Order of the Stick killed 4e

[Drachasor]

And you do this by showing you don't know that the diagonal of a 7x7 square is greater than 40.

This is a concrete example of an insult, and therefore it deserves pointing out as being meaningful, unlike most of what you said.

That said, yes, the diagonal is "greater" than 40ft, even though in reality it is less because areas and movement ignore diagonals, so in fact, moving from one corner to the other is in fact 30ft of movement.

Just because you bizarrely move faster diagonally doesn't mean that's not a greater distance. In fact, given that a square grid is used to play the game, a square spell is arguably more useful. It's going to fit onto the map better much of the time, whereas a circular spell is more likely to get cut off.

You might have a point if people could move after a spell is cast and before it lands. That's not how the game works however, so you don't.

falsely assume the game models a contiguous world rather than separately modelling slices of time. You have confused tactical depth and complexity. And you seem to have missed that fact that A causes B is not the same as B causes A.

Could you rephrase any of these in a form that actually means anything at all? I mean, besides that they are wrong, just get them to be some kind of meaningful criticism in the first place, regardless of truth.

This just indicates that you don't understand how 4E works, because what I said WAS meaningful criticism.

A combat in 4E doesn't model anything other than that particular combat. You do not represent the same enemy the same way at 1st level, 5th level, 10th level, or 20th level. Something that had 20 hit points at 1st level is going to be represented by a minion at 10th.

Representing a horde of much weaker enemies as minions is EXACTLY how minions are supposed to be used.

Lastly, you have not grasped how comics and stories in general work -- game mechanics are just not a tenth as important as you think they are.

If you could only read, talking with you wouldn't be a complete waste of my time. I never said the game mechanics were important, I said the game mechanics ability to be interesting to watch is important, because when you read a passive medium like comics, you spend a lot of time watching the mechanics unfold. If that is boring as shit, then it doesn't matter if you could tell a different story with your boring to watch mechanics, because people would not read that comic.

And what are you saying here except "I didn't say the game mechanics are important. I'm just saying the game mechanics are important otherwise the story is boring!"

Mechanics are only interesting in the comic in terms of people speculating how they might get used in the future. But in general, Burlew himself has said that mechanics take a second seat to the story. He's demonstrated this many times as well. So you're just really wrong here. An interesting story is interesting on its own merits. Being an affectionate parody of something is largely a separate quality.

Honestly, the biggest thing OotS takes out of 3.X are some monster names and appearance, class names and themes, and spells. It ignores a lot of 3.5 mechanics unless it is making a joke. Because there's no reason to get bogged down in how you'd represent anything in the game when you are telling a story. The game mechanics are only a limitation if the writer lets them be, and Burlew doesn't.

My point is that I pretty much think the OP has things backwards. 4E has tons of stuff you can tear into as an affectionate parody. It would be easy to make a comic that uses the 4E rules as inspiration. The problem is that 4E is not popular enough for affectionate parodies to be popular. Low popularity means a small audience and also means that fewer artists who care about the medium.

And my point is that tearing into stuff as an affectionate parody doesn't create a 12 year comic, you also have to actually present interesting scenarios to read in the story. A 12 year comic is not an affectionate parody, it is part affectionate parody, and part entertaining to read story. And worse than books, it needs to be entertaining on a second by second basis.

Yes, and it is the story that makes it entertaining. Being a D&D 3.5E comic just means it pulls fans of 3.X. That gives it a very large base of fans. 4E doesn't have a base that's nearly so large, so a 4E comic is going to have a lot fewer potential fans. This also means that there's less of a chance for a talented writer to make a 4E comic, because fewer writers will be fans of 4E.

Presenting interesting scenarios and having an interesting story is easy to do in 3.X or 4E. 4th edition does not prevent good plot lines, it doesn't prevent depth, it doesn't prevent humor, etc. This is especially true when you write the combat as a story rather than limiting yourself to game mechanics. OotS does not limit itself to 3.5 game mechanics in combat, and I'd expect a 4E version to be similar in this regard.

It's much like looking at Darths and Droids. That doesn't even copy any game mechanics at all -- it's just vaguely d20. Nor does it copy the storyline of the movies. But it pulls in Star Wars and RPG fans just because it has a huge fan base.

[Kaelik]

I see, so you have never read OotS and are taking one stupid quote about story vs mechanics as gospel.

Yes, the only time Burlew uses the mechanics of 3e is every single time that any PC or NPC or Monster takes any action at all. The part where you pretend that PCs and NPCs taking actions has nothing to do with what makes the comic interesting is just absurd.

[Fuchs]

Fireball is a daily power in 4E, which means 4E mechanics are unsuited for just about any story where a wizard would use more than one fireball per day. Which, given how flashy the spell is, are a lot.

[ishy]

It is not just that.
Whenever something interesting happens in Oots that is not talking or stabbing people in the face. It is done by a caster.
Why? Because only casters can do that. And you'd have to make everything up from scratch.

In 4e, everybody is a commoner. You'd have to make up rules for everything, not just interesting stuff, but stabbing fools in the face too. Because nobody would read the comic if they took 20 panels to kill one goblin mook.

And if your audience knows the rules everybody plays by, they can get involved in more ways. For example guessing what is going to happen, or even the useless debates between who would win in a fight.

[Drachasor]

I see, so you have never read OotS and are taking one stupid quote about story vs mechanics as gospel.

Yes, the only time Burlew uses the mechanics of 3e is every single time that any PC or NPC or Monster takes any action at all. The part where you pretend that PCs and NPCs taking actions has nothing to do with what makes the comic interesting is just absurd.

I've read the whole thing. You seem to be falsely assuming that when Roy attacks Burlew is there running a tabletop game. That's not what is happening at all. Shall I go over 5 or so fights when mechanics are ignored because it isn't narratively useful? It's far from uncommon.

D&D mechanics are backdrop to the comic, not a mandate. They're used for jokes, ideas, rough power gauges, spells etc, but not to decide how the story develops and don't dictate combats. Heck hit points themselves are ignored when it wouldn't be dramatic.

And it is most certainly the case the Burlew doesn't consult the D&D rules when anyone takes any sort of action. That's especially absurd.

Fireball is a daily power in 4E, which means 4E mechanics are unsuited for just about any story where a wizard would use more than one fireball per day. Which, given how flashy the spell is, are a lot.

There's the 10' by 10' at-will "fireball" and a higher-level encounter power that's pretty much a fireball.

The variety of things an individual caster can do in 4E is down tremendously from 3.5, but that doesn't mean there's still not quite a bit of stuff left.

It is not just that.
Whenever something interesting happens in Oots that is not talking or stabbing people in the face. It is done by a caster.
Why? Because only casters can do that. And you'd have to make everything up from scratch.

In 4e, everybody is a commoner. You'd have to make up rules for everything, not just interesting stuff, but stabbing fools in the face too. Because nobody would read the comic if they took 20 panels to kill one goblin mook.

And if your audience knows the rules everybody plays by, they can get involved in more ways. For example guessing what is going to happen, or even the useless debates between who would win in a fight.

Warriors can do more interesting things in 4E than they could in 3.5, which could easily inspire more interesting things for non-casters. And Burlew does ignore mechanic and rules to allow other interesting things for non-casters in the comic, as I've already noted.

I'm not saying 4E doesn't have horrible flaws, but it isn't nearly as worthless as some people here act. Also, minions. Also, the comic plays fast and loose with hit points all the time anyway.

I agree regarding knowing the rules, which is why the comic had such a huge potential fanbase. It isn't like a 4E comic doesn't benefit from the same thing, because it does. Your depiction of 4E as something where "everything needs to be made up" is completely wrong.

Again, I'm not saying 4E doesn't have horrible flaws. It is not a very good game. There's no need to make up extra flaws to explain it however, or act like you couldn't have a fun comic based on it -- but we'd not enjoy it as much because a comic based on something we like is better.

[Kaelik]

They're used for ... spells etc, but ... don't dictate combats.

They don't "dictate" combats. Then represent all the meaningful and interesting actions that take place in combats.

I mean sure, if you lock yourself into a stupid tunnel vision and just pretend Roy is the only character, then it could be literally any game. But the entire fucking point of every combat Roy takes part in is that he doesn't matter for shit and might as well not exist.

Meanwhile, everything that anyone cares about in combat is done by one of the actual spells that are all 3e mechanics. (Except replace Air Elemental with Xx Elemental.)

[vagrant]

Yeah, the last arc has really driven home the whole 'You're sort of really shitty if you're not a caster.'

I don't disagree, but watching everyone who's not V trying to plink that Elemental to death is getting boring.

[Drachasor]

They're used for ... spells etc, but ... don't dictate combats.

They don't "dictate" combats. Then represent all the meaningful and interesting actions that take place in combats.

I mean sure, if you lock yourself into a stupid tunnel vision and just pretend Roy is the only character, then it could be literally any game. But the entire fucking point of every combat Roy takes part in is that he doesn't matter for shit and might as well not exist.

Meanwhile, everything that anyone cares about in combat is done by one of the actual spells that are all 3e mechanics. (Except replace Air Elemental with Xx Elemental.)

Except for all the stuff in combat that isn't represented by mechanics. Or when mechanics would get in the way so Meteor Swarm that hits an undefended caster that's half-dead doesn't kill him. Etc, etc. The comic pays attention to the mechanics a lot less than you think it does. That isn't to say it pays no attention.

And while Roy is less useful than Durkon and V, that doesn't mean he's been remotely useless in every combat. Though to help him stay useful he's been given special stuff so that he stays relevant. Though I agree with Vagrant that the last arc has been pretty harsh on non-casters (the Silicon Elemental in particular).

And I am certainly not saying that OotS as it currently exists could be done with any game. Certainly not. However, the overall plot, who wins fats and how well they win, etc, etc, could be handled by many systems, including 4E, especially given how Burlew is just fine tossing in some house rules and custom content/abilities.

[Kaelik]

The comic pays attention to the mechanics a lot less than you think it does.

If your next post isn't admitting fault for saying this and every other fucking thing like it you have said, I am going to put you on ignore.

If you can't fucking read, there is no point in talking to you.

And I am certainly not saying that OotS as it currently exists could be done with any game. Certainly not. However, the overall plot, who wins fats and how well they win, etc, etc, could be handled by many systems, including 4E.

And we all agreed with you that to the extent that Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the exact same story, you are correct, that OotS could be told by lots of systems. But here is the thing.

Unlike you, we do not think Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same story. We think they are different stories, because more is important than your callous dismissal of an entire story as who wins and how well.

[Drachasor]

The comic pays attention to the mechanics a lot less than you think it does.

If your next post isn't admitting fault for saying this and every other fucking thing like it you have said, I am going to put you on ignore.

If you can't fucking read, there is no point in talking to you.

Alright, I'll just pick random pages and show what I mean.

1. 905: Roy uses the top of a sarcophagus as an improvised weapon. He hits TWO enemies and it breaks a grapple. D&D rules do not work that way. (Though ironically enough, 4E has rules/guidelines that handle this).

2. 862 (had to go back a page): Tarquin throws a two-handed axe at Belkar. Improvised throwing is certainly fair, but that axe isn't going to stop a mid-air attack AND knock Belkar back.

3. 444: Roy is falling to death (that's good). Tosses out a bunch of animals from his bag of tricks in one round. That's not allowed, nor is having more than one animal out at once. He takes too many actions while falling.

I could go on and I've already mentioned other times, including when it impacts major battles like V's fight with Xykon when V inexplicably survives a meteor swarm where all the meteors hit him -- he was at least half-dead at the time and no one comments. And Roy's fight as a gladiator ends in a way not allowed by 3.5 rules (though 4E has rules/guidelines for handling this).

I'm not saying the comic isn't informed by 3.5 mechanics. Merely that it isn't remotely beholden to them, and often just ignores them or makes stuff up (as far as 3.5 rules are concerned). Heck the whole Detect Evil on Belkar gag doesn't even work since he wasn't going to get full cover from a sheet of lead -- but paying attention to all the rules there wasn't funny, so that's ignored just for a mechanics joke. Heck, so were the rules on getting objects out of bags/inventory.

I'm not entirely sure how you could have read the comic and not agree with me on this. It isn't a remotely extreme statement. It's also the same argument I've been making this whole time.

But hey, if you can't handle being wrong, then put me on ignore.

And I am certainly not saying that OotS as it currently exists could be done with any game. Certainly not. However, the overall plot, who wins fats and how well they win, etc, etc, could be handled by many systems, including 4E.

And we all agreed with you that to the extent that Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the exact same story, you are correct, that OotS could be told by lots of systems. But here is the thing.

Unlike you, we do not think Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same story. We think they are different stories, because more is important than your callous dismissal of an entire story as who wins and how well.

I just said the story wouldn't be the same. Merely that you could basically have the same plot. Details in many respects would differ, but there's no reason to really think this would harm the quality of the story itself -- except for the fact that 4E is not nearly as popular as 3.5.

And I never said Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same story. I wouldn't even say they have the same plot. They have some similarities, but that's it.

Thank you for the very amusing post from someone claiming that I'm the one who isn't reading what others write.

[Kaelik]

Alright, I'll just pick random pages and show what I mean.

. . .

But hey, if you can't handle being wrong, then put me on ignore.

No! Bad Idiot! The appropriate response when someone tells you to stop saying something they never said is not to argue against something they never fucking said. You obviously enter a trance like state whenever you attempt to read one of my posts and then come out of it thinking you have read it, but in fact just shoving whatever dumb thing your brain thought of during your trance as my post.

Since you literally cannot read the words in front of you, that is why you go on ignore.

I just said the story wouldn't be the same. Merely that you could basically have the same plot.
...
And I never said Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same story.

You repeatedly said the only thing that matters is who wins (the good guys) and by how much (barely at the last minute). That is identical in 95% of stories that occur, but you said it was literally the only thing that matters in telling a story.

You said that Star Wars and The Magnificent Seven are the same.

Details in many respects would differ, but there's no reason to really think this would harm the quality of the story itself

Yes there is. It would be boring as shit to watch. That would drastically harm the quality of a story that is meant to entertain.

[Drachasor]

No! Bad Idiot! The appropriate response when someone tells you to stop saying something they never said is not to argue against something they never fucking said. You obviously enter a trance like state whenever you attempt to read one of my posts and then come out of it thinking you have read it, but in fact just shoving whatever dumb thing your brain thought of during your trance as my post.

Since you literally cannot read the words in front of you, that is why you go on ignore.

Except you did say those things, and when I pointed out how you had just said something and then said you didn't such such things, you ignored it. Perhaps you are just not being very clear about what you are trying to say. That's the charitable interpretation, anyhow.

I just said the story wouldn't be the same. Merely that you could basically have the same plot.
...
And I never said Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same story.

You repeatedly said the only thing that matters is who wins (the good guys) and by how much (barely at the last minute). That is identical in 95% of stories that occur, but you said it was literally the only thing that matters in telling a story.

You said that Star Wars and The Magnificent Seven are the same.

Someone ELSE said that about Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven. I did not.

Regarding who wins, how much, and the like, I said that for the flow of a plot, that was the most important part about COMBAT. Pay a little attention to context.

Again, you seem to be the person that isn't reading what is being said.

Feel free to put me on ignore.

To everyone else: Is there something about what he was saying that I wasn't getting right? I do believe in double-checking and triple-checking such things, but I did not see what I got wrong. He didn't seem willing to clarify either.

[zugschef]

To everyone else: Is there something about what he was saying that I wasn't getting right? I do believe in double-checking and triple-checking such things, but I did not see what I got wrong. He didn't seem willing to clarify either.

Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

*shrug*

[vagrant]

Zug beat me to it.

[Kaelik]

Except you did say those things, and when I pointed out how you had just said something and then said you didn't such such things, you ignored it.

No, you pointed out a punch of times that the mechanics were not followed in greatsword fights. Which is completely irrelevant, because I said multiple times that no one cares about the fucking greatsword fights and I'm not claiming the mechanics matter or have anything to do with that.

You have repeatedly fapped to this idea that in any way Rich not following the mechanics in a few instances of Roy fighting some chump somehow makes all the times that people cast spells which conform to the mechanics and matter infinitly many times more somehow meaningless.

In the process you have repeatedly said that I think whether the mechanics of sword fights matters, even though that is directly fucking contrary to what I said multiple fucking times.

Perhaps you are just not being very clear about what you are trying to say.

Alternatively, your brain doesn't function, because you just called quoting a comic written by Rich Burlew pointing out places where I said something. Spoiler Alert: I am not Rich Burlew, quoting instances of the comic not following mechanics does not count as pointing out when I have said that the comic follows the mechanics all the time.

Someone ELSE said that about Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven. I did not.

No, you did. Watch:

"The only thing that matters about a story is who wins and by how much. If a story is identical in those respects, then it is identical."

See, that right there. In that hypothetical I just wrote I claimed that Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same thing. I did not explicitly say so, but I said something that, if true, would mean the same thing.

I said that for the flow of a plot, that was the most important part about COMBAT. Pay a little attention to context.

1) No you didn't, but that would be a slightly more sensible retcon.
2) Only slightly though, because for the four thousandth time:

Premise 0: If no one reads your comic that is bad and it matters to you.
Premise A: People read comics because they are entertaining.
Premise B: Combats that take up say, 14 consecutive strips, have some determination over whether people are entertained for those 14 weeks.
Conclusion: Combat matters for reasons besides who wins and by how much.

[Drachasor]

To everyone else: Is there something about what he was saying that I wasn't getting right? I do believe in double-checking and triple-checking such things, but I did not see what I got wrong. He didn't seem willing to clarify either.

Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

*shrug*

Ahh, I see what you mean. Silly me, I thought that just was about the near incessant insults and profanity.

Except you did say those things, and when I pointed out how you had just said something and then said you didn't such such things, you ignored it.

No, you pointed out a punch of times that the mechanics were not followed in greatsword fights. Which is completely irrelevant, because I said multiple times that no one cares about the fucking greatsword fights and I'm not claiming the mechanics matter or have anything to do with that.

I gave examples of others things, including magic and magic items.

Alternatively, your brain doesn't function, because you just called quoting a comic written by Rich Burlew pointing out places where I said something. Spoiler Alert: I am not Rich Burlew, quoting instances of the comic not following mechanics does not count as pointing out when I have said that the comic follows the mechanics all the time.

I was pointing out counter-examples to your claim on the importance of mechanics.

Here's a quote of you though, as requested:

Yes, the only time Burlew uses the mechanics of 3e is every single time that any PC or NPC or Monster takes any action at all. The part where you pretend that PCs and NPCs taking actions has nothing to do with what makes the comic interesting is just absurd.[Emphasis added]

So yeah, you did say it follows 3E mechanics all the time, or at least whenever anyone takes any action.

Someone ELSE said that about Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven. I did not.

No, you did. Watch:

"The only thing that matters about a story is who wins and by how much. If a story is identical in those respects, then it is identical."

See, that right there. In that hypothetical I just wrote I claimed that Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven are the same thing. I did not explicitly say so, but I said something that, if true, would mean the same thing.

And yet you are incapable of providing a quote where I said such a thing.

Here is a quote of me though:

That said, the plot-important parts of battles could certainly play out the same. What matters there is who lives, who dies, who gets away, what is said, etc. The exact mechanics are not critical, generally.

So again, you seem to be the one with a reading problem.

You seem to have some sort of trouble hitting the ignore button. I could guide you through the process if you need assistance.

[Prak]

To everyone else: Is there something about what he was saying that I wasn't getting right? I do believe in double-checking and triple-checking such things, but I did not see what I got wrong. He didn't seem willing to clarify either.

Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

*shrug*

Ahh, I see what you mean. Silly me, I thought that just was about the near incessant insults and profanity.

Well, you are also substantially wrong about a number of things, like the sarcophagus lid:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Improvised Weapons have only bare bones rules and the holes are filled in with dm fiat and magical tea party. As to throwing the axe, Tarquin may well have the Throw Anything feat.

[Drachasor]

*shrug*

Ahh, I see what you mean. Silly me, I thought that just was about the near incessant insults and profanity.

Well, you are also substantially wrong about a number of things, like the sarcophagus lid:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Improvised Weapons have only bare bones rules and the holes are filled in with dm fiat and magical tea party. As to throwing the axe, Tarquin may well have the Throw Anything feat.

Using the lid is fine. Throwing a weapon is fine. This is covered perfectly well within the rules. Improvised weapons in general have fairly clear rules overall. The quibbly bit is basically the size and damage type, since what it best compares to is not always clear. The size would matter since the cumulative -2 penalty for an inappropriately sized weapon would stack with his -4 non-proficiency penalty to hit.

But in the rules, an improvised weapon doesn't hit two people. Since neither creature died, it wasn't a cleave. Since he picked it up on the same turn, it wasn't a whirlwind or iterative attack (I don't think Roy has that anyway). It doesn't break grapples on third parties either. Given that huge creatures with massive weapons don't hit multiple targets, the rules clearly don't allow this for an improvised weapon either.

An improvised thrown weapon does not knock people back mid-air and stop the target's attacks. Interrupting an mid-air jump attack like that requires a readied action which Tarquin didn't have.

Of course, ignoring the rules here makes for a better story and more entertaining comic. This is true in most cases where the rules are ignored, glossed over, or set aside -- which includes when he does so with magic.

[Kaelik]

I gave examples of others things, including magic and magic items.

No, you gave an example of someone falling for an unspecified time that sure looked like more than one round taking multiple actions. If you just accept that he fell for multiple rounds, problem solved.

Also you gave an example of someone with an unspecified HP surviving HP damage from a spell that counts Fire Resistance against each set of 6d6 fire damage and he gets saves and the bludgeoning damage hit the Paladin or missed entirely. Since the Guy running two epic mages worth of spells plus himself could have cast Fire Resistance and negated literally all the damage, I don't think that counts as ignoring the mechanics.

I was pointing out counter-examples to your claim on the importance of mechanics.

Yes, which is exactly the thing it makes no fucking sense to do when someone has repeatedly fucking told you that whether or not they adhere to the mechanics in all situations is in no way fucking relevant, and furthermore not what I fucking said.

Here's a quote of you though, as requested:

So yeah, you did say it follows 3E mechanics all the time, or at least whenever anyone takes any action.

And here is what I said before that when I wasn't making a flippant one line response to your own stupidity where you dismissed all spells cast in a comic about spellcasters as being meaningless:

Yes, because boring combat is bad for a web comic, so he makes shit up to make it interesting when he has to show boring mechanics. Which, since all of the 4e mechanics are boring, would mean that 4e would be bad for the webcomic.

...

I never said the game mechanics were important, I said the game mechanics ability to be interesting to watch is important, because when you read a passive medium like comics, you spend a lot of time watching the mechanics unfold. If that is boring as shit, then it doesn't matter if you could tell a different story with your boring to watch mechanics, because people would not read that comic.

But yes, I did engage in some slight hyperbole, and to be accurate I would have to say "meaningful" thus limiting it to spellcasting.

And yet you are incapable of providing a quote where I said such a thing.

Here is a quote of me though:

That said, the plot-important parts of battles could certainly play out the same. What matters there is who lives, who dies, who gets away, what is said, etc. The exact mechanics are not critical, generally.

Well I didn't know you would deny saying it. And I especially didn't know you would deny it, then immediately turn around and give a quote.

If you are going to whine about context, you should read your own context. Your argument for why OotS is the exact same story under 3e and 4e is that all that matters is who wins and by how much.

If you had been arguing that you could tell a different much more boring story with 4e mechanics with superficial similarities, I would not be arguing with you.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't think it was so much Order of the Stick killing off 4E D&D quickly as it was that 4E D&D was unable to generate its own Order of the Stick. Now, the fact that a property doesn't generate its own memes and adaptations doesn't mean that it's worthless. I think DS9 is the best written of all of the Star Trek series, but practically no one talks about that show (compare it to TOS or TNG) except to discuss that show or compare it to other Star Trek properties. And of course a property can just fail to get a large enough audience to reach pop cultural critical mass. But really, just what kind of impression was 4E D&D supposed to leave on people? 3E D&D, Pathfinder aside, still has at least two major webcomics (OotS and Goblins) and several franchises that sold from a few hundred to several million games; and 2E D&D of course has the entire legacy of c/jRPG evolution.

And I don't think it was just a matter of bad luck or even misreading the audiences' tastes. The problem was the ruleset itself. The mechanics unique to the series didn't generate stories, or at least stories people would find compelling. Exalted by and large sucks, but I can see people using it for inspiration to novels or webcomics that isn't readily replicated by other properties.

What exactly existed in 4E D&D that allowed people to tell stories that they couldn't with the previous editions of D&D -- let alone TTRPGs in general? Granted, you can tell certain stories with 4E D&D that you just flat-out can't in the previous editions, but they're all stupid stories. No one wants to hear the story about how your wizard was able to defeat a horde of Ogre Minions with melee attacks but got their ass handed to him by a similarly leveled Ogre Berserker. No one wants to hear your story about the time in which you faced down another Monk for leadership of the temple and your attacks didn't even come close to intersecting because of his NPC flag -- because if you were both NPCs it would've been a slapfight and if you were both PCs it would've been rocket launcher tag. No one wants to hear the story about how when your party had to track down the evil cultists' temple in the middle of the jungle you ordered everyone to shut the fuck up and not do anything while the party ranger rolled Survival 14 times. No one wants to hear the story about how you threatened to suicide your character and use the character creation rules to give them a better treasure payout if the DM didn't agree to fill out your wishlist. Etc..

. And the rules, while still bad in many points, at least allowed for campaigns and scenarios with some resemblance of verisimilitude: For starters, you could have fights where the results were uncertain.

Rich Burlew made me laugh my ass off when he said that one thing that 4E D&D has over 3E D&D is that 3E D&D fights are more strategic, in that the outcome of the battle is decided well in advance of it actually happening.

I've caught up to Order of the Stick after a year-long hiatus -- the comic is a lot more tolerable if you pretend that the author updates once a year in large chunks -- and I'm surprised how Burlew keeps managing to surprise me with the action adventure sequences while still keeping it grounded in the rules. Like, my reaction to you-know-who getting a sudden ganking out of nowhere in the last few comics was 'huh, I didn't see that coming; but it made a lot of sense'. And it happened in such a way that for want of a nail things could have totally turned out differently. Compare that to a 4E D&D combat; the character in question may have lost initiative and a couple of items, but all that would've done is just delay him a little bit until things got into the proper swing. The character a bit worse for the wear, but combat would've still proceeded pretty much like any other.

4E D&D combats may require more fiddling, but any experienced min-maxxer can tell how a fight is going to go before it even finishes. 4E D&D lacks comeback mechanics, early knockout death spirals, significant amounts of double-or-nothing mechanics, and abilities that asymmetrically change the flow of combat like Dispel Magic or Teleport or fucking fly. 4E D&D pretty much forces you to stick to one strategy after the first few levels because of hyperspecialization, and due to the resource management system there's not a lot of deviation you can do.

[Blicero]

And it happened in such a way that for want of a nail things could have totally turned out differently.

I see what you did there.

[Kaelik]

I don't think it was so much Order of the Stick killing off 4E D&D quickly as it was that 4E D&D was unable to generate its own Order of the Stick.

Next time read the first post instead of just the title.

[Krusk]

4E D&D combats may require more fiddling, but any experienced min-maxxer can tell how a fight is going to go before it even finishes.

Even better, current WoTC forum group think is that you should just end the fight once its obvious who wins narrating the rest of the battle.

They have a point in that it saves you from having to play 4e, but I doubt thats really the point.

[shadzar]

isnt that what "Take 10" is from 3rd and such, in that you stop playing the game and play the numbers instead by playing the law of averages? you just decide that you have a good enough chance for X to happen so it happens, just forget the dice and such....

[Cyberzombie]

4E failed because it wasn't an RPG, it was a miniatures game that wasn't particularly fun because 80% of it was pointless HP grinding in fights you already knew you had won.