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

[JEB]

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

Ah, so Worlds and Monsters didn't cast aspersions on earlier editions in the way Races and Classes did?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

They're a paired set. If you want to separate two books published by the same at the same time about the same game, fine. I apologize.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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).

That difference is where WotC and I parted ways.

 

[Autumnal]

This thread has done very well at reminding me of all the stuff I like about 4e, for which my thanks to all. With depression as severe as mine these days, every occasion for happy thoughts is welcome.

 

[deganawida]

This thread has done very well at reminding me of all the stuff I like about 4e, for which my thanks to all. With depression as severe as mine these days, every occasion for happy thoughts is welcome.

Ditto. Actually convinced me to buy the first three books and HotFL and Rules Compendium, too. Had to sell all my 4e stuff about 10 years ago.

 

[deganawida]

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

That is a fair point, though I took it as a bit tongue-in-cheek when it debuted. Just going my the commercials, you had pretentious faux-French dude, serious animated talk show host with homicidal tiefling and adorable but oblivious gnome, the who grapple commentary, and so on. It might be that I had quit playing 3.5 several years prior, and my colleague was younger, but I took it all as less “insulting” and more “comedic mocking”. I can see, however, how that might rub people the wrong way.

 

[Reynard]

There's other stuff like their excuse for not including gnomes as a PC race option was because they didn't see the point in them. But they explain how tried so hard to come up with a reason to but couldn't think upupne.

The only thing 4E got right!

[WARNING: This post may contain hyperbole for comedic effect. Use with caution.]

 

[thenightgaunt]

That is a fair point, though I took it as a bit tongue-in-cheek when it debuted. Just going my the commercials, you had pretentious faux-French dude, serious animated talk show host with homicidal tiefling and adorable but oblivious gnome, the who grapple commentary, and so on. It might be that I had quit playing 3.5 several years prior, and my colleague was younger, but I took it all as less “insulting” and more “comedic mocking”. I can see, however, how that might rub people the wrong way.

That's always a tricky one to read. What's silly to one might be hurtful to another. Like I thought the animated bits were funny. My wife and I still joke about the gnome. "I'm a monster. Rawr!"

But there are some things in the Wizards Presents books that, yeah, I found insufferable and insulting. Things that carried with them a subtext of "If you play this particular way, then you're wrong and your tastes are worth of mockery". That might not have been what they meant to convey, but that's how it came across to some.

BUT the big important part of this is that what THEY wrote, doesn't reflect any of us. And it also doesn't actually reflect on the game itself. Unless someone here was on the 4e design and marketing team, no one here shares any blame for their missteps.

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.

It's their tone and phrasing some of those writers used in those books. Writing can in fact be deeply insulting. And while it wasn't part of the 4e game's actual design, parts of the designers' PR and Marketing efforts for 4e could be interpreted as being pretty insulting to anyone who didn't agree with them.

But the fact is that not all game designers are good speakers. Some of the people they got to write the Wizards Presents books and do interviews to promote the edition, should have been left back in the office to work on the books.

This thread has done very well at reminding me of all the stuff I like about 4e, for which my thanks to all. With depression as severe as mine these days, every occasion for happy thoughts is welcome.

Sweet. Have fun. It's seeing a resurgence thanks to 5e stumbling. A lot of people who started with 5e have grown past the offerings of the system and want something with more meat to it. And they're finding what they want in games like Pathfinder and 4e D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is a fair point, though I took it as a bit tongue-in-cheek when it debuted. Just going my the commercials, you had pretentious faux-French dude, serious animated talk show host with homicidal tiefling and adorable but oblivious gnome, the who grapple commentary, and so on. It might be that I had quit playing 3.5 several years prior, and my colleague was younger, but I took it all as less “insulting” and more “comedic mocking”. I can see, however, how that might rub people the wrong way.

It's subjective, sure, but I have never been a fan of comedic mocking. I guess I'm prickly that way.

 

[pemerton]

Ah, so Worlds and Monsters didn't cast aspersions on earlier editions in the way Races and Classes did?

They're a paired set. If you want to separate two books published by the same at the same time about the same game, fine. I apologize.

I don't own a copy of Races & Classes. I did read a friend's copy, but I don't recall it being very interesting. It was not "paired" with W&M, in that they could be purchased separately, and according to Wikipedia R&C came out in Dec 2007, whereas W&M came out in Jan 2008. This fits with my memory of seeing the latter (which I purchased) on sale, but not the former (which I did not purchase).

I've already posted, in this thread, why I think Worlds & Monsters is an excellent book that should have informed the 4e DMG much more than it did. You, @Micah Sweet, responded to my post about having been enthused by W&M with a sad face; and then, in post 1432, described W&M as "deeply insulting". I accept your grudging apology that you appear not to have actually noticed which book I was posting about, which - it seems - you may not actually know very much about.