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

[AbdulAlhazred]

WotC did marketing that claimed the game was the same... thats not abysmal communication... thats borderline dishonest sand set expectations.

Gosh, they didn't call it a new edition, nor tout the many improvements and differences, nor preview the whole design of the game in 2 books, 'nuthin.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So another thought on the doubled hit points monster problem.

This lead to fairly easy thumbnail fixes decently early on, cutting monster hp and increasing their damage. I saw suggestions of cutting hp in half, increasing damage by 50% or 100% to provide the same level of threat/challenge in fewer expected rounds of combat.

And with progressive monster design we saw that pretty much officially implemented over time in progressive revised monster math culminating in MM3 and then the Essentials Monster Vaults.

However this meant someone picking up the 4e Monster Manual, whether someone entering and just getting one and going for the first one as the most core, or someone pulling theirs off the shelf to use with MM3, always had the bad math monsters there either leading to the slogging fights or requiring those in the know to adjust the monsters for use redoing their numbers from scratch every time.

They had errata, errata incorporated into the online tools, and later the essentials monster vault to soft be a replacement core MM, but still for people coming in the first monster book is going to loom large as the option for their one monster source go to. This was a hit that would persist throughout the edition.

If you pick up the PDF today I believe it is the original, no online errata version, similar to how the PH PDF has CAGI with automatic pulls.

I think the problem was really more that the game ideally plays in a way which most people didn't seem to pick up on. My group never complained about or experienced any issues with monster hit points, etc. Very early in our campaign, which lasted from around late 2008 through to early 2013, I learned that 4e really is a serious action game. That is, you take the encounter building rules very seriously and you don't build static 'death match' fights. I don't think the advice in the DMG goes far enough here, but it definitely points out all the elements that I combined.

I mean, the thing is, when your characters are racing through the collapsing mine, while fighting with goblins and avoiding berserk mining golems, nobody needs to be concerned about hit points. The hit points will take care of themselves and provide their customary function, but you are unlikely to end up slugging it out with someone most of the time. The fighter polices the baddies, the rogue ganks a few threats, the wizard shuffles things around so the party can win, and the cleric patches people up and amps their firepower a bit. It works GREAT, but I agree that if you run KotS, bunches of monsters stuck in rooms where you have to duke it out in a static environment, then the game will feel like it drags. Just try the Kobold Hall, its still FAIRLY static, but given the purpose and nature of the adventure it uses low-end dynamic effects pretty well to keep things interesting.

I look at 4e as a system that handles things like Wire Fu and Castlevania, or Indiana Jones type action really well. It should be a really excellent basis for supers too.

 

[Hussar]

Were these actual plays before release?? I don't remember those...

Also which 2 hardback are you speaking of... were these previews of the mechanics? Again... I don't remember these

Did these blog posts and other sources get the core books early?

Two hardbacks - Worlds and the other preview book I cannot remember the name of. Blog posts by the devs. Many blog posts by the devs back in the days when WotC actually directly interacted with fans. Lots of interviews and whatnot.

But sure, WotC only produced a single YouTube video for promoting 4e.

 

[Lanefan]

Indeed. And there are some board game groups that refuse to play it because of its social dynamic.

Their loss, says I.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's amazing because, to me, any discussion of Come and Get It essentially proves that it works. You all can't help but respond.... and then get struck by a metaphorical attack!

If only you were all minions this conversation would have ended in 2008!

And these forums would have ended shortly thereafter, as you'd be the only poster left standing.

 

[Voadam]

I think the problem was really more that the game ideally plays in a way which most people didn't seem to pick up on. My group never complained about or experienced any issues with monster hit points, etc. Very early in our campaign, which lasted from around late 2008 through to early 2013, I learned that 4e really is a serious action game. That is, you take the encounter building rules very seriously and you don't build static 'death match' fights. I don't think the advice in the DMG goes far enough here, but it definitely points out all the elements that I combined.

I mean, the thing is, when your characters are racing through the collapsing mine, while fighting with goblins and avoiding berserk mining golems, nobody needs to be concerned about hit points. The hit points will take care of themselves and provide their customary function, but you are unlikely to end up slugging it out with someone most of the time. The fighter polices the baddies, the rogue ganks a few threats, the wizard shuffles things around so the party can win, and the cleric patches people up and amps their firepower a bit. It works GREAT, but I agree that if you run KotS, bunches of monsters stuck in rooms where you have to duke it out in a static environment, then the game will feel like it drags. Just try the Kobold Hall, its still FAIRLY static, but given the purpose and nature of the adventure it uses low-end dynamic effects pretty well to keep things interesting.

I look at 4e as a system that handles things like Wire Fu and Castlevania, or Indiana Jones type action really well. It should be a really excellent basis for supers too.

I agree that most adventure design did not pick up on what 4e does well, there are rarely lone minions or or a group of minions that match the party's number so that there is a brief spike of violence that is quickly resolved as the party moves on, most encounter design is the full on match to a party where there would four or five minions per PC if they are used, leading to an in-depth drawn out extended cinematic fight.

The biggest 4e slog fight I was in was probably when three of us at paragon took on a solo death tyrant out of the MM1. After three or four rounds the really unlucky rogue was turned to stone, the fighter had the beholder pulled in and pinned down and it was him and my ranger paragon multiclassed wizard wailing on it for round after round, My using twin strike and every ranger interrupt to avoid getting hit while the fighter drew aggro and wailed on it. Lots of rounds after every daily and encounter power was gone just using the defender mechanic, the fighter's at will, and my flanking twin striking with a staff.

I still enjoyed it, but that probably broke it for the rest of our group for 4e as the DM and the fighter and the rogue were through. It was not long later that the DM switched the campaign over to BESM3e.

 

[Red Castle]

It works GREAT, but I agree that if you run KotS, bunches of monsters stuck in rooms where you have to duke it out in a static environment, then the game will feel like it drags. Just try the Kobold Hall, its still FAIRLY static, but given the purpose and nature of the adventure it uses low-end dynamic effects pretty well to keep things interesting.

I can’t help but wondering… I never used a module, in any editions or other TTRPG, I’ve always made my own adventure in my own homebrew setting.

I tried to sometimes, open a module, look. Through it, but everytime I close it and decide I prefer to make my own. I remember when I looked through the 4e adventures thinking that there was a LOT of combats, and more often than not in no particularily great battlemap.

So I wonder, is it possible that the critisism that 4e was just about combat, no roleplay and that the combat were too long came from players running premade adventures and using them by the book? Because I read KotS, very first adventure for 4e, and it didn’t look great… more like a succession of fight, after fight, after fight… then the sequel… looked pretty much the same…

 

[Lanefan]

Two hardbacks - Worlds and the other preview book...

Just to be the tiniest bit picky here: Worlds and Monsters was a soft-cover (I just dug my copy out to check); I believe the other one - Races and Classes - was also a soft-cover.

 

[pemerton]

For playing with strangers and as a pick up game, 4e would be the go to edition. So few issues with interpretations, nearly zero balance issues (especially compared to previous editions), everyone plays using more or less the same framework for their characters, meaning that it's really easy to teach. As an onramp for D&D, 4e is a really good one.

It's just a terrible edition for established groups who didn't play using the assumptions of organized play.

I can't comment on general propositions - but I can report that I've never played 4e in a pick up context or with strangers. I played it with an established group. And we didn't use the assumptions of organised play (=, as best I can tell, railroads). We used the assumptions of player-driven GMing set out in the 4e books.

I couldn't imagine trying to play 4e face to face with only pencil and paper and no battlemap. Yikes. How in the world would you track the ten thousand little fiddly bits? We actually made a sort of sub-game to see how many effects we could stack on a single target at the same time. I think we hit twelve or thirteen at one point. On VTT? No problem. In person? No thanks.

We played 4e face-to-face, using tokens on paper maps, and piling on other tokens to keep track of effects.

Yes, but, you admit right after your first part that most DM's aren't interested in shared authority. And, I would take it a step further in that so many players aren't either. Hand players any sort of authority over the game, and they stare at you with bafflement. There are many players out there that expect the DM to bring the entertainment. They're there to play through what the DM brings to the table and have zero interest in bringing anything other than the occasional quip and dice rolling to the table.

And I think this is one reason why 4e was not popular with many RPGers who enjoyed 3E and post-Gygaxian AD&D.

In 3E and 2nd ed-style AD&D, the GM has largely unlimited power over what happens outside of combat, and very extensive power over what happens in combat. Even without fudging, the GM can decide where NPCs/creatures move, who they attack, etc.

4e D&D creates a framework for non-combat resolution (skill challenges, which as per my conversation upthread with @Autumnal belong to the same family of resolution systems as extended scene resolution in HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc), and in combat it gives the players a lot of capacity to shape how things unfold (with CaGI being a poster-child for that). Then there are player-authored quests, magic item "wish lists", etc.

It does not default to GM-driven play.

 

[Lanefan]

I can’t help but wondering… I never used a module, in any editions or other TTRPG, I’ve always made my own adventure in my own homebrew setting.

I tried to sometimes, open a module, look. Through it, but everytime I close it and decide I prefer to make my own. I remember when I looked through the 4e adventures thinking that there was a LOT of combats, and more often than not in no particularily great battlemap.

So I wonder, is it possible that the critisism that 4e was just about combat, no roleplay and that the combat were too long came from players running premade adventures and using them by the book? Because I read KotS, very first adventure for 4e, and it didn’t look great… more like a succession of fight, after fight, after fight… then the sequel… looked pretty much the same…

Even I, though not a 4e fan by any means, will quickly and willingly concede that one of the strong suits of 4e was the set-piece combat.

And so of course they put a bunch of them into the early adventures to show this off; and that's fine.

Of KotS's many problems, "too much combat" is a fair way down the list.

That said, when starting a new edition it makes sense most DMs are going to go with that edition's pre-made adventures at least to start with, to see how things work before trying to design their own.