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

[Micah Sweet]

The Escalation Die was not fundamentally about narrative anything. 13th Age comes out of a collaboration between Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, the lead designers of 3e and 4e, respectively. One of the criticisms of 4e D&D was that combat lasted too long. It's fundamentally about addressing this oft-cited problem with 4e D&D combat gameplay: i.e., how do we speed up combat so it doesn't last so long at the table? The Escalation Die was the proposed solution. It was never about being a narrative mechanic, though it is a combat pacing mechanic. There is also nothing from what I recall in their design diaries, blogs, etc. where they reference it in terms of narrative. It's almost always talked about in terms of speeding up combat while also providing some incentives or skilled play about when to use your abilities, as you are more likely to hit as combat goes on. If anything, it's "gamist" rather than "narrativist."

Ok, I'll accept that the origin of the mechanic is gamist in nature (also not my top priority, but not relevant to this conversation). That doesn't mean that the Escalation Die doesn't have a narrative effect, it just means that wasn't what it was designed for.

I admit to being  mostly wrong on this one.

 

[darjr]

The escalation die is absolutely for the fiction in the game. First it’s a pacing mechanism, pacing for the story, which combat is a part of. Also monsters don’t get the bonus because PCs do, it’s part of the kind of stories 13th age is meant for. And if the players PCs don’t engage with the fight it doesn’t advance, note “players PCs”.

Also if the players end combat it resets.

Edit to add: but yea it’s also very “gamist”
Is that what you meant?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I want to start off by expressing my appreciation for how well you took that ribbing and kept the discussion civil.









I'm really a bit confused about how you can equate these two things though. It's a similar concept to why + threads exist or why threadcrapping is a moddable offense. Or like the whole reason we appreciate the generally positive tone of the ENwold forums over a lot of other spaces on the internet.

Talking about things we like is an inherently rewarding. It feels good, it allows us to experience sharing an interest with others.

Talking about things we dislike... well, it can certainly feel good to vent with other people who share similar frustrations. Although I'm not sure how or why 4E could still be causing frustration for people who don't play it and don't have to deal with it being the only form of sanctioned or easily-available play anymore.

Of course if there's a thread that's an open call for everyone's views on a subject than naturally it makes sense for people to chime in both positive and negative. But I'm really a bit at a loss to see the point of walking into a conversation about a subject I dislike strictly for the purpose of dumping on it. That just seems like it would take the conversation and turn it into a worse experience for everyone involved.

And maybe that's not what you generally do or intended to do here! But when you say that you don't see any meaningful difference between talking about a thing you like or talking about a thing you hate, I hope this helps to explain some of why that confuses me.

First of all, I don't hate 4e, it just has a lot of aspects I dislike that make it not the game for me. Hate is far too strong a word.

Secondly, I engage in a lot of threads about game theory on this forum. My own leanings are heavily simulationist, which I know is not to everyone's taste. In some ways, what I want out of gaming is further away from the WotC mainstream than what the narrative advocates want.

I respect other people's game preferences, but what I don't like is the persistent idea that narrative games are a better way to play, and that 4e was a tragic victim of a terrible D&D fan base not enlightened enough to give it the screaming success it deserved, as if there's a straight value path that leads to 4e and narrative gaming, and those who disagree are holding up the evolution of RPGs in favor of obsolete, antiquated ideas.

4e has fundamental design priorities that make it incompatible with the desired playstyle of many D&D fans, both then and now. For those to whom it was compatible, an enormous aura of defensiveness surrounds their every post, such that expressing any opinion of 4e that isn't a rave is taken as a personal attack.

Now I know not everyone in favor of 4e believes that, but the attitude is IMO pervasive, and difficult for me not to respond to. I'm sure I'm being overly sensitive regarding negative comments about my own playstyle as well (although I've never told anyone that their playstyle doesn't really exist), and for that, and for any feathers I've ruffled unduly, I apologize.

 

[Ondath]

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

This is in preparation for a book and I know more interesting revelations will be had.

Finally this panel was recorded. Not by Ben it seems but by GenCon.

I think I can get that recording and am trying.

I'd love to see that recording, if only so that we won't keep relitigating the same arguments for 50 more pages.

 

[darjr]

I'd love to see that recording, if only so that we won't keep relitigating the same arguments for 50 more pages.

Well… ooops.

I don’t think it’ll stop that. Part of me doesn’t want it to. Anyway if I get it I’ll make a new thread.

 

[Mannahnin]

I respect other people's game preferences, but what I don't like is the persistent idea that narrative games are a better way to play, and that 4e was a tragic victim of a terrible D&D fan base not enlightened enough to give it the screaming success it deserved, as if there's a straight value path that leads to 4e and narrative gaming, and those who disagree are holding up the evolution of RPGs in favor of obsolete, antiquated ideas.

4e has fundamental design priorities that make it incompatible with the desired playstyle of many D&D fans, both then and now. For those to whom it was compatible, an enormous aura of defensiveness surrounds their every post, such that expressing any opinion of 4e that isn't a rave is taken as a personal attack.

Now I know not everyone in favor of 4e believes that, but the attitude is IMO pervasive, and difficult for me not to respond to. I'm sure I'm being overly sensitive regarding negative comments about my own playstyle as well (although I've never told anyone that their playstyle doesn't really exist), and for that, and for any feathers I've ruffled unduly, I apologize.

Much appreciated.

I will opine, as politely as I may, that folks who've played a lot of 4E and learned how to adapt to its assumptions and approaches and how they differ from preceding editions seem to often have the experience of seeing criticisms leveled at it which seem grounded in misconceptions about those assumptions and approaches.

Some of those misconceptions seem on the order of "objectively wrong" or actively misrepresent how the game works or what it's trying to do. I always try to bear in mind that some of these things REALLY ARE subjective, not objective, that some of them are simply matters of personal taste and preference, and that nearly all misrepresentations and misconceptions are the product of error, not malice. And also the hardest one- that I may be factually wrong about some things. Where I think a misconception or misunderstanding is in play I'll generally try to clarify and explain how I see it differently.

Some of the people offering criticisms here have some good direct experience with the game.

Some of them clearly don't. Like we saw with the Healing Surges discussion. Or some of the posts about Tripping. Or size disparities and how they're handled in different editions.

4E may have design priorities which make it incompatible with your desired play style. It may even actively offend you. But isn't there an easier way to deal with that in just ignoring it? Rather than entering a discussion between fans of a thing to tell them that the thing they like sucks and why?*

* (both things they'll inevitably disagree with, prompting a friendly debate at best or an acrimonious argument at worst)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Much appreciated.

I will opine, as politely as I may, that folks who've played a lot of 4E and learned how to adapt to its assumptions and approaches and how they differ from preceding editions seem to often have the experience of seeing criticisms leveled at it which seem grounded in misconceptions about those assumptions and approaches.

Some of those misconceptions seem on the order of "objectively wrong" or actively misrepresent how the game works or what it's trying to do. I always try to bear in mind that some of these things REALLY ARE subjective, not objective, that some of them are simply matters of personal taste and preference, and that nearly all misrepresentations and misconceptions are the product of error, not malice. And also the hardest one- that I may be factually wrong about some things. Where I think a misconception or misunderstanding is in play I'll generally try to clarify and explain how I see it differently.

Some of the people offering criticisms here have some good direct experience with the game.

Some of them clearly don't. Like we saw with the Healing Surges discussion. Or some of the posts about Tripping. Or size disparities and how they're handled in different editions.

4E may have design priorities which make it incompatible with your desired play style. It may even actively offend you. But isn't there an easier way to deal with that in just ignoring it? Rather than entering a discussion between fans of a thing to tell them that the thing they like sucks and why?*

* (both things they'll inevitably disagree with, prompting a friendly debate at best or an acrimonious argument at worst)

Well, I can try, but like I said this stuff is all over every thread about nearly every aspect of game theory, which is most of the threads I engage in.

 

[Mr. Patient]

I am very puzzled by this report that someone on the "management team" unilaterally increased all the monster hit points right before publication. It doesn't seem plausible that someone in a business role (as opposed to game development) would know or care enough to meddle at that level. I could imagine a suit saying something like "add a way to play a dragon person," but why would someone at this level decide that combat with a goblin skullcleaver needed to last another 2 rounds? If this actually happened, it must have been a developer/designer who did it, yes?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well, I can try, but like I said this stuff is all over every thread about nearly every aspect of game theory, which is most of the threads I engage in.

You could say 4E theory threads "mark" you???

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could say 4E theory threads "mark" you???

Theory threads where 4e is brought in anyway. Which is all of them.