A History of 4e D&D by DM David

[Voros]

Blogger DM David has done a series of retrospective blog posts on 4e D&D that avoid being too virulent or negative while still being critical.

Having missed the entire online 4e edition wars (thank god) I found this well written and insightful and refreshingly free of OTT venom.

 

[EmperorNorton]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really dislike 4e. It's not my favorite game (and it definitely had issues, though I imagine if it wasn't named "D&D" it would have landed better), but the tactical combat was actually quite fun.

I keep thinking of using Ultramodern4 (a modern hack of 4e D&D) to play an XCOM style game.

Also, this: "a new generation of D&D-inspired video games". I'd love to have had them release some video games that used the 4e ruleset, but they just never did.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Mearls recalled that the team felt that “building a player character was the real thing that drove people to play the games. You wanted to choose your feats, your prestige classes and whatnot.”

Once players built their characters, the fun came from showing off those characters on the battlefield.

 

[Voros]

Also, this: "a new generation of D&D-inspired video games". I'd love to have had them release some video games that used the 4e ruleset, but they just never did.

That quote is referring to supposedly the plan behind 4e not what actually panned out.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Black Vulmea To be fair, that IS why some people like to play.

In fact, it is one of the things I have realized is the main issue I have with 3.x and Pathfinder in general, the whole game mastery of the game and splatbook treadmill focused entirely on the builds part of the game, but the people who play them REALLY do like that stuff.

And hell, even I enjoy some chargen from time to time. But I have realized that the games I like to build characters in and the games I like to play are vastly different.

 

[Dumarest]

Blogger DMDavid has done a series of retrospective blog posts on 4e D&D that avoid being too virulent or negative while still being critical.

Having missed the entire online 4e edition wars (thank god) I found this well written and insightful and refreshingly free of OTT venom.

I was almost entirely out of the RPG hobby from 1992-ish until 2004-ish with only a handful of games in between. I'll be reading that without bias as I've neither played nor read 3rd through 5th editions. No axe to grind.

 

[robertsconley]

The factors DM David talks about are relevant however he is wrong as to the failure 4e being too much not D&D. Along the problems with the VTT resulting in the online experience being vastly less than it could have been. Nor it had to do with the complexity of the mechanics.

The primary reason is that people got bored with with the game because of its presentation. Throughout it life all it ever was presented as was fantasy superheroes 24/7 with a heavy focus on combat. It exception based designed could support completely different experiences without altering the core mechanics like a Dark Sun package, or a gritty swords and sorcery package. Also because of its exception based design it wasn't easy for fans to do it themselves. The work involved was similar to coming up with a whole new MtG release with dozens of new cards and effects.

So it became a one note wonder, people got bored, and quit playing. The fact it was not D&D, the software was have done, the poor marketing were just the icing on the cake of boredom.

 

[Lunar Ronin]

Also, this: "a new generation of D&D-inspired video games". I'd love to have had them release some video games that used the 4e ruleset, but they just never did.

They did. Neverwinter the MMOG uses the 4E rules set.

 

[Baulderstone]

The factors DM David talks about are relevant however he is wrong as to the failure 4e being too much not D&D. Along the problems with the VTT resulting in the online experience being vastly less than it could have been. Nor it had to do with the complexity of the mechanics.

The primary reason is that people got bored with with the game because of its presentation. Throughout it life all it ever was presented as was fantasy superheroes 24/7 with a heavy focus on combat. It exception based designed could support completely different experiences without altering the core mechanics like a Dark Sun package, or a gritty swords and sorcery package. Also because of its exception based design it wasn't easy for fans to do it themselves. The work involved was similar to coming up with a whole new MtG release with dozens of new cards and effects.

So it became a one note wonder, people got bored, and quit playing. The fact it was not D&D, the software was have done, the poor marketing were just the icing on the cake of boredom.

I've felt for a long time that putting too much "game" into an RPG is risky. Early on, having a combat system that is a game in of itself seems exciting, but at some point, it becomes like playing the same board game every single week. Even if it is a good game, people get tired of it, and the whole campaign suffers. On top of that, the more involved the game elements are in an RPG, the more the system dictates what the players choose to do rather than the system just being there to help the GM adjudicate what the players want to do.

On the page, B/X combat is dull and limited compared to 4E, but that's why I like it. The simplicity keeps things moving, and the blank spaces leave lots of room for player creativity.

Mearls recalled that the team felt that “building a player character was the real thing that drove people to play the games. You wanted to choose your feats, your prestige classes and whatnot.”

Once players built their characters, the fun came from showing off those characters on the battlefield.

That was already a huge flaw in 3E. Some of my players really bought into the build game that WotC was selling, but it left them perpetually dissatisfied. They were always looking at the feats and prestige classes in the newest supplement or issue of Dragon, feeling buyer's remorse over the character they had. I knew one guy who regularly tried to get his characters killed so that he could build a better one.

In a CCG, creating an urge to constantly make new builds works fine. You can build a new deck every day. In an RPG, it means some players have constant nagging dissatisfaction rather than just playing the game.

 

[Ladybird]

They did. Neverwinter the MMOG uses the 4E rules set.

Ehhhh, it uses the names for things, but it's still basically standard WoW-y mechanics underneath.

There was a PSP game D&D Tactics, which used the 3.5e rules and was kinda rubbish, as well as stuff like the Elemental Evil PC game; 4e would have been such a perfect fit for the combat side of that sort of game.

But at the time, their videogame licensing was shackled to the lumbering corpse of Atari, and then 4e was dead. But we got D&D electronic marbles instead, so that's better than nothing, right?

 

[Bunch]

I played 4e as intended. Fantasy Grounds quickly added all the 4e content in and as I recall even had a character importer to take a DDI build character and add them to a game.

Building characters was fun and just because something new came out I didn't get buyers remorse. I'd say they hit the nail on the head for the most part. It was easier to build a character than in third edition because almost everything was quickly integated into DDI character builder. The VTT did everything they we going for keeping track of everything just fine. We also played on the tabletop with no VTT and with the addition of some cool magnetic battlemaps and flag holders everything worked great.
My biggest grip wasn't that it wasn't d&d because for my groups it was. No my oroblpr was that everyone was now from a decision standpoint a spellcaster. One group had guys who really just were there to hang with friends. They used to play healer clerics or fighters or maybe a thief. In 4e everyone had to study the sheets and look at powers and say 'Do I use my daily now?'.
I'm not sure they didn't enjoy it because it was a relatively small search space but they sure werew not efficient at it. That made combat drag like a mofo. And 4e combat that's dragging is not fun.

 

[Endless Flight]

I dislike games that make mention of a character builder or suggest using one in any fashion. Puts up a big red flag for me.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Ehhhh, it uses the names for things, but it's still basically standard WoW-y mechanics underneath.

There was a PSP game D&D Tactics, which used the 3.5e rules and was kinda rubbish, as well as stuff like the Elemental Evil PC game; 4e would have been such a perfect fit for the combat side of that sort of game.

But at the time, their videogame licensing was shackled to the lumbering corpse of Atari, and then 4e was dead. But we got D&D electronic marbles instead, so that's better than nothing, right?

Yeah, Neverwinter is just another MMO, it doesn't really use the mechanics. D&D Tactics is more like what I'm thinking of, the mechanics of 4e built into an SRPG could be really good. Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation, is the closest thing we got, but it is based on the Adventure System Coop board games, which uses a very simplifed 4e ruleset.

 

[xanther]

I was almost entirely out of the RPG hobby from 1992-ish until 2004-ish with only a handful of games in between. I'll be reading that without bias as I've neither played nor read 3rd through 5th editions. No axe to grind.

Similar, although played regularlyish from about 1977-1984, 1989-1996, then 2006 on... didn't really pay any attention to the market and what was up until 2004 or so. Did recall seeing D&D 3 at some point.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Black Vulmea To be fair, that IS why some people like to play.

When I was a park ranger, mountain biking was really taking off, and there were conflicts between trail users and resource management issues with allowing mountain bikes on shared use trails. In conversations with conservation organizations, trail advocates, &c, I characterized the divide as I saw it this way: riders using their bikes to experience the park and riders using the park to experience their bikes.

I could readily identify with the latter group: I replaced pretty much every OEM part on my Rocky Mountain, from the headset to the seat post, had a hand-built custom wheel set, constantly fiddled with new tires to get just the right resistance and grip, &c. I bought magazines, perused websites, hung out at bike shops and trail heads talking with other riders. But while I enjoyed the tinkering and part-swapping - the performance - at the end of the day, my bike was a way to experience the park, whereas most of the hardcores I knew, it was very much the opposite.

My feeling is that many roleplaying games are designed to appeal to the hardcore fans, and they're the ones most interested in 'builds.' I think this misses the people who are happy to jump on their Target-bought Schwinn for a ride down a fire road, hear the wind in the trees, maybe see a jack rabbit or a coyote.

 

[Voros]

I've felt for a long time that putting too much "game" into an RPG is risky. Early on, having a combat system that is a game in of itself seems exciting, but at some point, it becomes like playing the same board game every single week. Even if it is a good game, people get tired of it, and the whole campaign suffers. On top of that, the more involved the game elements are in an RPG, the more the system dictates what the players choose to do rather than the system just being there to help the GM adjudicate what the players want to do.

On the page, B/X combat is dull and limited compared to 4E, but that's why I like it. The simplicity keeps things moving, and the blank spaces leave lots of room for player creativity.



That was already a huge flaw in 3E. Some of my players really bought into the build game that WotC was selling, but it left them perpetually dissatisfied. They were always looking at the feats and prestige classes in the newest supplement or issue of Dragon, feeling buyer's remorse over the character they had. I knew one guy who regularly tried to get his characters killed so that he could build a better one.

In a CCG, creating an urge to constantly make new builds works fine. You can build a new deck every day. In an RPG, it means some players have constant nagging dissatisfaction rather than just playing the game.

In the Dark Souls series builds are very important for effective PvE and especially in PvP. The best build for PvE is also not the best for PvP. My first playthrough of DS I had to abandon a poor build and restart the game with an improved build to actually complete the game.

The designers realized how frustrating having to restart the game to get a better build or try a different PvP build was and included ways to respec in the latter two Dark Souls. This improved the accessibilty and longevity of PvP in particular.

Respecing in a TTRPG would be harder to introduce without making it all feel too ‘gamey’ and/or without appearing to reduce the PC to a featureless automaton though. Some kind of transhuman or cybernetic setting would be the best option for a good in-world rationale.

 

[The Butcher]

D&D4 had character building/optimization and grid-/miniatures-oriented skirmish combat down to a science.

It was only lacking in everything else.

13th Age seems to address this, and ameliorate a few other issues such as the completely unnecessary 30-level spread, or the long dragged-out fights, which makes me curious. Because the fun parts of D&D4 were pretty damn fun, even if I don’t think I’d ever run a campaign with it.

 

[Bunch]

When I was a park ranger, mountain biking was really taking off, and there were conflicts between trail users and resource management issues with allowing mountain bikes on shared use trails. In conversations with conservation organizations, trail advocates, &c, I characterized the divide as I saw it this way: riders using their bikes to experience the park and riders using the park to experience their bikes.

I could readily identify with the latter group: I replaced pretty much every OEM part on my Rocky Mountain, from the headset to the seat post, had a hand-built custom wheel set, constantly fiddled with new tires to get just the right resistance and grip, &c. I bought magazines, perused websites, hung out at bike shops and trail heads talking with other riders. But while I enjoyed the tinkering and part-swapping - the performance - at the end of the day, my bike was a way to experience the park, whereas most of the hardcores I knew, it was very much the opposite.

My feeling is that many roleplaying games are designed to appeal to the hardcore fans, and they're the ones most interested in 'builds.' I think this misses the people who are happy to jump on their Target-bought Schwinn for a ride down a fire road, hear the wind in the trees, maybe see a jack rabbit or a coyote.

You're going to miss one or the other in all likelihood.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Also, this: "a new generation of D&D-inspired video games". I'd love to have had them release some video games that used the 4e ruleset, but they just never did.

Does not look like they have any intention to license games with the 5e ruleset, either, judging by the games they have licensed.

I really, really do not understand this. SSI made TSR a ton of money in the 1990s and vice versa.

 

[Ladybird]

Does not look like they have any intention to license games with the 5e ruleset, either, judging by the games they have licensed.

I really, really do not understand this. SSI made TSR a ton of money in the 1990s and vice versa.

There may also not be many developers interested in licensing them - the developers that made their name on D&D video games now have their own IP's (Tyranny 2 when, Obsidian) or don't do RPG's any more, the middle-tier of development houses has basically been killed off over the last decade, most smaller developers can't afford it, and larger developers don't need it; almost anything you could do with a D&D license, you can do without it.

 

[Ulairi]

Does not look like they have any intention to license games with the 5e ruleset, either, judging by the games they have licensed.

I really, really do not understand this. SSI made TSR a ton of money in the 1990s and vice versa.

Game development is a lot more expensive now than it was in the 80’s and early 90’s with SSI doing their stuff.

I’m not smart enough for the build heavy games as both a player and a referee. I’ve always liked the challenge not to be in coming up with the best or most optimized build but in completing the challenge of the “dungeon” and building a challenging “dungeon” for the players. Simpler combat that allows the next challenge to happen is a lot lore fun.

 

[Baulderstone]

In the Dark Souls series builds are very important for effective PvE and especially in PvP. The best build for PvE is also not the best for PvP. My first playthrough of DS I had to abandon a poor build and restart the game with an improved build to actually complete the game.

The designers realized how frustrating having to restart the game to get a better build or try a different PvP build was and included ways to respec in the latter two Dark Souls. This improved the accessibilty and longevity of PvP in particular.

Respecing in a TTRPG would be harder to introduce without making it all feel too ‘gamey’ and/or without appearing to reduce the PC to a featureless automaton though. Some kind of transhuman or cybernetic setting would be the best option for a good in-world rationale.

Xcom was mentioned above, and those are games where focus more on builds makes sense. Not only are you managing a whole team, your characters also die like flies. You get lots of chances to try out different builds.

It's kind of funny that build-heavy variants of D&D coincided with attempts to make D&D less deadly. I'd think the ultimate version of D&D for buildheads would be more of a rogue-like model where you needed to optimize your build to survive. It diminishes your bragging rights when your ultimate build only engages in encounters balanced for victory with only a 20% loss in resources.

Does not look like they have any intention to license games with the 5e ruleset, either, judging by the games they have licensed.

I really, really do not understand this. SSI made TSR a ton of money in the 1990s and vice versa.

Adding onto the other reasons given, Dungeons & Dragons is a brand to Hasbro first and a specific game second. They don't care whether the company that pays them to make a video game is going to use the mechanics. On top of that, the companies that are most likely to be able to pay Hasbro for the rights to use the brand are the companies least likely to care about the system as well. They just need to slap a coat of recognizable IP on that fantasy thingy they are making.

I'm also betting that even adjusting for inflation, the money that SSI made on the Gold Box games was nothing compared to what is expected of a successful video game today.

Personally, I don't even really mind. I have entirely different wants between video games and TTRPGs.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Personally, I don't even really mind. I have entirely different wants between video games and TTRPGs.

Which is personally the reason why I would have loved 4e video games. The stuff that would distract from the RP part of TTRPGs, the heavy build oriented stuff for instance, are things I like in video games.

Stuff like Grim Dawn where it is all about specs and grinding gear, and stacking stats is awesome when I'm just dicking around by myself playing a video game.

But when I'm playing a TTRPG it is a distraction.

 

[Justin Alexander]

Mearls recalled that the team felt that “building a player character was the real thing that drove people to play the games. You wanted to choose your feats, your prestige classes and whatnot.”

This really highlights the fundamental ideological flaw the crippled D&D4: The belief that there was a single, "perfect" style of play which would appeal to all D&D gamers.

In pre-4E D&D, if you wanted to focus on your character build there were classes that let you really dig into that. And if you didn't, there were simple classes that you could basically just pick up and play. (Wizards existed on one end of that scale; fighters at the other.) Players were able to play what they wanted to play, and they could so along side other people playing what they wanted to play.

2nd Edition and then 3rd Edition broke away from that somewhat (with proficiencies and skills and feats introducing additional decision points for the fighter end of the scale), but the dynamic still fundamentally worked. 4th Edition basically decided that everybody secretly wanted to be playing wizards.

One of the reasons I haven't made time to pick up or play 5E is that a lot of the designer commentary surrounding its development consisted of, "We've heard you! And now we've picked a different narrow slice of classic D&D gameplay to focus on!" And that's still not what I want.

 

[Voros]

One of the reasons I haven't made time to pick up or play 5E is that a lot of the designer commentary surrounding its development consisted of, "We've heard you! And now we've picked a different narrow slice of classic D&D gameplay to focus on!" And that's still not what I want.

There are so many options both in terms of rules and homebrew settings in the 5e DMG I don’t see it promoting a narrow approach to play. In that way 5e is really closer to 2e than 1e.

And Crawford has said that their surveys show fighters and not playing with Feats are among the most popular options so simplicity still seems to have its fans.

 

[The Butcher]

One of the reasons I haven't made time to pick up or play 5E is that a lot of the designer commentary surrounding its development consisted of, "We've heard you! And now we've picked a different narrow slice of classic D&D gameplay to focus on!" And that's still not what I want.

I do not think this is an accurate assessment — D&D5 is still very much focused on combat; I have a hard time trying to imagine how one would go about building a character that’s entirely useless in combat — but its saving grace may be the ability to consider the existence of a game world outside the combat grid, with which the PCs can meaningfully interact with. Simple stuff, really, but abysmally lacking in D&D4 (q.v. the skill challenge fiasco).

Conversely, the grid is relatively downplayed in D&D5; positioning is still critical to some classes (Rogue, Battle Master Fighter, Oath of Vengeance Paladin) but the game as a whole is far more theater-of-the-mind friendly.

Character building is alive and well in D&D5, just not as much of a complex game in and of itself.

 

[robertsconley]

I do not think this is an accurate assessment — D&D5 is still very much focused on combat; I have a hard time trying to imagine how one would go about building a character that’s entirely useless in combat — but its saving grace may be the ability to consider the existence of a game world outside the combat grid, with which the PCs can meaningfully interact with. Simple stuff, really, but abysmally lacking in D&D4 (q.v. the skill challenge fiasco).

The lack of explicit mechanics is not a determent to being able to add the existence of a game world outside of the combat grid. The lack of focus in the D&D 4e supplements and adventures on a game world outside the combat grid is.

OD&D does just fine without a skill system or any formal mechanic beyond the to-hit, the save, being able to cast spells, or turn undead. The fallback for any RPG is you tell me what you want to do and I, as the referee, will tell you what happens. If the action is possible for the character to do within the setting then the referee should allow the attempt if they are being fair even if there no explicit mechanic to cover it.
.

 

[The Butcher]

The lack of explicit mechanics is not a determent to being able to add the existence of a game world outside of the combat grid. The lack of focus in the D&D 4e supplements and adventures on a game world outside the combat grid is.

OD&D does just fine without a skill system or any formal mechanic beyond the to-hit, the save, being able to cast spells, or turn undead. The fallback for any RPG is you tell me what you want to do and I, as the referee, will tell you what happens. If the action is possible for the character to do within the setting then the referee should allow the attempt if they are being fair even if there no explicit mechanic to cover it.
.

Nevertheless, it is often trivial to infer an intended playstyle from that which a ruleset covers (and perhaps most tellingly, that which it does not cover). OD&D's is about exploration; D&D4's is combat with everything else handwaved away to varying degrees.

D&D5 still features combat front and center but seems to me to offer better balance; consider the Background mechanic (funnily enough introduced in the D&D4 Scales of War adventure, but expanded upon by D&D5). It has no bearing at all on your combat effectiveness, but it feeds on skill choice as well as all sorts of perks such as proficiencies with tools or entirely roleplayed benefits.

 

[Justin Alexander]

OD&D does just fine without a skill system or any formal mechanic beyond the to-hit, the save, being able to cast spells, or turn undead.

You have a very different version of OD&D than I do.

 

[The Butcher]

Finally got around to reading the articles linked in the OP. Two thoughts:

1. I was completely unaware of the horrific tragedy with the VTT lead developer. To be honest, sounds like urban legend material -- the vast virtual universe left unfinished by the unhinged creator.

2. I sort of wish I'd picked up and played with Essentials for a bit.

 

[robertsconley]

You have a very different version of OD&D than I do.

It the one published in 1974

 

[Voros]

2. I sort of wish I'd picked up and played with Essentials for a bit.

I bought the 4e Essentials Red Box on a whim, intending to gift it to my nephews. But then I placed it under my bed, forgot completely about it and didn’t find it until last year when I was moving!

 

[thedungeondelver]

LEMME TELL YOU GUYS WHY 4E WAS SO TERRIBLE AND EVERYTHING IT DID WRON

Nah I'm just messing with you this is a good thread.

 

[TJS]

Black Vulmea To be fair, that IS why some people like to play.

In fact, it is one of the things I have realized is the main issue I have with 3.x and Pathfinder in general, the whole game mastery of the game and splatbook treadmill focused entirely on the builds part of the game, but the people who play them REALLY do like that stuff.

And hell, even I enjoy some chargen from time to time. But I have realized that the games I like to build characters in and the games I like to play are vastly different.

It's not normally why I like to play. But I did enjoy that aspect of 4E. But part of the issue with it was that once you'd tried out the character and had seen how it worked there wasn't much excitement in continuing to play the same character.
It just, to me at least, didn't integrate particularly well with the core experience of playing the same character over an extended campaign. If you took that same core engine and you took it away from a level based game and used it to run short games that were one-offs or two or three session games I think I would have been more satisfied with it.

Also this:

I've felt for a long time that putting too much "game" into an RPG is risky. Early on, having a combat system that is a game in of itself seems exciting, but at some point, it becomes like playing the same board game every single week. Even if it is a good game, people get tired of it, and the whole campaign suffers. On top of that, the more involved the game elements are in an RPG, the more the system dictates what the players choose to do rather than the system just being there to help the GM adjudicate what the players want to do.

and this:

That was already a huge flaw in 3E. Some of my players really bought into the build game that WotC was selling, but it left them perpetually dissatisfied. They were always looking at the feats and prestige classes in the newest supplement or issue of Dragon, feeling buyer's remorse over the character they had. I knew one guy who regularly tried to get his characters killed so that he could build a better one.

 

[Justin Alexander]

It the one published in 1974

My copy has mechanics for languages spoken, reaction, morale (including subdual/surrender), loyalty, inheritance, dungeon exploration (whole mess of mechanics), fleeing, wilderness exploration (whole 'nother mess of rules), castle/stronghold construction, aerial combat, and naval combat.

You should check it out. There's some cool stuff in there.

 

[TJS]

Respecing in a TTRPG would be harder to introduce without making it all feel too ‘gamey’ and/or without appearing to reduce the PC to a featureless automaton though. Some kind of transhuman or cybernetic setting would be the best option for a good in-world rationale.

4E did in fact allow respeccing. By the rules you could retrain one power or feat every level. In practice we allowed it more than that. Due to the way 4E worked, it didn't actually make the game feel any more gamey then it already was. The actual relationships between the mechanics of the character and the fiction of what the character was, and what it could do, was already tenuous enough that it didn't really matter. Either you could live with that, or you couldn't.

 

[opaopajr]

But at the time, their videogame licensing was shackled to the lumbering corpse of Atari, and then 4e was dead. But we got D&D electronic marbles instead, so that's better than nothing, right?

I actually played D&D "electronic marbles" for months up until the end. It was sorta fun... well, because marbles is a fun mindless game! Wasn't hot on the booster pack card collecting and point currency to grind up your "marbles," though.

Let it not be said I did not give D&D 4e a fair shake! I tried it every which way. I just happened to stick with their free play version of electronic marbles because it was the most fun.

And then they canceled all it, leaving me only flame war memories. Such sweet memories...

 

[Ladybird]

I actually played D&D "electronic marbles" for months up until the end. It was sorta fun... well, because marbles is a fun mindless game! Wasn't hot on the booster pack card collecting and point currency to grind up your "marbles," though.

I gave it a shot, but then I quickly realised it was the same payment model as so many other mobile games, so I deleted it - I don't like gachas.

It reminded me of an old Game Boy RPG called Metal Walker, which had a combat system where you flicked your spherical robot buddy around the arena to cause damage. I quite liked that one.

And then there's Catacombs, which looks like so much fun and I would like a copy, but not at the prices it's available at these days.

 

[EmperorNorton]

And then there's Catacombs, which looks like so much fun and I would like a copy, but not at the prices it's available at these days.

I have a copy of Catacombs. It is very fun.

 

[robertsconley]

My copy has mechanics for languages spoken, reaction, morale (including subdual/surrender), loyalty, inheritance, dungeon exploration (whole mess of mechanics), fleeing, wilderness exploration (whole 'nother mess of rules), castle/stronghold construction, aerial combat, and naval combat.

You should check it out. There's some cool stuff in there.

And if you read my initial response carefully I was referring to the criticism of D&D 4e lack of a detailed skill system as some fatal flaw. Which I disagree with using OD&D as an example of another very successful RPG where the lack of a detailed skill system didn't hamper people from running all kinds of campaigns.

I am quite aware of what in and not in OD&D.