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

[pemerton]

Was Bridge ever sold to you as poker though?

As I posted, if you bought the book and felt ripped off that's one thing - though as I and @soviet also posted, for anyone following the pre-release announcements it seemed obvious what sort of game 4e would be. I've just been looking through some old 2007/2008 ENworld threads about 4e, and the discussions - about hp, about "mechanics as physics", etc - are exactly the same back then, before the game was published, as they are now. Anyone who participated in those discussions being critical of non-"simulationist" design, and then bought 4e, hardly had any basis for complaint.

But even for someone who did feel ripped off, that provides no reason to critique the play of the game via hypothetical examples that rely upon principles that the game manifestly eschews.

So if I get asked to cards night, expecting bridge, and get poker, maybe I have a less-than-stellar evening. But I'm still not going to go home grumbling about how the taking and counting of the tricks was all messed up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is such a misreading of the impact things, especially heavy engagement hobbies have with human nature its virtually phoning in from another universe.

Actually, it's not. How I react to things and how I choose to behave is up to me. Yes, there are external stimuli, but ultimately, it's all on me. No one else is responsible for my actions or choices.

Human nature may be to react strongly to things and then behave in ways that aren't always rational. I don't think that means we should abandon the idea of personal responsibility.

Sure. If they only realize they should do that at the start instead of once they've committed to playing it for a while, taking up a bunch of time, and finding along the way that it seriously irritates them.

Again, not everyone gets into a game knowing enough to figure out its a problem, especially early in the game's life-cycle. Heck, I had a game I was at one time a proponent of that took me literally years to realize on a fundamental way was boring me to tears because I liked many elements of it in theory.

So what? If you sink time into something and then realize you don't like it, walk away. It's a perfectly rational choice. It doesn't mean there's a problem with you or with the activity... you just don't like it. Of course you should not spend anymore time on it once you realize that.

Here's the thing, there may be some of us willing to grind the axe when the conversation comes up, but it's not like snarky psychoanalysis about our motives and being "scorned lovers" isn't contributing it. But you go ahead and dodge all responsibility as well, we know how this works.

What responsibility am I dodging? I'm being pretty clear. If I don't like something, I move on and get over it.

You guys should do the same.

Seems pretty clear.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Actually, it's not. How I react to things and how I choose to behave is up to me. Yes, there are external stimuli, but ultimately, it's all on me. No one else is responsible for my actions or choices.

Again, how's it like in your world? If you think you're entirely in control of your actions, you're apparently a member of a different species.

Human nature may be to react strongly to things and then behave in ways that aren't always rational. I don't think that means we should abandon the idea of personal responsibility.

I don't think personal responsibility is a useful way to view large group reactions to things, either.

So what? If you sink time into something and then realize you don't like it, walk away. It's a perfectly rational choice. It doesn't mean there's a problem with you or with the activity... you just don't like it. Of course you should not spend anymore time on it once you realize that.

"Perfectly rational choice." So again, what's it like being a member of your species?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe the power would be more well received if it were “Readied Whirlwind”: You stand ready for an expected onrush. Until the beginning of your next turn, you receive a free attack against any opponents who moves into reach. That seems to be the common scene.

It does rely on the GM not playing the opponents “above their ability”, and rushing the character when that is their usual inclination.

So what you're propsing is, in place of a power that gives the player control and lets them impact the fiction in a dramatic way - which is the core of 4e's design - a class ability that is useful if the GM decides to play their NPCs in some particular way rather than another way. There are some RPGs that favour that second approach, but it is completely at odds with 4e's underlying ethos and principles.

Now plenty of people don't like those underlying elements, and prefer RPGs that are more heavily GM-driven than 4e. But that doesn't make the fiction of 4e "nonsense".

 

[pemerton]

This notion that WotC, or 4e D&D, is to blame for people not being able to get their collective acts together as gaming groups, is just bizarre.

If people can't cooperate and work stuff out, that's on them.

I love Burning Wheel. Not everyone who I play RPGs with does. So sometimes I play BW with my friend who also loves it; when more of us get together we play something else. One guy I've played RPGs with for decades will now only come out for 4e D&D, so we don't see him at our table all that often as these days we don't play 4e that often.

This is all about how people manage their relationships with one another. The idea that a game or designer or publisher is at fault is just bizarre.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This notion that WotC, or 4e D&D, is to blame for people not being able to get their collective acts together as gaming groups, is just bizarre.

If people can't cooperate and work stuff out, that's on them.

"Make" is, I think, certainly an overly strong term, but the idea that certain game systems are not a toxic injection in some groups and if they were only adults it wouldn't be a problem seems similarly bizarre. These are not threads you can tease apart that way.

 

[pemerton]

"Make" is, I think, certainly an overly strong term, but the idea that certain game systems are not a toxic injection in some groups and if they were only adults it wouldn't be a problem seems similarly bizarre. These are not threads you can tease apart that way.

I'm not denying that some games are "toxic injections". I'm saying that responsibility for that lies 100% with the people in that group (perhaps collectively, perhaps in some distributed fashion, depending on details).

It doesn't lie with the person who designed and published the game.

 

[payn]

This notion that WotC, or 4e D&D, is to blame for people not being able to get their collective acts together as gaming groups, is just bizarre.

If people can't cooperate and work stuff out, that's on them.

I love Burning Wheel. Not everyone who I play RPGs with does. So sometimes I play BW with my friend who also loves it; when more of us get together we play something else. One guy I've played RPGs with for decades will now only come out for 4e D&D, so we don't see him at our table all that often as these days we don't play 4e that often.

This is all about how people manage their relationships with one another. The idea that a game or designer or publisher is at fault is just bizarre.

I think we have covered the dont want to play that game angle. Its the "I dont want to play D&D" that was a shocker to many folks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not denying that some games are "toxic injections". I'm saying that responsibility for that lies 100% with the people in that group (perhaps collectively, perhaps in some distributed fashion, depending on details).

It doesn't lie with the person who designed and published the game.

In no way have I said it lays with the designers or publishers. But as I said earlier, "lays entirely with the group" tends to imply an ability to deal with it that I think shows little understanding of human nature and dynamics. It suggests a degree of approaching life with an entirely rational decision making that does not seem to apply to humanity as a whole, and rarely to individuals. As such I consider it pretty useless.

A system can be problematic for many groups in a disruptive way while in no way being misdesigned, and as I've suggested that risk is greatly increased when it first arrives.

 

[Imaro]

In no way have I said it lays with the designers or publishers. But as I said earlier, "lays entirely with the group" tends to imply an ability to deal with it that I think shows little understanding of human nature and dynamics. It suggests a degree of approaching life with an entirely rational decision making that does not seem to apply to humanity as a whole, and rarely to individuals. As such I consider it pretty useless.

A system can be problematic for many groups in a disruptive way while in no way being misdesigned, and as I've suggested that risk is greatly increased when it first arrives.

Emphasis mine... Of course they do as long as we aren't discussing CaGi... right?