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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I never said I was entirely in control of my behavior. I said that I am responsible for my behavior. That if I lose control, it's on me.

There's a difference, and an important one, I'd say.

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

Why not? What's a group but a collection of individuals? If I want to play game X and you want to play game Y, it's our individual views that are at odds. It's me and you... not games X and Y... that are in conflict.

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

It's a perfectly rational choice to make, is it not?

That people may be unable of making that choice isn't in doubt... you seem to be thinking I'm arguing something I'm not. People don't always act rationally.

I just don't blame a game for when they don't.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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!

 

[Eric V]

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!

LOL, this is fantastic!

 

[Eric V]

People don't always act rationally.

I just don't blame a game for when they don't.

"The game made me do it!"

 

[Red Castle]

I never said I was entirely in control of my behavior. I said that I am responsible for my behavior. That if I lose control, it's on me.

There's a difference, and an important one, I'd say.

« It’s not my fault officer! I swear! I was drunk… »

 

[Pedantic]

Hey, I have some friends who rabidly collect board games. I rarely know what I'm getting into when they ask me to play. Usually I find the rules to be obtuse, can't figure out a good strategy, and lose without really grokking why.

So I tell them "hey, I didn't have fun with that, can we play something else?"

If they insisted "no, these are the games we have to play!", then I stop showing up, but that's not the fault of the games, that was their refusal to compromise. And if they're ok with ostracizing me because I'll scream if I have to play another game of House on Haunted Hill, maybe they weren't people I should be gaming with in the first place.

I have two regular board gaming events weekly. One is very much about seeing people I like on Thursdays, and the other is very much about grappling with interesting mechanics on Sundays. I would never insist on a particular game for Thursday, and I carefully vet any new player invited to Sunday. I'm happy to include anyone wandering past on Thursday and have opted to skip Sunday myself when player counts don't work for the chosen game and I judge someone else would enjoy the experience more than me.

Gaming can have both social and inherent utility, and you can prize one or the other at different times in different places.

Which is all to say, any relationship that requires me to sit through something as interminable as Betrayal at the House on the Hill is absolutely not worth maintaining.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Are you mistaking me for one of the people who's obsessed about the fact that a lot of things in 4e are narrative conceits? If so you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I never said I was entirely in control of my behavior. I said that I am responsible for my behavior. That if I lose control, it's on me.

There's a difference, and an important one, I'd say.

And in this context, I don't think it is.

 

[Hussar]

I think it would be interesting to find out what drove this design process in more detail. For example, we all know that WoTC looked extensively at what players wanted when designing 3e, and we are all familiar with the playtests and consensus model used for 5e. Neither of which is likely to produce cutting-edge or innovative design, but it likely to lead to safe, boring, and commercially successful decisions.

I've very often referred to 4e as the RPGA edition. Most of the playtesting was done by the RPGA. And so much of the design was driven by elements that had been instituted in the RPGA. Add to that the idea that 4e was expecting this huge growth meaning that you would have a broad swath of new DM's playing with newly minted groups and suddenly I think that a lot of the changes that 4e made make sense. You don't want "DM empowerment" when you're playing pick up games with strangers. You want consistency between tables. This makes even more sense when you add in the idea that WotC was banking on Online play being a big deal and many of these players would be jumping from group to group, RPGA style.

And, since that does not apply to the majority of existing 3e players of the time - the RPGA was big, but, hardly a majority of D&D players and online, while also sizable at the time, was still miniscule as well - these decision points would make zero sense.

Which, IMO, goes a ways to explaining why 5e touted the whole "DM empowerment" thing. It was directly addressing existing groups with established players. There's no sense of consistency between tables. How you play 5e and how I play 5e doesn't really matter so long as the game gives a good enough baseline for both of us to enjoy our games.

 

[James Gasik]

I've very often referred to 4e as the RPGA edition. Most of the playtesting was done by the RPGA. And so much of the design was driven by elements that had been instituted in the RPGA. Add to that the idea that 4e was expecting this huge growth meaning that you would have a broad swath of new DM's playing with newly minted groups and suddenly I think that a lot of the changes that 4e made make sense. You don't want "DM empowerment" when you're playing pick up games with strangers. You want consistency between tables. This makes even more sense when you add in the idea that WotC was banking on Online play being a big deal and many of these players would be jumping from group to group, RPGA style.

And, since that does not apply to the majority of existing 3e players of the time - the RPGA was big, but, hardly a majority of D&D players and online, while also sizable at the time, was still miniscule as well - these decision points would make zero sense.

Which, IMO, goes a ways to explaining why 5e touted the whole "DM empowerment" thing. It was directly addressing existing groups with established players. There's no sense of consistency between tables. How you play 5e and how I play 5e doesn't really matter so long as the game gives a good enough baseline for both of us to enjoy our games.

I will add that 4e worked very well for D&D Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms. Man, I miss LFR.