What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh you...

The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's smart, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!

(fortunately, it's still a fun game).

And if Joe the plumber decides he wants to be a computer programmer, he's gonna have to get out from under the sink and sit in front of a computer for a while too.

 

[Remathilis]

Just to point out, the 3e Realms introduced a lot more than rules for what Region you were from. The introduced the Level Adjustment rules (along with their compliments, Character Level and Effective Character Level) and Epic level rules. Those rules later got their own supplements, at the end of 3e's life, and were latter incorporated into 3.5 rule books. It was in the 3e Realms that Tieflings first appeared as a 3e PC race. Quite frankly, the 3e Realms was a 4th core rule book for 3e before 3.5.

It also tried to fix XP distribution for uneven leveled PCs by adjusting CRs for each PC rather than average party level (which often screwed those of lower level by giving them LESS XP than if they were people they're own level!). It was brought over as the "standard" form of XP distribution in 3.5.

 

[Remathilis]

And if Joe the plumber decides he wants to be a computer programmer, he's gonna have to get out from under the sink and sit in front of a computer for a while too.

Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!

Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!

 

[Imaro]

Ok, fair enough. So here is a question - how different do the mechanics need to be to count? For example, Dark Sun is coming out soon, and thus far looks to have a number of elements that make it distinct:
-Themes, which both help define characters and give them a slight power boost compared to other settings;
-Arcane Defiling;
-Weapon Breakage rules;
-Some form of more detailed survival/endurance rules;
-No divine characters by default.

Would these be what you are looking for?

I'm asking out of genuine interest here - as I mentioned before, I think there is a solid point of balance where you have mechanics that will make a setting unique while still keeping it accessible, and I'm just trying to figure out where that point might be.

Yes, this is what I'm talking about, though I don't think there is a hard answer to your question of how much... though I can tell you when I feel there's to little. If I'm playing Ravenloft and it plays no differently than Forgotten Realms... something is wrong. My point is that there should be enough mechanical tweaks and changes that the feel of the setting comes across in play to both the players and DM's. I honestly wish they had included some mechanics that would make Eberron feel more noir (since I think 4e core covers pulp pretty good.). As for DS, I am not currently playing 4e and am not sure I am going to pick it up, unless it just gets all around rave reviews... otherwise I would probably use my original boxed set + the Dragon article for 3e to play in DS with Pathfinder.

 

[NoWayJose]

I am actually starting to get what he is looking for here. Basically, he doesn't want a character to have to give up their other capabilities to be defined as a natural born leader - perhaps in one party, Gandalf is the inspirational glue that holds everyone together, while in another it is Aragorn, and in yet another it is Frodo. Whether Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, whatever - having that role of 'inspirational heart of the party' doesn't need to be tied to class.

Which I can understand. But at the same time... I sorta feel like you could make that same argument for Fighter, or Bard, or any number of other capabilities. Once you go down that road, you truly are looking at designing an entirely class-less system.

As it is, D&D somewhat assumes that if you really want to have those exceptional abilities, you need to represent it within the character's stats. In 4E, it presents the Warlord as one way of doing so - the most prominent way. Basically, they decided that 'inspirational leader of men' was a valid enough fantasy archetype to merit its own class. I don't think there is anything wrong with them doing so, or unrealistic about that (any more than the concept of any class.)

Could they have pursued a different approach, and made it some sort of template option (as seems to be showing up with Dark Sun themes?) Sure, probably.

But as has been noted - there are other options. As mentioned, every has this to some extent via Heal and Second Wind. Investing in Diplomacy, hunting down the right utility and skill powers, multiclassing - all these can help a character gain some of those talents.

Without that - you might be a naturally charismatic fellow, but you just haven't mastered the art of truly inspirational speeches, because you've spent more time learning to swing your sword and other tricks. Haven't we seen things like this before, as well? Rogues being the only ones able to find magic traps, for example - even a bard who is incredibly skilled with traps, natural dextrous and perceptive and such, can't ever be as good with traps as someone with the 'trapfinding' class feature?

In this case, there are options to help others represent that ability if they have it - but they'll never be as good at it as the Warlord, because that is the archetype he represents.

I can see someone preferring that they handled it differently - but I can't really get someone saying this approach doesn't make sense, when it is simply the same natural approach of the class system that has been part of D&D from the start.

Almost anything can make sense if you argue enough, but some things will subjectively make more intuitive sense than others.

For me, the classic warlord archetype (Gengis Khan, viking leader, Nigerian warlord, Conan the king, etc.) are fighters, knights, barbarians, etc. that became warlords due to the right mix of natural talent, career path, life choices, and good fortune. A typical/average 4E PC who is a warlord at 18 (or average starting age) with no minions and no significant political or military rank (meaning in-game, with real tangible fluff and crunch implications in the campaign) just doesn't model this archetype at all (again, I'm talking about the average case, don't bother me with odd exceptions).

WoTC could have easily made archetypes like warlord, knight, gladiator, etc. as a theme or template or prestige class or whatever, but they didn't -- NOT because it didn't make sense, but because it didn't match their metagame ideas, and (as per previous posts) with 4E, there are certain metagame principles which are sacred cows (that replaced the old ones) that almost always trump immersive versimilitude. That's not quite the ideal balance of game development priorities that many "disenchanted" would ideally like in an RPG.

Alternatively, instead of changing the warlord class and warlord class powers, it's sometimes possible to reskin the fluff to better fit the crunch. For example, make the warlord very specific -- a type of paladin or cleric of a war god whose inspiration-based powers are a synergistic blend of natural charisma and divine augmentation. Then I'd be sold in an instant in terms of versmilitude. Then the warlord class powers don't feel so arbitrary and gamist anymore.

Unfortunately, I don't feel WoTC cares about this set of priorities, and I don't care to reskin everything to my liking either -- too much work, not enough time. Plus reskinning the fluff doesn't fix any perceived gamist issues with the rules mechanics themselves.

 

[Imaro]

Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!

Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!

That's because instead of practicing weapon techniques and keeping his edge... he'sbeen playing catch up on all that theology he never learned...

 

[billd91]

Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!

Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!

One quibble. He actually doesn't forget. He just can't advance as a cleric if he doesn't really live the life of a cleric. Relying on the old abilities is backsliding and hurts cleric advancement (loses XPs from current adventure). He gives it 100% or he gets no chance to advance.

That may not be quite realistic either, but it's not as stark as forgetting calculus when switching over to chemistry.

 

[Umbran]

Folks, focus, please. The exact rules of how to pick up a new class in 1e are a bit far from the topic at hand.

Return to the original point - this is supposed to be about how to win back disenchanted customers.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!

Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!

Except that he hasn't forgotten. He can attack with his 5th level fighter thac0 and use weapon specialization any time he likes. Much like Joe the computer programmer can skip class and moonlight by fixing clogged sinks. He can do this, but he's gonna miss out on learning C+ that week.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see the warning, I type slow.

 

[fanboy2000]

It also tried to fix XP distribution for uneven leveled PCs by adjusting CRs for each PC rather than average party level (which often screwed those of lower level by giving them LESS XP than if they were people they're own level!). It was brought over as the "standard" form of XP distribution in 3.5.

Good catch! I never (even when we switched over from 3.5) used that XP system. However, I did switch over the to the level independent xp system in Unearthed Arcana.

I think it's easy to miss something when talking about 4e disenchantment. 4e is Wizards' attempt to get back the people who were disenchanted by 3.5. I remember all the posts about during the 3.x era about the game was cramping their style. And the early retro clone years. Every so often posters would pop in and say how awesome some d20 based game was and how Wizard's d20 game sucked in comparison.

You know what I think Wizards can do to bring back the disenchanted? Keep making a game they like to play. If they do that, some of the disenchanted will come back, and some people who were fine with the system will leave, only to come back latter when the game changes again.

Cue Circle of Life from The Lion King.