Read on Twitter
Okay remember last night, when I said that at some point I was going to talk about how the reaction to 4e remains a fundamental barrier to moving this game forward.
This right here is exhibit A.
I'm only going to go VERY surface on this today though because I have things to do. https://twitter.com/ArcanistPress/status/1345414301222391808
This right here is exhibit A.
I'm only going to go VERY surface on this today though because I have things to do. https://twitter.com/ArcanistPress/status/1345414301222391808
4e was the edition that went and acted on some of the fundamental problems in D&D's design. If you look at 4th from a design perspective, it absolutely paved the way for 5th. There's a lot of excellent design in 4th. A LOT.
Yet the number 1 opinion on 4e is that it's terrible.
Yet the number 1 opinion on 4e is that it's terrible.
Without doing a deep dive, 4th is an edition that, from it's beginning, says "what if we hold on to the themes that makes D&D into what it is, but we start building from a new place, instead of just adding fresh coats of paint on an old building."
More than ANY other edition, 4th was created for new players. From the basic design all the way to the dungeon master's guide, it is written for new players and new DMs. Both DMGs are written from brand new DMs- folks who have no idea how to (for example) prepare a session.
4th edition was the edition that tried to make some serious changed in some of the fundamental problems in D&D.
And what did the "old guard" of D&D players do?
By and large, you outright rejected it.
Some of you, without even trying the edition.
And what did the "old guard" of D&D players do?
By and large, you outright rejected it.
Some of you, without even trying the edition.
I've had experienced players/DMs, who have played for years, proudly tell me that they opened the 4e PHB, glanced over it, proclaimed that this wasn't D&D, and walk out of the store.
Others didn't even go that far- some of you wouldn't even grab one of the books and open it.
Others didn't even go that far- some of you wouldn't even grab one of the books and open it.
I've heard stories of those who did play it, how many people complained about how (among other things) the 4e DMGs were too "basic" and how they just "catered to new DMs" and we "too easy to read", because apparently all those are bad things.
Regardless of the details and how you personally talked about and viewed 4th edition as one of the "old guard" who have played since 3e or 2e or before that...
I think we can all agree that 4e was soundly rejected by a very large portion of the D&D base.
I think we can all agree that 4e was soundly rejected by a very large portion of the D&D base.
Now, when we look at "DnDNext", the design process, play testing, and the decisions that were made (from everything from design to STYLE AND LAYOUT), a large portion of it was built on WotC soundly deciding "no way in hell are we making that mistake again".
The burgeon of new players and DMs is, in many ways, a happy accident of 5e, and not an intentional goal.
The first and foremost goal was to appease the "old-guard" and get them on board. To win back the folks who rejected the change, and to KEEP them. No more boat-rocking.
The first and foremost goal was to appease the "old-guard" and get them on board. To win back the folks who rejected the change, and to KEEP them. No more boat-rocking.
Now, returning to the article at hand. Do you SEE where I'm going here?
We can't make any meaningful change because 5e decision-makers are protective as hell of the legacy of D&D and won't make changes that are more than surface changed
BECAUSE YOU REJECTED THAT ALREADY.
We can't make any meaningful change because 5e decision-makers are protective as hell of the legacy of D&D and won't make changes that are more than surface changed
BECAUSE YOU REJECTED THAT ALREADY.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong or passing judgement or assigning blame. I'm just saying, this is a BIG part of why, and I'm not seeing anyone talk about it.
(Which, you know, is par for the course with 4e because "we don't talk about that edition")
(Which, you know, is par for the course with 4e because "we don't talk about that edition")
There's more nuance here, absolutely. But I said surface level only, so there you go.
If you want more meaningful change in D&D, you need to go and wrestle with 4th edition.
It's a piece of D&D past that's preventing it from moving forward.
/fin
If you want more meaningful change in D&D, you need to go and wrestle with 4th edition.
It's a piece of D&D past that's preventing it from moving forward.
/fin
OOR MAH GOSH Somebody pay me to write on this because for the love of all things, someone has got to.
One more addendum: I want to make sure it's clear that I'm agreeing with what @ArcanistPress is saying in their thread, and if you haven't read it (or the article that they're talking about) you probably should, or you'll miss some of the important context here.
