.
|
|
Are you seriously suggesting that all consumers are rational all the time? The marketing of 4e didn't actually bother me at all - people took offense because they wanted to, reading stuff into it that wasn't there a lot of the time and suffering massive sense of humour failure. I think the game itself is an improvement on previous editions. Now, some people really don't like change and will reject it, irrespective of the merits of the new product (and 4e has plenty of merits in comparison with previous editions). And because a vocal group make a lot of noise it doesn't follow that they actually represent a majority.
That's not to say that WotC didn't make mistakes. And if 4e isn't your cup of tea, I can respect that. But I'll make my own opinion based upon the merits of the game, not from disgruntled fans posting online. DA2 is a case in point - I thought it was fine, but if I'd paid attention to the online moaning I'd have not discovered a game which gave me hours of fun. So no, I don't buy that the game is the problem, having played it - for me, the reception from some consumers was just wrong, and certainly doesn't reflect my views.
Are you seriously suggesting that all consumers are rational all the time? The marketing of 4e didn't actually bother me at all - people took offense because they wanted to, reading stuff into it that wasn't there a lot of the time and suffering massive sense of humour failure. I think the game itself is an improvement on previous editions. Now, some people really don't like change and will reject it, irrespective of the merits of the new product (and 4e has plenty of merits in comparison with previous editions). And because a vocal group make a lot of noise it doesn't follow that they actually represent a majority.
The problem with most of the marketing, though, was that they didn't actually talk about the merits of the new product in most of it. If they had done more of "this is what the new system is and why its better than the old system" rather than simply saying "try our new and improved system, it's so much better than the old," a lot of the humor they used would have been better received. Like I said above, the gnome ad went over fairly well, and I think that was in large part because they actually talked about 4E as much or more than they did earlier editions. The other ads they set themselves up for the criticism by emphasizing the bad of the older editions without sufficient counter balancing it with the positives of the new system.
Are you seriously suggesting that all consumers are rational all the time? The marketing of 4e didn't actually bother me at all - people took offense because they wanted to, reading stuff into it that wasn't there a lot of the time and suffering massive sense of humour failure. I think the game itself is an improvement on previous editions. Now, some people really don't like change and will reject it, irrespective of the merits of the new product (and 4e has plenty of merits in comparison with previous editions). And because a vocal group make a lot of noise it doesn't follow that they actually represent a majority.
That's not to say that WotC didn't make mistakes. And if 4e isn't your cup of tea, I can respect that. But I'll make my own opinion based upon the merits of the game, not from disgruntled fans posting online. DA2 is a case in point - I thought it was fine, but if I'd paid attention to the online moaning I'd have not discovered a game which gave me hours of fun. So no, I don't buy that the game is the problem, having played it - for me, the reception from some consumers was just wrong, and certainly doesn't reflect my views.
They made changes and some people responded poorly, full stop. I'm not criticizing your choice of games, nor have I at any point said consumers are unfailingly rational. I feel like you're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist here.
The problem was that Coke decided to put that new formula in a new product and new label which meant killing off one of the sacred American icons, the old Coke label and identity.Perception and marketing are funny things.
Actually, according to Malcolm Gladwell (if I recall correctly) the problem with New Coke was that it preformed well in blind taste tests but not as a full can of beverage. In the context of the test, the taste was sweeter and more desirable. But after a full can (or two) the sweetness became cloying.
Since they didn't use focus groups for 4e, I'm not sure there is a valid analogy.
The problem was that Coke decided to put that new formula in a new product and new label which meant killing off one of the sacred American icons, the old Coke label and identity.Perception and marketing are funny things.
Actually, according to Malcolm Gladwell (if I recall correctly) the problem with New Coke was that it preformed well in blind taste tests but not as a full can of beverage. In the context of the test, the taste was sweeter and more desirable. But after a full can (or two) the sweetness became cloying.
Since they didn't use focus groups for 4e, I'm not sure there is a valid analogy.
That analysis is only part of the while picture. Coke messed with product identity when it had one of the most valuable brands in the economy. The backlash started small with a few focus group members whose impact was initially dismissed. But they snowballed quickly as consumers who had identified with the Coke brand felt betrayed with the Pepsi-like shift.
The whole New Coke debacle is now taught about in marketing classes.
The problem was that Coke decided to put that new formula in a new product and new label which meant killing off one of the sacred American icons, the old Coke label and identity.Perception and marketing are funny things.
Actually, according to Malcolm Gladwell (if I recall correctly) the problem with New Coke was that it preformed well in blind taste tests but not as a full can of beverage. In the context of the test, the taste was sweeter and more desirable. But after a full can (or two) the sweetness became cloying.
Since they didn't use focus groups for 4e, I'm not sure there is a valid analogy.
That analysis is only part of the while picture. Coke messed with product identity when it had one of the most valuable brands in the economy. The backlash started small with a few focus group members whose impact was initially dismissed. But they snowballed quickly as consumers who had identified with the Coke brand felt betrayed with the Pepsi-like shift.
The whole New Coke debacle is now taught about in marketing classes.
I actually see a DDN analogy here.
After all the 'debacle' was the best thing to ever happen to Coke. They had been loosing market share to Pepsi and other brands for generations but it had reached the point where Pepsi would be able to legitimately claim that their brand was simply bigger then Cokes Brand in the all important sugar added cola market. The trend lines where there and nothing had seemed to shake them.
It was only when the much loved brand was removed and then, subsequently, returned that the consumers realized how much they valued Coke and its sales shot upward dramatically. Overnight the Coke Brand erased what had been pretty much decades of solid marketing work by Pepsi.
One wonders if this is what WotC hopes will happen with DDN. Not that it matters much to me as I'm sticking with 4E.
|
I will play 4E but I don't like to run it. I like my tabletop rpgs messy and complicated. I once read something about why great works of literature seem to arise within certain languages and not so much others. The claim was that messy languages that were made up of several other languages are fairly inefficient and nonsensical at times. It was claimed that these messy languages produce the great works of literature due to all of the absurd ways one could express themselves within the language. That is probably baloney - I think it probably has to do more with conquest but regardless I like to evoke that analogy to explain why I like complicated rpgs because it sounds neat. I think that is why Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 create characters that do not feel as homogenous as 4E.
I don't care about the 4E marketing campaign. I thought the game master guide for 4E was well done. I wasn't offended by 4E. I think 4E is a great game. I just liked Pathfinder better.
I actually see a DDN analogy here.After all the 'debacle' was the best thing to ever happen to Coke. They had been loosing market share to Pepsi and other brands for generations but it had reached the point where Pepsi would be able to legitimately claim that their brand was simply bigger then Cokes Brand in the all important sugar added cola market. The trend lines where there and nothing had seemed to shake them.
It was only when the much loved brand was removed and then, subsequently, returned that the consumers realized how much they valued Coke and its sales shot upward dramatically. Overnight the Coke Brand erased what had been pretty much decades of solid marketing work by Pepsi.
One wonders if this is what WotC hopes will happen with DDN. Not that it matters much to me as I'm sticking with 4E.
You may be giving too much credit to WotC's power of forethought...but wouldn't it be funny if that's how it turned out?
Anyway, like you I'm sticking with 4e so this pretty academic to me.
|
|
Having the tieflings given giant horns and crocodile tails so they could be Draenei clones also didn't sit well with many players who preferred a somewhat subtler approach.
Actually, I kinda wished they'd allow you to use feats and such to make your Tieflings gain a few features from the various types of devil they might harken back to. Same for Pathfinder too actually.
Also, I do understand why people don't like the new lore, especially when it was shoehorned into settings like Forgotten Realms, and I will admit that the early 4e books were kinda bland, but it got a lot better as the edition went on. Hell, Heroes of the Feywild and the new Dungeon Survival Handbook (The latter of which contains Ultok, the most adorable baby umber hulk expy of Hachiko ever) are downright awesome!
And I loved a lot of the new fluff concepts, like how the Shadar-Kai, Formorians, and Princes Of Elemental Evil (In the form of Primordials) especially were given more prominence, how much more open-ended and explorable the Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos was, the idea of the Dawn War (The one involving the Primordials) and the Dusk War (The one involving the Star-spawn), the badass underground-god that is Torog, and the way Psionics was integrated with the setting as a defense against the Far Realm.
Though, this may be biased by the fact that I got into D&D via 4e, and I do love a lot of the lore that came before (I'm still sore they didn't do Spelljammer for 4e).
Back on topic :D The reason smy group abandoned or never tried 4e are below. Note that these were not necessarily valid reasons, but were the actual reason they moved away from 4th ed.
My group (LG players) moved to pathfinder for a number of reasons:
- changing the living campaign setting from Greyhawk to Forgotten Realms at the same time as a new edition was seen as "too much" by many players
- there was a feeling, at least with LFR that 4e was dumbed down and less challenging than our old Perrenland/Iuz LG campaign where ineffective builds did not survive long and often finished up permanently dead without any possibility of res.
- there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that 4e was a churn game intended to bring in new younger players most of whom would buy a flurry of products then quit. What many of our players called Games Workshop marketing. Meaning there were fewer experienced players.
- at the time the 4e system was regarded by my group as Star Wars/Diablo/WoW ported to PnP and not really D&D at all.