D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[QuentinGeorge]

I think a big part of the gnome hate in 4e's design there was their desire to avoid gnomish inventors. That same section you quoted is where they say the tossed that entire popular image because World of Warcraft had done it. So because WoW did it, they decided to erase a bunch of their own games' of any reference to the most popular modern interpretation of gnomes.



It's definitely a thing that got carried into 5e IMO.

Crawford and Mearls chopped Tinker Gnomes down from their own unique race to just a flavor of Rock Gnomes. And Crawford made sure they carried that decision through to the 5e Spelljammer reboot which tried hard to pretend Tinker Gnomes did not exist (despite having Giant Space Hamsters and Autognomes) and the 5e Dragonlance reboot which had some gnomes but tried to pass them off as just regular gnomes who liked inventing which is really infuriating.

They introduce a gnome, Tatina Rookledust. But she's a ROCK GNOME not a tinker gnome. Sure she lives in a house covered in crazy contraptions, but she's a WIZARD. And yeah she has robot chickens that attack for her, but they're MAGIC. Oh...she's from Mount Nevermind...well she's not a tinker gnome, she's an artificer who manifests her spellcasting through her tools and devices...wait crap she's stated as a wizard...um...well she's sure as heck not a tinker gnome!!! Ok...sure there's a gnomeflinger in another part of the book, and it says it was invented by tinker gnomes...but...um...POCKET SAND! (runs away).

A lot of that is Crawford's D&D philosophy which is "D&D is D&D" (sic). Basically none of the settings are allowed to veer too much from the core game or feel. (Shades of "you can have any flavour of vanilla you like).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Worlds & Monsters is one of the best bits of GM advice published for D&D. As I posted closer to the time,

It does a great job explaining the design philosophy behind 4e. Completely useless if you don't like that philosophy, unless you're looking for a guide for what not to do.

Also, deeply insulting to anyone who prefers non-4e versions of D&D, so there's that.

 

[James Gasik]

It does a great job explaining the design philosophy behind 4e. Completely useless if you don't like that philosophy, unless you're looking for a guide for what not to do.

Also, deeply insulting to anyone who prefers non-4e versions of D&D, so there's that.

I guess at that time I wanted more information about the mechanics of the new game, not a discussion of design philosophy. After all, some of what they were talking about was already present in late 3.5.

 

[thenightgaunt]

A lot of that is Crawford's D&D philosophy which is "D&D is D&D" (sic). Basically none of the settings are allowed to veer too much from the core game or feel. (Shades of "you can have any flavour of vanilla you like).

Yep. And we got that with that big "Monsters of the Multiverse" book they did for 5e after he was put in charge after Mearls got demoted. And from the accounts it sounds like that one fizzled in sales compared to Volo's and Fizbin's (both more lore heavy books). Not to mention what he did to Spelljammer.

But he's got a vision for a more generic D&D and he's the one at the wheel for oned&d/5.5e/6e/2025e/50thAnniverseryEdition/etc...

 

[pemerton]

It does a great job explaining the design philosophy behind 4e. Completely useless if you don't like that philosophy, unless you're looking for a guide for what not to do.

Also, deeply insulting to anyone who prefers non-4e versions of D&D, so there's that.

I have no idea why you seem to be insulted by WotC, or anyone else, publishing things that don't affirm your own RPG preferences.

I mean, I'm not insulted by 5e D&D in general, or its GM advice in particular. I just don't play it. I wasn't insulted by 3E being (relative to my preferences) a pretty unplayable RPG. I just didn't (and still don't) play it.

The world of RPGing is a better place for Worlds and Monsters having been published. It sets out a coherent vision for how the accreted fiction of D&D, particularly its planes and their inhabitants, can be used in a playable game that will produce, in a reliable fashion, the "story" of D&D - that is, the story of a group of heroic adventurers who start out defending a village against Goblins and end up confronting the Demon Lords and evil gods who are responsible for the ills of the world.

Perhaps that game is of no appeal to you, but I can't say any way in which WotC publishing it, and advocating for it (given they are trying to sell it as a commercial publisher) is an insult to you or anyone else.

 

[JEB]

I have no idea why you seem to be insulted by WotC, or anyone else, publishing things that don't affirm your own RPG preferences.

These 4E preview books, as noted earlier in the thread, included language that was seen as insulting to players of earlier editions (or at least 3E players). For example. That's what @Micah Sweet is referencing in the post you quoted.

I do have to admit that it's one thing to affirm the strengths of a new edition, and another to malign an earlier edition to promote your new edition. It certainly seems to have left a bad taste in some folks' mouths.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Yep. And we got that with that big "Monsters of the Multiverse" book they did for 5e after he was put in charge after Mearls got demoted. And from the accounts it sounds like that one fizzled in sales compared to Volo's and Fizbin's (both more lore heavy books). Not to mention what he did to Spelljammer.

But he's got a vision for a more generic D&D and he's the one at the wheel for oned&d/5.5e/6e/2025e/50thAnniverseryEdition/etc...

There was a marked difference in 5E's approach to pre-5E D&D pre (Sword Coast, Eberron, Saltmarsh) and post Mearls ("Ravenloft", Spelljammer, Dragonlance).

 

[pemerton]

These 4E preview books, as noted earlier in the thread, included language that was seen as insulting to players of earlier editions (or at least 3E players). For example. That's what @Micah Sweet is referencing in the post you quoted.

That passage is from Races & Classes, I believe, not Worlds & Monsters.

@Micah Sweet ah Sweet asserted that Worlds & Monsters is "deeply insulting to anyone who prefers non-4e versions of D&D". I think that assertion is ridiculous.

 

[JEB]

Yep. And we got that with that big "Monsters of the Multiverse" book they did for 5e after he was put in charge after Mearls got demoted. And from the accounts it sounds like that one fizzled in sales compared to Volo's and Fizbin's (both more lore heavy books).

I'm not sure we actually know how well MOTM sold vs. Volo's and Mordenkainen's, or vs. Fizban's or Glory of the Giants. Even if MOTM sold more poorly as a standalone product, recall that it was originally released as part of a boxed set, which would likely depress its standalone sales.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have no idea why you seem to be insulted by WotC, or anyone else, publishing things that don't affirm your own RPG preferences.

I mean, I'm not insulted by 5e D&D in general, or its GM advice in particular. I just don't play it. I wasn't insulted by 3E being (relative to my preferences) a pretty unplayable RPG. I just didn't (and still don't) play it.

The world of RPGing is a better place for Worlds and Monsters having been published. It sets out a coherent vision for how the accreted fiction of D&D, particularly its planes and their inhabitants, can be used in a playable game that will produce, in a reliable fashion, the "story" of D&D - that is, the story of a group of heroic adventurers who start out defending a village against Goblins and end up confronting the Demon Lords and evil gods who are responsible for the ills of the world.

Perhaps that game is of no appeal to you, but I can't say any way in which WotC publishing it, and advocating for it (given they are trying to sell it as a commercial publisher) is an insult to you or anyone else.

It's an insult if you support your playstyle by denigrating other playstyles. Which they did.