I wonder if anyone enjoyed the Pathfinder 2 "Playtest" game books, and just kept playing "that" version of the game?  I mean, it was a complete game system....

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM

It’s not a matter of bypassing; it’s using the material as intended.

And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.

Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.

Quote

Basically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn’t needed because those situations were generally less complex

99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.

And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.

Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).

4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level . Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).

Quote

But you weren’t expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).

Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.

All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.

4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.

Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.

Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 3 pages.

I've noticed that you don't see people criticising 13th Age, even though it shares similarities with D&D 4E?  Most of the time comments about 13th Age are very positive; because 13th Age doesn't claim to be the current edition of D&D, with all others being out of print.  13th Age doesn't have to carry that baggage, because it's not labeled D&D.  It's it's own thing. 

If only WOTC had done that to start with.  They could have given 4E a totally different name, and left 3.5 in print; though possibly with a slower release schedule.  What if 4E didn't say D&D on the cover?

The Invisible College?  That sounds pretty cool Pundit.  Interesting artwork there too.

I don't believe the Artificer class presented in 5E, fits in very well with the more traditional classes?

I've watched a few reviews on Y tube; and the descriptions of the mechanics of the class and its bag of tricks, causes me to lose focus on the traditional D&D fantasy tropes that I enjoy in gaming.  Whereas the presence of an Alchemist wouldn't?   I believe I'd prefer Alchemist, over Artificer.

Short Arcs, and One Shots.

There are people who have only recently felt the need to go buy a little extra, and then they were shocked when they couldn't find what they were looking for.  They ignored the signs.  They ignored the warnings.  They chalked it all up to people blowing things out of proportion.  Well, now they know better.

You don't want to act after the panic, you want to act before the panic.

I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

If 5E releases a Dark Sun hardcover, I hope they do the setting justice.

But then again, slavery and cannibalism are parts of the setting.   I don't see WOTC having the stomach to go there, in this climate.