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

[MGibster]

I can't imagine that the WoW cool downs are like the AEDU system. Are any of the cool down periods slow enough that it is once per fight only? Once per day so not even once per fight?

I didn't start playing WoW until after I decided 4th edition wasn't for me. On the first day I started playing I thought to myself, "This reminds me of 4th edition. A lot." While I didn't care for 4th edition, comparing it to WoW or other MMORPGs isn't an insult in my book. But to answer your question, yes. There are cool downs in WoW that are so long that it means you can only use that ability once during the fight.

I think the canary in the coal mine is that we keep hearing World of Warcraft in all these discussions. This game will never bring in that kind of money. It will probably never bring in MoTG type of money. If that's the bar Dnd is doomed to continual cycle of reboot , reboot, reboot till the execs figure that out.

The funny thing is that WoW will never bring in the kind of money it used to bring in. While MMORPGs continue to exist, they are nowhere as big as they were 15+ years ago.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I yearn for the day when everyone can stop fixating on 4e as being the "failed" edition, the "controversial" edition, or the "divisive" edition. Just accept that (like it or not) it is a Dungeons & Dragons game, respect that many D&D fans liked the system (and many still do), and just appreciate any contributions and influences it made to modern RPG designs.

 

[Mannahnin]

Kind of. But it's deeper than that.

Whatever you might say about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, there is a definite difference in the approach of 4e and 5e. A way to describe it is that 4e tends to be more prescriptive in the PHB and (ESPECIALLY) the DMG(s). The 5e model, on the other hand, goes out of its way to avoid being prescriptive, often to the point of near unintelligibility (do you roll dice in the open, or not? is fudging okay? whatever, man, it's all good!).

So in 4e, to not allow a short rest between encounters is, quite literally, doing it wrong. It's the exception. It's denying players their encounter-based abilities. It is ... well, encounters are defined by short rests!

On the other hand, 5e has these recommendations. But ... it's all kind of wishy-washy, right? Does every party have 6-8 encounters per day? Do most? Do DMs make sure that a party is going to get the 2-3 short rests? I've seen a lot of D&D games, and while there are tables that do try and adhere to that, I'd say that this recommendation is far from the norm. Moreover, whereas in 4e if a party doesn't get a short rest between encounters, the DM has definitely messed up, in 5e it is entirely possible for a party to want (or need!) a short rest after an encounter and for it to not be possible.

Which again circles around to the idea that the concepts behind the games are ... different. 4e is tighter (is that a good term to use?) in that aspect.

I think this contrast of tight design and writing vs. loose is probably at the root of why 4E's encounter design and CR systems are widely acknowledged as functional and praised, where 5E's work decently but also get a lot of complaints and questions.

5E harkens back to 2E in that way. 2E tried to be all things to all gamers and wound up with a wishy-washy DMG and elements of design which clashed with one another. Basic D&D-style 3d6 down the line for ability scores but without point swapping or Basic D&D's lower, more accessible thresholds for bonuses. Dumping gold for XP in favor of increased monster and goal-based XP resulting in much slower advancement while retaining 1E's lethality. I think 5E is a much more successful design than 2E overall, but it shares some of the same issues.

I am really glad they did not go with x rounds as the recharge.

I really liked 3.5 recharge magic but tracking round countdowns for multiple spell levels was a fiddly pain.

I also was really glad they changed durations to generally either one round, save ends, or encounter.

Yes, it was nice and clear.

"x rounds per recharge" also reminds me of the experimental classes in Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, from late in 3.5 when they were clearly playtesting some concepts for 4th. I played and enjoyed all of those classes. The Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. Now that you mention that, I remember that each of them had a different recharge mechanic for its abilities.

Crusaders got a random selection of two of their special maneuvers to use at the beginning of each fight (as flashes of divine inspiration), and reset the whole lot every four rounds.

Sword Sages readied all of theirs with five minutes of meditation and once one was used it was gone until the end of the encounter, but they could refresh one mid-fight as a full-round action to concentrate and meditate.

Warblades readied all of their maneuvers with five minutes of exercise and once one was used it was gone until the end of the encounter, and they could refresh ALL of theirs as a Swift action after making a single attack or a weapon flourish, but they got a more limited number and selection than Sword Sages, and fewer other cool abilities.

 

[Celebrim]

There is a big difference between being sustainable and 'making money.'

In all aspects of existence, "sustainability" is a synonym for "turning profit". A nuclear reaction is sustainable if it turns a profit. Life is sustainable if and only if it turns a profit. Things that don't make money are not sustainable in the same way and for similar reasons. Eventually they eat up the seed corn and collapse. There are ways to make things economically sustainable without selling them at above the cost of making them, but most of those things are very difficult to do and/or are also themselves unstable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I yearn for the day when everyone can stop fixating on 4e as being the "failed" edition, the "controversial" edition, or the "divisive" edition. Just accept that (like it or not) it is a Dungeons & Dragons game, respect that many D&D fans liked the system (and many still do), and just appreciate any contributions and influences it made to modern RPG designs.

I don't think that will happen. 4e was simply too different from D&D before and since (in one way or another) to ever get something approaching universal acceptance as being part of the spectrum of D&D.

 

[Celebrim]

Even as someone that values many things 4e did, it really rubbed me the wrong way that the game made no effort to help decide how the meant-for-combat powers might possibly interact with the world outside of those encounters.

The converse of this was one of the things that rubbed me hard the wrong way. Entries in the Monster Manual basically only had meant-for-combat powers and were stripped almost entirely of the rules or power for interacting with the world outside of combat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In all aspects of existence, "sustainability" is a synonym for "turning profit". A nuclear reaction is sustainable if it turns a profit. Life is sustainable if and only if it turns a profit. Things that don't make money are not sustainable in the same way and for similar reasons. Eventually they eat up the seed corn and collapse. There are ways to make things economically sustainable without selling them at above the cost of making them, but most of those things are very difficult to do and/or are also themselves unstable.

Again, there is a difference between generating profit and maximizing profit.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think this contrast of tight design and writing vs. loose is probably at the root of why 4E's encounter design and CR systems are widely acknowledged as functional and praised, where 5E's work decently but also get a lot of complaints and questions.

5E harkens back to 2E in that way. 2E tried to be all things to all gamers and wound up with a wishy-washy DMG and elements of design which clashed with one another. Basic D&D-style 3d6 down the line for ability scores but without point swapping or Basic D&D's lower, more accessible thresholds for bonuses. Dumping gold for XP in favor of increased monster and goal-based XP resulting in much slower advancement while retaining 1E's lethality.

I think we are in agreement. I did want to be careful, though, since I think both 4e and 5e made deliberate choices in that regard, and that both choices are defensible and work for what they were attempting to do!

There is a lot of benefit to prescription when it comes to rules and giving guidance on how to play. I've noted, in other contexts, that many games benefit from the tightness of focus.

On the other hand, making the decision to leave things open can cause a lot of frustration, but it also allows for a more robust variety of play.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, there is a difference between generating profit and maximizing profit.

Ok, agreed. Profit maximizing strategies bring in the problem of, "Under what time frame?". It's typical to get fixated on short term profits to the exclusion of long term profits, which is something that I feel happened with 3.5e.

 

[Kannik]

In all aspects of existence, "sustainability" is a synonym for "turning profit". A nuclear reaction is sustainable if it turns a profit. Life is sustainable if and only if it turns a profit. Things that don't make money are not sustainable in the same way and for similar reasons. Eventually they eat up the seed corn and collapse. There are ways to make things economically sustainable without selling them at above the cost of making them, but most of those things are very difficult to do and/or are also themselves unstable.

Which is why I was clear to limit the use of 'profit' in my post (calling it so-called profit at one point): there's not losing money, and generating enough to grow/continue/etc, and then there's the mindset where profit = do whatever it takes to maximize short term growth and profit. The latter of which is what often eats the seed corn and collapses.

It reminds me of the parable of the man who hears that if he feeds his donkey less, he'll have more money at the end of the day. So he does, and he does, and he's happy to have won. Then his donkey dies.

(Edit: Ninjaed by Micah )