Does anyone still play 4e?

[Sable Wyvern]

I’ve always felt odd in that I actually agree that it feels video-gamey — heck, Essentials straight up ripped off class features from WoW like fighter stances and ranger aspects — it just never bothered me that much. Which is a completely subjective opinion, of course.

That makes perfect sense to me. Whether being video-gamey is good or bad is always going to be a matter of personal taste.

This does make me wonder if there are people out there who feel similarly to you, but don't want to admit it because they feel it plays into the hands of the 4e haters.

 

[pawsplay]

Speaking of video-gamey, have any of you ever looked at d20 Everquest? That is the true ancestor of the d20-based game with powers keyed to character level (rather than spell levels or ranks), continually escalating offense, defense, and skill values, little or no multiclassing, and effortlessly scalable monsters and NPCS (the author, probably Owen Stephens) questions whether you actually need a 12th level giant rat in a non video game setting, but just in case you do, the guidelines are there to do it.

I don't think Pathfinder 2e is all that much like 4e, insofar as 4e was distinctive. P2 does build a lot of feats as "powers" which is very 4e-like, but was already implicit in 3e. Monsters built on a numerical chassis goes back to 3e as well, even if some of the official 3e writeups took great liberties with the guidelines. The most 4e-like features to me of P2 are just the continually escalating defense, offense, and skill values, which, again happened first in Everquest. I see the proficiency levels in P2 being a lot like Star Wars Saga, and something that 4e essentially skipped over.

I think what P2 does have, that 4e inspired, is a general linear-yet-modular character design, lots of nifty little powers, "game logic" somewhat divorced from realistic worldbuilding, heavy but simple tactical minis play, more over-the-top action, letting higher tier characters be somewhat superhuman without invoking explicit magical effects, and more consistent monster design for a target challenge level. All of which exists conceptually in late 3.5, so it's not much of a stretch to port over the concepts.

P2 doesn't have a lot of things I consider essential to 4e: one round status effects, "cute" powers that get re-used constantly, slugfest combat, rigid interpretation of "roles," lore being relegated to little more than flavor text, making sure everyone gets basically the same kind of bonuses and the same kind of powers, numerical bonus feats that "build" a particular strategy, and powers with a specific tactical use that don't have a three-dimensional existence in the game world.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Speaking of video-gamey, have any of you ever looked at d20 Everquest? That is the true ancestor of the d20-based game with powers keyed to character level (rather than spell levels or ranks), continually escalating offense, defense, and skill values, little or no multiclassing, and effortlessly scalable monsters and NPCS (the author, probably Owen Stephens) questions whether you actually need a 12th level giant rat in a non video game setting, but just in case you do, the guidelines are there to do it.

I actually have the core books for this, but I never read them in-depth because everyone I mentioned them to kind of looked at me like I was crazy for even having them.

 

[Nakana]

As someone who likes 4E, I understand a lot of the complaints it receives (just not the level of anger it invokes). It’s also undeniably video-gamey, reading the rules for movement, tactical combat, power categories, etc. the developer in me literally sees the coded instruction set for functions, objects, variables, etc.

I can do that for 3E as well. The difference is code-wise 3E looks like a Frankenstein put together with bubblegum and toothpicks while 4E looks like a clean, refactored codebase.

 

[LikelyArrow]

As someone who likes 4E, I understand a lot of the complaints it receives (just not the level of anger it invokes). It’s also undeniably video-gamey, reading the rules for movement, tactical combat, power categories, etc. the developer in me literally sees the coded instruction set for functions, objects, variables, etc.

I can do that for 3E as well. The difference is code-wise 3E looks like a Frankenstein put together with bubblegum and toothpicks while 4E looks like a clean, refactored codebase.

Maybe that's the issue: 3e is C++ and 4e is Java, so you are almost legally required to like one and hate the other, while the C programmers (TSR era grognards) hate both.

To extend the analogy, I think 5e would be Go. (Not Rust because it doesn't give me headaches the way Rust does.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Every player in my group ended up having a low opinion of 4e. Not one of them blamed me for it (and there are number of core concepts they can point to not liking in principle, such as healing surges), but it seems pretty self-evident that my lack of comfort with the system would have been a factor in their opinions.

Sure. No game is for everyone and there are certainly reasons to jot like 4e. Or any given edition or game for that matter.

My point was about the criticism of 4e as nothing but a tabletop MMO and similar nonsense.

Because the other editions aren't TT versions of Gauntlet the arcade game. Pretty simple

I don’t think it’s that simple at all. As others have pointed out, there was more space devoted in the 4e core books to roleplaying than any other edition.

What’s present in other editions that helps you roleplay, that 4e lacks?

 

[Sable Wyvern]

My point was about the criticism of 4e as nothing but a tabletop MMO and similar nonsense.

It seems pretty clear to me that there are a reasonable number of people for whom it actually felt like that.

• It used MMO terminology to class the characters,
• It had had powers and abilities artificially limited to certain number of uses per day, when there was little or no in-game rationale.
• The mechanics of an action or power were frequently pushed as trumping the reality of the game world (eg, you can "trip" a slime).
• It had an economy that was focused on nothing but items and equipment that improve your combat ability.
• Most of the powers had limited utility outside of combat.

It may not have felt like an MMO to you, and it's not reasonable for anyone to claim it must have felt like an MMO to everyone, but you can't just dismiss all the people saying they didn't like it because it felt like an MMO by telling them they're wrong, and it didn't really feel to them the way they felt it did.

 

[Malckuss]

I think the reason it ended up working is that PF2e doesn't have the very sterile presentation that 4e did. I actually think that if 4e's presentation was less technical, it would have done better. I'm not saying that people who played it and didn't like it would have necessarily liked it, but I do think that a lot of people who bounced off of it on the reading stage might have still enjoyed it.

Also, while PF2e has some of the dna of 4e in there, they didn't copy the "everyone runs on the same at-will/encounter/daily" chasis, which I think a lot of people didn't like, and also kept casting pretty much the same as 3.x/PF1e, with the only real addition to basic casting being focus spells.

This holds a great deal of truth. I have often thought that if 4E had been marketed as a tactical fork of D&D - Dungeons & Dragons: Tactics - or even as a new tactical fantasy IP, not as D&D, it would have done better. This was reinforced when I read PF2E and was further strengthened by PF2E Remastered. The presentation was key.

Because the other editions aren't TT versions of Gauntlet the arcade game. Pretty simple

That's disingenuous; D&D4E doesn't even resemble the D&D Arcade games, much less a simplistic old-school button masher. If one is going to compare D&D4E to a video game, it clearly would have more in common with a strategy CRPG like Final Fantasy Tactics, Fell Seal, Fire Emblem, Ogre Battle, Shining Force, Tactics Ogre, or Unicorn Overlord. Add roleplaying. Great fun ensues.

It seems pretty clear to me that there are a reasonable number of people for whom it actually felt like that.

• It used MMO terminology to class the characters,
• It had had powers and abilities artificially limited to certain number of uses per day, when there was little or no in-game rationale.
• The mechanics of an action or power were frequently pushed as trumping the reality of the game world (eg, you can "trip" a slime).
• It had an economy that was focused on nothing but items and equipment that improve your combat ability.
• Most of the powers had limited utility outside of combat.

It may not have felt like an MMO to you, and it's not reasonable for anyone to claim it must have felt like an MMO to everyone, but you can't just dismiss all the people saying they didn't like it because it felt like an MMO by telling them they're wrong, and it didn't really feel to them the way they felt it did.

Some of these claims have merit, but others don't; quite frankly, most of the individuals I have seen posit these ideas never actually sat down and played the game. The loudest detractor of 4E in my local circles never finished building a single character; he just complained loudly the entire time, "This is nothing like 3rd edition!" for two hours. This guy tried to continue to use his 3.0 books when the rest of us moved on to 3.5 and only embraced 3.5 after 4E was released, trying to get us to play the version of the game he preferred, but we loved 4E.

Essentials, however, was a dumpster fire.

 

[Nakana]

“4th Edition: The ultimate tabletop MMO (or not) and so much more (possibly)!*”

I guess it really was just a problem with how they marketed it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

*YMMV

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Some of these claims have merit, but others don't; quite frankly, most of the individuals I have seen posit these ideas never actually sat down and played the game. The loudest detractor of 4E in my local circles never finished building a single character; he just complained loudly the entire time, "This is nothing like 3rd edition!" for two hours. This guy tried to continue to use his 3.0 books when the rest of us moved on to 3.5 and only embraced 3.5 after 4E was released, trying to get us to play the version of the game he preferred, but we loved 4E.

All of my dot points are things I noticed in my 18 months actually running 4e. For the record, I did not think it felt like an MMO, but I never really played MMOs, so I don't really have a point of reference. You can say my points don't have merit, but they're things I actually encountered and felt (admittedly, the slime-tripping thing sticks with me not because of the game itself, but because of the RAW Zealots the game spawned, who would rage online at anyone they heard suggesting that they would not allow a slime to be tripped at their table).

 

[Nakana]

they would not allow a slime to be tripped at their table).

GM: You can’t sneak attack a book! You can’t backstab an inanimate object!
Player: Why not? It’s prone! It has a spine doesn’t it??

 

[Sable Wyvern]

GM: You can’t sneak attack a book! You can’t backstab an inanimate object!
Player: Why not? It’s prone! It has a spine doesn’t it??

That sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

I'm actually ok with people who decided the mechanic was more important than the fluff. It was just the RAW Zealots who screamed through their keyboards that not allowing it literally meant you were a bad person who should feel bad that annoyed me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It seems pretty clear to me that there are a reasonable number of people for whom it actually felt like that.

• It used MMO terminology to class the characters,
• It had had powers and abilities artificially limited to certain number of uses per day, when there was little or no in-game rationale.
• The mechanics of an action or power were frequently pushed as trumping the reality of the game world (eg, you can "trip" a slime).
• It had an economy that was focused on nothing but items and equipment that improve your combat ability.
• Most of the powers had limited utility outside of combat.

It may not have felt like an MMO to you, and it's not reasonable for anyone to claim it must have felt like an MMO to everyone, but you can't just dismiss all the people saying they didn't like it because it felt like an MMO by telling them they're wrong, and it didn't really feel to them the way they felt it did.

I didn’t say that MMOs weren’t an influence. I said it was ridiculous to claim that it was “nothing but a tabletop MMO.”

Follow this string back to where this started… it was in response to the below two quotes:

I did for a while, but I didn't 'market' it as a roleplaying game, but rather as a miniatures game with adventuring vibes. I used sentences such as: "You come to a nameless town and speak with the mayor who has no name. The mayor utters words that you don't hear, but you know that you should go into the cemetary and deal with the undead there. Roll initiative!"

Good way to sell it as it is true.

The idea that it’s not a roleplaying game. That’s all I’m refuting.

I don’t care that they used MMO terminology. Or that there are some absurdities in the rules (I mean, ALL editions have plenty of those… it seems like an exercise in cherry picking). I’ve already said there are any number of valid criticisms, and all manner of preferences folks may have that make 4e and them a poor fit.

But I think it’s very silly to claim that it’s not a roleplaying game. What does it lack that other editions have when it comes to roleplaying?

It’s a BS argument. People don’t like the game for whatever reason, so they have to try and claim it’s not a “real roleplaying” game.

The absurd example above… the nameless town with the nameless mayor and all that… is not true of 4e. It’s true of one example of play. And there’s nothing stopping anyone from playing 1e or B/X or 3.5 or 5e in just as bland a way.

I hope that’s clearer.

 

[Malckuss]

“4th Edition: The ultimate tabletop MMO (or not) and so much more (possibly)!*”

I guess it really was just a problem with how they marketed it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

*YMMV

Considering that 4E 'descendants' including 13th Age, Lancer, PF2E, and Unity have been well received and appear to sell well, yes. And you are right, the level of hate 4E gets is very weird.

All of my dot points are things I noticed in my 18 months actually running 4e. For the record, I did not think it felt like an MMO, but I never really played MMOs, so I don't really have a point of reference. You can say my points don't have merit, but they're things I actually encountered and felt (admittedly, the slime-tripping thing sticks with me not because of the game itself, but because of the RAW Zealots the game spawned, who would rage online at anyone they heard suggesting that they would not allow a slime to be tripped at their table).

I wasn't saying your points were baseless, simply that many individuals I have heard regurgitating such points largely parroted things they had overheard with zero personal experience with the game; that annoyed me. Someone being disgruntled with an experience is one thing, but someone complaining about something they have no experience with is idiocy. It reminds me of times 'Uncle Brandon' tried to get my 'nieces' and 'nephews' to try barbecue sauce or salsa when out of ketchup with them declaring, 'Ew!' without trying it due to 'it looks weird!,' 'It smells funny!' or it wasn't what they asked for. It's still ok to want what you enjoy but try new things.

I should have been more specific, however, the anecdote regarding the complaints of my former crew member overwhelmed my mind's eye. I have seen and experienced varying degrees of truth in your first three bullet points; the most glaring being the language associated with combat roles, which I initially disliked, but turned out to be a good shorthand when filling out a party, I simply resent the specific wording. The last two I have seen work very well, but I am willing to admit this may be due to experiences with other systems and GM ingenuity. I'm also willing to concede many elements of 4E could have used better explanation & implementation.

GM: You can’t sneak attack a book! You can’t backstab an inanimate object!
Player: Why not? It’s prone! It has a spine doesn’t it??

You can sneak attack a book; you write a dramatic plot twist! Oh, right in the escalating tension! Critical Hit! The villain is your father!

That sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

I'm actually ok with people who decided the mechanic was more important than the fluff. It was just the RAW Zealots who screamed through their keyboards that not allowing it literally meant you were a bad person who should feel bad that annoyed me.

I think that may be another issue of an overly literal-thinking player or a GM who is stuck for ideas and simply looking to move on.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I didn’t say that MMOs weren’t an influence. I said it was ridiculous to claim that it was “nothing but a tabletop MMO.”

Follow this string back to where this started… it was in response to the below two quotes:





The idea that it’s not a roleplaying game. That’s all I’m refuting.

I don’t care that they used MMO terminology. Or that there are some absurdities in the rules (I mean, ALL editions have plenty of those… it seems like an exercise in cherry picking). I’ve already said there are any number of valid criticisms, and all manner of preferences folks may have that make 4e and them a poor fit.

But I think it’s very silly to claim that it’s not a roleplaying game. What does it lack that other editions have when it comes to roleplaying?

It’s a BS argument. People don’t like the game for whatever reason, so they have to try and claim it’s not a “real roleplaying” game.

The absurd example above… the nameless town with the nameless mayor and all that… is not true of 4e. It’s true of one example of play. And there’s nothing stopping anyone from playing 1e or B/X or 3.5 or 5e in just as bland a way.

I hope that’s clearer.

If someone is saying that it can't be played as an RPG, I agree, they're objectively wrong. I mean, I feel I can't run it as a (good) RPG, but I also acknowledge that's on me.

On the other hand, if someone is saying they successfully recruited for and ran games using 4e by treating it as something other than an RPG, and more like a series of loosely linked skirmish miniatures game, then I see no reason to disbelieve them. I'm not sure if Moracai was being facetious or serious, but what they describe seems entirely plausible to me, if maybe a little exaggerated for effect. I mean, even people who can't stand 4e as an RPG generally admit it does fantasy tactical-gamey combat really well, so I don't see what's so strange about someone saying they used it for that.

 

[pawsplay]

The reason people said 4e didn't support a lot of roleplay is because... it didn't. It may have had lots of GMing advice, but that's not the same as support for the activity in game. Combat took up lots of lexical space and lots of actual time, squeezing out other activities. Combined with skill challenges, there weren't a lot of primary activities in 4e that were allotted time and space. The in-game economy was weird, very closely resembling something like Diablo or Fate, with ever-escalating levels of materials. A lot of the lore was (somewhat arbitrarily) changed from 3e, with pretty thin support during its lifespan for more storytelling. I can't imagine even spending a lot of time on something like haggling, when the cost of astral diamond armor or whatever was already clearly laid out in the rules. Character backgrounds were about as thin as they have been since early AD&D. A lot of concepts weren't explored, like what an eladrin settlement would look like since everyone could teleport (do you need ladders? How does a jail work?).

It's pretty much what you get when you take a D&D framework, design it from top to bottom with game balance in mind, then launch with minimal thoughts toward world-building, and suffering an end of the game line before a lot of development could really occur to address some of the problems. Plenty of people liked 4e just fine (in sales numbers, it was a solid rival to its immediate predecessor) but it was never accepted as a replacement for 3e because it didn't really allow for the same kinds of activities you could do in 3e. Some people liked 4e, some didn't. Some of the people who disliked 4e liked 3e, so they were annoyed with the end of the support lifespan for 3e. Things like rewriting gnomes, the GSL (as opposed to the OGL), redefining terms like "archon," and gating a lot of the classic monsters like gnolls behind higher levels were just gasoline in the fire.

 

[Moracai]

I'm not sure if Moracai was being facetious or serious, but what they describe seems entirely plausible to me, if maybe a little exaggerated for effect. I mean, even people who can't stand 4e as an RPG generally admit it does fantasy tactical-gamey combat really well, so I don't see what's so strange about someone saying they used it for that.

I was entirely serious, because that's what I actually did. I got exactly two complaints from the players during that briefish experimentation. The first was from a player who told that he doesn't exactly like the aforementioned nameless town stuff. I told him that I don't want to compete with the current GM, I'm providing an extra bit of fun and certainly nobody forces you to participate, this is more for the lulz. He didn't quit.

The second complaint I got was from a player who was dissatisfied with his rangers damage output when compared to a barbarian. I told him that you should statistically hit more often than the barbarian because you have two swords instead of one big one. He wasn't happy and quit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If someone is saying that it can't be played as an RPG, I agree, they're objectively wrong. I mean, I feel I can't run it as a (good) RPG, but I also acknowledge that's on me.

On the other hand, if someone is saying they successfully recruited for and ran games using 4e by treating it as something other than an RPG, and more like a series of loosely linked skirmish miniatures game, then I see no reason to disbelieve them. I'm not sure if Moracai was being facetious or serious, but what they describe seems entirely plausible to me, if maybe a little exaggerated for effect. I mean, even people who can't stand 4e as an RPG generally admit it does fantasy tactical-gamey combat really well, so I don't see what's so strange about someone saying they used it for that.

Yes… but you can play just about any RPG, and certainly any edition of D&D, that way. It was very much an RPG that was focused on tactical skirmishes… but so was later 2e, 3.x, and now 5e.

The reason people said 4e didn't support a lot of roleplay is because... it didn't. It may have had lots of GMing advice, but that's not the same as support for the activity in game. Combat took up lots of lexical space and lots of actual time, squeezing out other activities. Combined with skill challenges, there weren't a lot of primary activities in 4e that were allotted time and space. The in-game economy was weird, very closely resembling something like Diablo or Fate, with ever-escalating levels of materials. A lot of the lore was (somewhat arbitrarily) changed from 3e, with pretty thin support during its lifespan for more storytelling. I can't imagine even spending a lot of time on something like haggling, when the cost of astral diamond armor or whatever was already clearly laid out in the rules. Character backgrounds were about as thin as they have been since early AD&D. A lot of concepts weren't explored, like what an eladrin settlement would look like since everyone could teleport (do you need ladders? How does a jail work?).

It's pretty much what you get when you take a D&D framework, design it from top to bottom with game balance in mind, then launch with minimal thoughts toward world-building, and suffering an end of the game line before a lot of development could really occur to address some of the problems. Plenty of people liked 4e just fine (in sales numbers, it was a solid rival to its immediate predecessor) but it was never accepted as a replacement for 3e because it didn't really allow for the same kinds of activities you could do in 3e. Some people liked 4e, some didn't. Some of the people who disliked 4e liked 3e, so they were annoyed with the end of the support lifespan for 3e. Things like rewriting gnomes, the GSL (as opposed to the OGL), redefining terms like "archon," and gating a lot of the classic monsters like gnolls behind higher levels were just gasoline in the fire.

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. Other than combat taking longer than they should, I think it had a lot more roleplaying focused elements.

The lore changes were anything but arbitrary. They were deliberately done to connect the lore to the characters in meaningful ways. Certainly more than any previous edition. I don’t think that there was “minimal thought” toward world building so much as a conscious choice to give groups building blocks so they could build their own worlds.

As for how it “didn’t allow for the same kinds of activities you could do in 3e” what do you mean?

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Yes… but you can play just about any RPG, and certainly any edition of D&D, that way. It was very much an RPG that was focused on tactical skirmishes… but so was later 2e, 3.x, and now 5e.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that if you were going to run a tactical skirmish game, with limited or no roleplaying aspects, and asked people which edition of D&D would be best, a significant majority of people with experience with 4e would probably recommend 4e.

I'm not sure why you seem to feel obliged to push back against these kinds of claims. Again, many people, both fans of the game and those who aren't, are in complete agreement that it's a solid to excellent minis skirmish game. I love some B/X and AD&D, but there is no way I would use them for that sort of game. 4e is just so much better at that particular thing.

I can't speak to 5e, as I've never played it, or even read the rules, but of the other editions, I feel 4e is a long way ahead of all the others for this purpose. 3e comes in next, then other editions well after that.

 

[Mankcam]

Although I have also played 13th Age, I don't think it's a replacement for 4e. It does somethings quite differently. Classes are very different from eachother rather than similar as in 4e. It also goes for theater of the mind combat, rather than the strict rules from 4e.

Agree.

13th Age is clearly derived from D&D 4E, that's easy to see.
But for all it's mmo-gamey similarities, 13th Age has so many differences, and at the end of the day it doesn't end up being anywhere near being a D&D 4E clone - so it's certainly not a replacement.

13th Age is definantly it's own thing, despite the D&D 4E DNA being there.

 

[Some Bloke]

I ran and played a ton of 4e. The longest campaign ran for 13 years and ended last November.

A bit of preface here: I'd been playing RPGs pretty much continuously for over 2 decades before I ever played D&D. 4e was the first edition I played because it was the first one which appealed, so I can't comment about how it changed from the earlier editions. I've subsequently gone back and read played a bunch of older editions and can see a lot to love about OD&D, BX and AD&D 1e. Not so much with other non 4e versions but I get why people like them.

Key points I'd argue from my time playing and running:

The combat system is phenomenally well put together and tremendous fun to engage with from both the GM and player side. This contrasts with my experience with every other edition which at best have adequate/fine combat systems.

The other systems (IE, doing anything other than combat) are adequate. Nothing fancy. The Skill Challenge thing was a nice idea, we used it a lot but basically took it as the foundation and built something around it which worked for us.

The early modules were pretty bad. I think this gave a lot of people a bad impression of what the game was like, but that may be incorrect.

Same with the Organised Play stuff. I don't do Organised Play or Living Whatever, but from what I've heard those crowdsourced adventures were often quite shit.

When you have a game which has good, fun subsystems for one thing (in this case combat) and ok rules for everything else, it's easy to fall into the trap wanting to just do that one thing all the time. S John Ross uses the term Porn Logic, but the point is that it's often tempting to just have fights because they're fun.

Some of the maths was hinky. There were easy fixes, but if you don't know them from the later books you may struggle to balance things as the players increase in level. There's also the shopping list magic item stuff which is weird, but once you accept that it works well.

Complexity and how characters interact in combat becomes REALLY complex at higher levels. We did 1-30 and found that after mid heroic (say level 6-7?) Things could bog down if players are planning ahead for their turn. That also fails to work well when the battlefield state changes as other people take their turns. You may be planning to hit monster X, but then they die or get shut down so you still end up having to plan your turn on the clock as it were. This gets both better and worse as you get Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies since you often get to flat out ignore rules as a class feature. One of my characters just simply never granted Combat Advantage for example.

Introducing new players to the table was an interesting thing by mid Paragon. Even experienced RPG gamers who haven't played 4e were advised to get a couple of sessions in with one of the simpler Essentials characters before building what they really wanted to play. Just to get to grips with things. There are 3 levels of expertise, general system mastery, knowing how to play given class/role effectively and knowing how the party as a whole fits together. That's a lot to learn, but it's also a lot to enjoy.

I eventually converted one of the campaigns I was running to 13a for various reasons. I'm a pretty hardcore "Play to Find Out" guy and I found 4e combat length had practical impacts on how flexible I could be about what was going on in the big picture. So you get to 45 mins before you need everyone to leave and the players are going to open a door which will trigger the next fight, so you kinda have to pause. 13a combat ran a lot faster and was enough fun so that worked better for me.

I don't know if that helps anyone or is interesting?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure why you seem to feel obliged to push back against these kinds of claims.

You keep slightly refining what it is that you think I'm pushing back against.

 

[Turkey Lurkie]

I didn’t say that MMOs weren’t an influence. I said it was ridiculous to claim that it was “nothing but a tabletop MMO.”

Follow this string back to where this started… it was in response to the below two quotes:





The idea that it’s not a roleplaying game. That’s all I’m refuting.

and I reject

 

[Turkey Lurkie]

That's disingenuous;

No, it's factual

 

[Imaginos]

While there are definitely legitimate issues with some arts of 4E, some of which were fixed with later releases in the line and some that were not, I also thing 4E got a lot of hate because of how vastly different it was to 3/3.5.

A lot of people really enjoyed the power factor you could get by building a character that was class 3 / class 2 / class 5 / epic class 4 / super special class 9 / Mary sue class 1. Me? I did not care for that part of 3.5 so I was happy to escape from it.

 

[Imaginos]

No, it's factual

Or not. And to elaborate instead of playing the snarky 1 line retort, if you truly believe this it reveals that you either never played either the Gauntlet video game and/or 4E.

If you wanted to compare it more to WoW, it would be a more legitimate comparison. Maybe even Golden Axe. But Gauntlet? Rubbish comparison.

 

[Moonglum]

I feel like I get what they were trying to do with 4e, and I initially thought they were going to do something I always thought could be awesome: having all the core classes possess a daily allotment of special things they can do that follows the same logic as the wizard's spells per day chart. But I was imagining it would be more like a 4th level thief can pick locks twice a day, backstab once per day, etc., or a fighter could dodge a blow so and so many times per day, and so forth. But somehow they headed in that direction but landed in an incredibly boring (to me) place, where everyone is just doling out or recovering from some uniform amount of damage, and the whole thing just felt very flat, combat focused, and disconnected from the traditional pace and events of normal play.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Or not. And to elaborate instead of playing the snarky 1 line retort, if you truly believe this it reveals that you either never played either the Gauntlet video game and/or 4E.

If you wanted to compare it more to WoW, it would be a more legitimate comparison. Maybe even Golden Axe. But Gauntlet? Rubbish comparison.

Instead of WoW, a better MMO comparison would be Guild Wars 1, which I also really like, as Ladybird already mentioned. Guild Wars 1 can still be played today just like WoW.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Instead of WoW, a better MMO comparison would be Guild Wars 1, which I also really like, as Ladybird already mentioned. Guild Wars 1 can still be played today just like WoW.

Yeah, core 4e is GW. Essentials is absolutely WoW though, which is part of what I disliked about it. (Not that it was video-gamey, but that it so blatantly ripped off a specific video game.)

 

[Degeneration roller]

The very first ttrpg I've ever played was dnd 4e and it almost killed my passion for the hobby before it started, thanfully I found vampire the masquerade shortly after.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

I think the biggest thing holding 4e back from a “resurgence”’is its reliance on VTT tools that don’t exist anymore.

 

[Imaginos]

Instead of WoW, a better MMO comparison would be Guild Wars 1, which I also really like, as Ladybird already mentioned. Guild Wars 1 can still be played today just like WoW.

That is very true. I must’ve missed LB’s comparison above. I used to enjoy GW a lot and had forgotten about it.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. Other than combat taking longer than they should, I think it had a lot more roleplaying focused elements.

Name, like, two.

The lore changes were anything but arbitrary. They were deliberately done to connect the lore to the characters in meaningful ways. Certainly more than any previous edition. I don’t think that there was “minimal thought” toward world building so much as a conscious choice to give groups building blocks so they could build their own worlds.

I don't even know what you are saying here. Turning archons into elemental beings and then redefining "titans" feels pretty arbitrary to me, and I don't know what it connects to anything. 4e had its own implied setting, but then as they took the 4e approach to other settings, they just wrecked stuff anyway, a lot of which had to be retconned back. Including lots of special materials in the core rules isn't really providing "building blocks" to build worlds.

As for how it “didn’t allow for the same kinds of activities you could do in 3e” what do you mean?

All the stuff you can do when you aren't doing long set piece battles, for start. Then you can add in traversing the world and multiverse with magic. Coming up with your own solutions to "skill challenges." 3e left a lot of room open just to explore and interact.

Somehow 4e didn't even have a lot of abilities that related to or enhanced its own skill challenges.

 

[LikelyArrow]

I kind of think both sides are right: 4e did have a lot of good advice for roleplaying. It also ended up discouraging it for a lot of players, myself included.

For me the issue was that since any roleplaying scene can potentially become a combat if you piss the wrong person off, and combat in 4e almost required a map (not strictly true, but not quite the same without it), any roleplaying encounter felt like it needed to be as fully-prepared as a combat encounter.

Plus if it was a truly significant encounter, IIRC you should really turn it into a social skill challenge.

 

[Acmegamer]

I ran and played a ton of 4e. The longest campaign ran for 13 years and ended last November.

A bit of preface here: I'd been playing RPGs pretty much continuously for over 2 decades before I ever played D&D. 4e was the first edition I played because it was the first one which appealed, so I can't comment about how it changed from the earlier editions. I've subsequently gone back and read played a bunch of older editions and can see a lot to love about OD&D, BX and AD&D 1e. Not so much with other non 4e versions but I get why people like them.

Key points I'd argue from my time playing and running:

The combat system is phenomenally well put together and tremendous fun to engage with from both the GM and player side. This contrasts with my experience with every other edition which at best have adequate/fine combat systems.

The other systems (IE, doing anything other than combat) are adequate. Nothing fancy. The Skill Challenge thing was a nice idea, we used it a lot but basically took it as the foundation and built something around it which worked for us.

The early modules were pretty bad. I think this gave a lot of people a bad impression of what the game was like, but that may be incorrect.

Same with the Organised Play stuff. I don't do Organised Play or Living Whatever, but from what I've heard those crowdsourced adventures were often quite shit.

When you have a game which has good, fun subsystems for one thing (in this case combat) and ok rules for everything else, it's easy to fall into the trap wanting to just do that one thing all the time. S John Ross uses the term Porn Logic, but the point is that it's often tempting to just have fights because they're fun.

Some of the maths was hinky. There were easy fixes, but if you don't know them from the later books you may struggle to balance things as the players increase in level. There's also the shopping list magic item stuff which is weird, but once you accept that it works well.

Complexity and how characters interact in combat becomes REALLY complex at higher levels. We did 1-30 and found that after mid heroic (say level 6-7?) Things could bog down if players are planning ahead for their turn. That also fails to work well when the battlefield state changes as other people take their turns. You may be planning to hit monster X, but then they die or get shut down so you still end up having to plan your turn on the clock as it were. This gets both better and worse as you get Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies since you often get to flat out ignore rules as a class feature. One of my characters just simply never granted Combat Advantage for example.

Introducing new players to the table was an interesting thing by mid Paragon. Even experienced RPG gamers who haven't played 4e were advised to get a couple of sessions in with one of the simpler Essentials characters before building what they really wanted to play. Just to get to grips with things. There are 3 levels of expertise, general system mastery, knowing how to play given class/role effectively and knowing how the party as a whole fits together. That's a lot to learn, but it's also a lot to enjoy.

I eventually converted one of the campaigns I was running to 13a for various reasons. I'm a pretty hardcore "Play to Find Out" guy and I found 4e combat length had practical impacts on how flexible I could be about what was going on in the big picture. So you get to 45 mins before you need everyone to leave and the players are going to open a door which will trigger the next fight, so you kinda have to pause. 13a combat ran a lot faster and was enough fun so that worked better for me.

I don't know if that helps anyone or is interesting?

I found it helpful as I'd never actually played 4e, skipping it. I did buy the core books to read but that's it. Reading game books versus actually getting a chance to sit down and play one a few times really are different experiences. You never get the full picture from just reading them. So thanks for the post.

 

[Bourbonjack]

I’ve always felt odd in that I actually agree that it feels video-gamey — heck, Essentials straight up ripped off class features from WoW like fighter stances and ranger aspects — it just never bothered me that much. Which is a completely subjective opinion, of course.

I agree. It always felt very MMORPG to me.

4E also pushed me to do a 180, in terms of “game balance”. I no longer have any desire to play a TTRPG that places any focus on class balance, balanced encounters, wealth by level, magic item balance , etc.

The only TTROGs I have any interest in playing now are unrepentantly anti-“game balance”.

 

[Acmegamer]

I kind of think both sides are right: 4e did have a lot of good advice for roleplaying. It also ended up discouraging it for a lot of players, myself included.

For me the issue was that since any roleplaying scene can potentially become a combat if you piss the wrong person off, and combat in 4e almost required a map (not strictly true, but not quite the same without it), any roleplaying encounter felt like it needed to be as fully-prepared as a combat encounter.

Plus if it was a truly significant encounter, IIRC you should really turn it into a social skill challenge.

Which was never a big thing for me since every ttrpg I played in person, I used a large Chessex square/hex roll out on the table. So quickly setting up a combat was never an issue. I used markers, and dominos which I kept to the side of board near my GM screen. Dominos match up size wise to the hexes or squares on the Chessex battle maps quite well. Plus my cigar box of APMs (All Purpose Meanies).

I've always found that the immersion comes from the GM and the players, but once battle starts, knowing what, where and how many is much, much easier for me and most players I ran across over the past 46 years. It reduced confusion and extra questions, so we could focus on the battle itself. I've always been a minimalist on my approach to these aids, I don't go for the whole building block sets, because those seem to eat into time and slow down game play. But those simple tools I did list have always made for a much better game in my long experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

and I reject

Why?

Name, like, two.

Alignment, paragon paths, epic destinies, social skills, skill challenges.

I don't even know what you are saying here. Turning archons into elemental beings and then redefining "titans" feels pretty arbitrary to me, and I don't know what it connects to anything. 4e had its own implied setting, but then as they took the 4e approach to other settings, they just wrecked stuff anyway, a lot of which had to be retconned back. Including lots of special materials in the core rules isn't really providing "building blocks" to build worlds.

I'm talking more about the Dawn War stuff and how that directly tied into the options for player characters. They provided hooks for the players to be directly involved in those elements. Made players more actively involved in determining what play would be about, instead of leaving things totally up to the GM.

I mean, sure, the GM could totally ignore all that... but I think we'd be safe to criticize such a decision as a poor one.

As for other settings... nothing was wrecked. Anyone could choose to continue playing in Forgotten Realms as it existed in 1988 or 2000 or any point between.

All the stuff you can do when you aren't doing long set piece battles, for start. Then you can add in traversing the world and multiverse with magic. Coming up with your own solutions to "skill challenges." 3e left a lot of room open just to explore and interact.

Somehow 4e didn't even have a lot of abilities that related to or enhanced its own skill challenges.

I mean, 3e isn't exactly known for its fast combats... so I don't know why you attribute this deficiency to 4e but not 3e. Seems inconsistent, no?

Skill challenges weren't explained all that well initially, but that improved a bit later on. My group never really struggled with them, and I found them to be one of the more robust additions to the game. It provided a means of having a dynamic non-combat encounter that was neither resolved purely by GM fiat nor by one individual roll.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Speaking of alignment, I know 4e’s alignment wasn’t really popular but anything that gets rid of Chaotic Lolrandom can’t be all bad. CN, like gnomes, attracted players who wanted a license to be annoying in my experience.

 

[pawsplay]

Alignment, paragon paths, epic destinies, social skills, skill challenges.

How are any of those role-playing related? Reducing your "epic destiny" to a handful of class features is about as reductive as you can get. Skill challenges were basically anti-roleplay, a way to gamify exploration even to the detriment of common sense. 4e didn't offer anything new as far as alignments, apart from playing with the categories that existed. None of that, zero, has much to do with role-playing opportunities.

As for other settings... nothing was wrecked. Anyone could choose to continue playing in Forgotten Realms as it existed in 1988 or 2000 or any point between.

Ah, yes. 4e was certainly an innovator in allowing people to just play something else. Woo. So roleplay. Much lore. So very.

I mean, 3e isn't exactly known for its fast combats... so I don't know why you attribute this deficiency to 4e but not 3e. Seems inconsistent, no?

I ran a level 1 to 20 campaign, and while combat could be long, I can't think of any occasions where it dragged out enough to last an entire session. It's not inconsistent to say 4e was simply much, much worse than this than 3e, and by design. I can definitely attribute this deficiency to 4e because it's a deficiency of 4e and not 3e. At least, not by a factor.