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

[Ralif Redhammer]

It was the Bush administration: a different time.

It definitely was. I still cringe at some of the stuff I found funny back then.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

• He also noted that Radney-McFarland ran a playtest for Jason Bulmahn, who was aghast at having magic missiles that could miss. "That was the moment Pathfinder was born," noted Riggs.

I wanted to add to this. While I have written before on the subject, I referred to the following:

H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Bulmahn of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.

A lot of what Riggs is reporting here isn't new. Yes, some of the sales figures acknowledge what most of us understood, and it's helpful to get more concrete numbers (and more documentation of facts), but more of this is well-known.

I think that fundamentally, though, this reporting won't change what people already want to believe about the transition from 3e to 4e, to the extent it contradicts the emotional experiences that people had and the stories we have told ourselves. Heck, despite the fact that Peterson has extensively documented the early history of TSR and RPGs in the 70s, we still see people keep repeating the same incorrect assertions about that time, over and over and over again.

Take this particular nugget that I have excerpted. A lot of people will tell you that a lot of the problems with 4e was because of "stuck in the mud" types that organized against 4e. But it's been known for a very long time that, prior to the launch of 4e, people knew that it would be controversial and that it would turn people off. The Bulmahn story was well-known, and it was his experience playtesting 4e that gave Paizo the confidence to go forward with Pathfinder- before the public launch of 4e. In other words, there were known, easily ascertainable issues that they would have with the customer base and they chose not to address those issues.

In other words, I look forward to what he has to say in terms of establishing a record, but I doubt it will change many minds.

 

[darjr]

I wanted to add to this. While I have written before on the subject, I referred to the following:

H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Bulmahn of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.

A lot of what Riggs is reporting here isn't new. Yes, some of the sales figures acknowledge what most of us understood, and it's helpful to get more concrete numbers (and more documentation of facts), but more of this is well-known.

I think that fundamentally, though, this reporting won't change what people already want to believe about the transition from 3e to 4e, to the extent it contradicts the emotional experiences that people had and the stories we have told ourselves. Heck, despite the fact that Peterson has extensively documented the early history of TSR and RPGs in the 70s, we still see people keep repeating the same incorrect assertions about that time, over and over and over again.

Take this particular nugget that I have excerpted. A lot of people will tell you that a lot of the problems with 4e was because of "stuck in the mud" types that organized against 4e. But it's been known for a very long time that, prior to the launch of 4e, people knew that it would be controversial and that it would turn people off. The Bulmahn story was well-known, and it was his experience playtesting 4e that gave Paizo the confidence to go forward with Pathfinder- before the public launch of 4e. In other words, there were known, easily ascertainable issues that they would have with the customer base and they chose not to address those issues.

In other words, I look forward to what he has to say in terms of establishing a record, but I doubt it will change many minds.

As a company they chose not too. The lead designer wanted to but the suits told him NO.

 

[Willie the Duck]

So, 1.5M for 1E, 1M for 2E, ~1M for 3E, far below 1M for 4E, and 3M and counting for 5E?

Those are some eye-opening figures. I had not realized the 1E boom was so gigantic relative to the editions that followed -- I thought surely 3E must have outsold it eventually. But 3E seems to have barely even nosed out 2E.

BitD, everyone I knew in gaming (online and in person) thought 3e was a massive hit, massive resurgence, massive revitalization of the brand, etc. After all, it brought D&D back to prominence after a decade of 2e slowly dying and White Wolf being the hot thing in gaming and so on. And look at all this space in the FLGS that used to be devoted to the #3-12 placing RPGs like Shadowrun or GURPS or RIFTS or whatever now dedicated to these 3pp D20 products! Why it must be a new era of gaming with D&D at the helm!

And I think it was a proportion of the pie rather than actual size of the slice issue. A big portion of the people actively and publicly gaming took another look at D&D, but that population in total wasn't at a particular high point* -- not the fad era that boosted 1E and BX, nor that time when non-traditional gamers came for WoD. Maybe even a nadir*, given that many of the white wolfers didn't continue and MtG and computer games had been eating into peoples' attention and so on. 3E made D&D a big fish in the pond again, but 1E (/basic) and 5e brought in new pondwater, which certainly helps explain the difference.
*I do not have numbers for people-in-gaming at given times, if anyone does, feel free to interject them.

Or not, this is just my impression.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a company they chose not too. The lead designer wanted to but the suits told him NO.

true but IMO they had to try this new thing. While there were risks the potential rewards were too great. Besides how do you spin to shareholders that you didn’t even try to implement a WOW like cash cow revenue model.

Worst case they knew that if 4e failed they probably could repviot with a 5e - which is also exactly what happened.

 

[darjr]

true but IMO they had to try this new thing. While there were risks the potential rewards were too great. Besides how do you spin to shareholders that you didn’t even try to implement a WOW like cash cow revenue model.

Worst case they knew that if 4e failed they probably could repviot with a 5e - which is also exactly what happened.

The lead designer was on board for the new thing, he also thought it needed fixing. It needed to be fixed FOR the new thing.

Also it seems like revisionist history to take 5es success into account for any decisions made of wotcs

 

[FrogReaver]

The lead designer was on board for the new thing, he also thought it needed fixing. It needed to be fixed FOR the new thing.

I’m not sure what you are referencing here.

Also it seems like revisionist history to take 5es success into account for any decisions made of wotcs

Huh? It’s common business practice to ask whats the strategy if a product fails.

 

[Voadam]

BitD, everyone I knew in gaming (online and in person) thought 3e was a massive hit, massive resurgence, massive revitalization of the brand, etc. After all, it brought D&D back to prominence after a decade of 2e slowly dying and White Wolf being the hot thing in gaming and so on. And look at all this space in the FLGS that used to be devoted to the #3-12 placing RPGs like Shadowrun or GURPS or RIFTS or whatever now dedicated to these 3pp D20 products! Why it must be a new era of gaming with D&D at the helm!

I expect the numbers to support 3e being a resurgence/revitalization over the last decade of 2e.

And from WotC's perspective dominance over the market through increased market share would have been a good value representing a new era of gaming with D&D back at the helm.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That timeline seems not to match up so at first glance this seems an odd conclusion.

WoW in late 2004 does not really account for any underperformance of 3e stuff from 2000-2004.

Perhaps but WoW also wasn't the first fantasy mmo. It would not shock me if "WoW" is serving as a placeholder for the generalized mmo genre that was entering a boom period in those years as broadband internet was becoming more readily available in the US for the first time.

Seems like the "Xerox" effect.

 

[Undrave]

the one that was most heavily noted was the fact that a magic missile could potentially miss an enemy. According to Riggs, Radney-McFarland pointed to that as something their core audience would rally around as being emblematic of the changes that they hated.

He also noted that Radney-McFarland ran a playtest for Jason Bulmahn, who was aghast at having magic missiles that could miss. "That was the moment Pathfinder was born," noted Riggs.

OF COURSE a WIZARD spell is what triggered them It's ALWAYS the damn Wizard players...

As someone who loves 4e to the centre of his dark little heart this is very interesting. It also sadly highlights on of the issues with the whole RPG space which is that people really need to chill a bit. So magic missile can miss... okay, fine, whatever. Either change it for your table or accept it. (Also, and I'd have to dig around, but I have a feeling I saw an auto hit magic missile in official 4e paperwork. Maybe the starter set but I could be wrong.)

Yeah this is such an overreaction... and yeah they had one in Essential.

Maybe they should have given it damage on a miss and then the Wizard players wouldn't have whined as much?

WoW in late 2004 does not really account for any underperformance of 3e stuff from 2000-2004.

At that point it doesn't REALLY have to be the reason, all that matters is that the executives believe that it is.