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

[darjr]

But it doesn't has any numbers for 4e.

I wish that he'd said that in his post then.

Ben did say it sold less than the numbers he stated for 3.0 and 3.5.

 

[overgeeked]

Too clean. I like having to figure stuff out and do some critical thinking.

You still do. Instead of it being in the parsing of the rules themselves it's in the application thereof.

 

[darjr]

Thought better of something I posted. No idea if it's any good.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

one thing several folks said about the early playtest and even some of it now is that it seemed to be an effort to "clean it up" and be less natural language as if they wanted it to be better for software designers to handle.

The framing of the language has little to do with the ease of implementation in software. With the caveat of not actually sitting down and writing a spec, in my opinion automating 5e is easier than 4e. the main difference being that with 5e different designers would probably interpret the ambiguous elements differently.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The format of 4e, IMO, encouraged the reader to ignore the fluff and focus on rules and effects, especially in the powers, with their italicized one sentence descriptions.

In another thread, we've seen this debate play out in the recalled debate about the function of the "trip" power as it would apply to gelatinous cubes in 4e.

Those who favor rules note that there is no restriction, so the rule must be given precedence.
Those who favor fluff note that you can't "trip" a gelatinous cube.

I say this not to come down and one side or the other, but just to agree with your description of the divide.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's what a statblock is for, IMO. You can get the rest of the stuff elsewhere, but a REALLY EASY to use statblock is a DM's best friend.

I loved 4e. Now, some of that might be that that was the system that had my longest running campaign with mostly the same guys......context matters. But, I really loved how the rules (like statblocks) were strait forward, and there was a TON of lore in the non-statblocks. I liked the "gamist" language in the rules parts a lot. It just made it easier to actually run the game. There was plenty of lore and stuff outside the blocks.

Eh. The more fluff and rules are separated the less I like it. I find that the rules tend to get all the ficus and the rest begins to go fallow.

It’s one of the reasons I like 5e over 4e.

There is more fluff in much of the 4e MM books than the 5e MM....according to the the word count (see above). So I'm not sure your point. The actual statblock? Get rid of the fluff....that's all I really said. I mean, the warlock and sorcerer in 4e are way fluffier.way, than 5e.

Yeah, for my part I think it's really helpful in forestalling arguments and aiding comprehension if the rules text and fluff are able to be clearly delineated. But that also doesn't mean that the statblocks are entirely devoid of, let's call it "implicit fluff", or background/flavor. And it doesn't mean that the DM can't use the flavor for useful color, or make broad rulings based on it like "area effect flame attacks can light objects in the area on fire". Or "you can't trip something which doesn't have legs". Those are just more easily distinguishable as house rules which should be discussed to make sure everyone's on the same page.

One of the examples Pemerton gave was the Deathlock Wight with its fear ability. This ability is entirely rooted in the fluff- the thing reveals its horrid visage and scares people, pushing them back. It's flavorful in a similar way to how classic D&D Mummies force a fear-based save vs. paralysis, which directly simulates something you'd see in the classic Universal monster movies of The Mummy- despite The Mummy being a slow, shambling monster, it would kill people in part because they'd be frozen in fear at the sight of it.

Zaukrie's got a fair point too about the Warlock and Sorcerer in 4E. Those were extremely flavorful classes in 4E, and the 5E versions are definitely a bit watered down and less unique.

And yet plenty of folks played OD&D with barely readable photocopies of photocopies.

They certainly did, but by the time I was learning in the 80s OD&D was famous for being confusing and something newbies should avoid. And it was famously run differently at nearly every table. If you started with one group and had to move to another you would need to learn all their house rules. Of which there would inevitably be many. The idea of playing RAW wasn't even possible. Within DIY wargaming culture this wasn't too problematic, but regular sci-fi and fantasy fans definitely struggled with it.

It’s not the amount it’s the bright divide between the two and the disconnect that can engender.

No. If you look at old zines and the elusive shift it was clear that the fast growing majority of early adopters were NOT the traditional lake Geneva style wargamers. In fact it’s that truth that probably helped that explosive growth.

My recollection from The Elusive Shift is that there were two main early groups- the wargamers and the non-wargamer sci-fi & fantasy fans. And you're definitely right that it appealing to the non-wargamers really helped its growth and expansion, but don't dismiss the number or importance of the wargamers. Remember that was a pretty substantial hobby market. As Greg Costikyan's piece about wargaming and TSR noted, SPI alone was employing 40 people and publishing around 40 games a year with gross annual revenue of about two million dollars in the mid 70s (right around when Tim Kask became TSR's first full-time employee). The equivalent of a bit over eleven million today.

For me it’s the “natural language” used that’s the problem. I don’t care that fluff exists or that it’s near the rules. I just want the rules to be written as rules, i.e. in stark, explicit, and direct terms with as little ambiguity as possible. The opposite of WotC’s “natural language” approach. Like what interrupts a long rest. Strenuous activity. Okay, what activity is strenuous? It’s up to the referee. That’s great for the referee. But a lot of players hate that because there’s no clear guidelines and it devolves into the community’s favorite new negative buzzwords “mother may I.”

I don't think it's necessarily great for the referee either. A lot of referees, especially new ones, would like a little clearer guidance.

The format of 4e, IMO, encouraged the reader to ignore the fluff and focus on rules and effects, especially in the powers, with their italicized one sentence descriptions.

I would say that it made it easier to ignore the fluff for the purposes of rules adjudication specifically. The text made it clear what part was flavor and what part was rules, and this was a big aid to clarity. Whether that means you're actually ignoring the fluff in other circumstances.... well, your mileage may vary, but that wasn't my experience at the tables I played at or ran. I and some of my D&D buddies also played actual wargames as well, though, so maybe it came more naturally for us. If we wanted a competitive, more mechanics-focused game, that's what wargames were for. D&D and other roleplaying games were all about the flavor and fluff. 4E's writing approach mostly meant the rules were quicker and easier to parse and understand, so we had fewer debates or disagreements wasting table time.

 

[pemerton]

But that also doesn't mean that the statblocks are entirely devoid of, let's call it "implicit fluff", or background/flavor. And it doesn't mean that the DM can't use the flavor for useful color, or make broad rulings based on it like "area effect flame attacks can light objects in the area on fire". Or "you can't trip something which doesn't have legs". Those are just more easily distinguishable as house rules which should be discussed to make sure everyone's on the same page.

One of the examples Pemerton gave was the Deathlock Wight with its fear ability. This ability is entirely rooted in the fluff- the thing reveals its horrid visage and scares people, pushing them back. It's flavorful in a similar way to how classic D&D Mummies force a fear-based save vs. paralysis, which directly simulates something you'd see in the classic Universal monster movies of The Mummy- despite The Mummy being a slow, shambling monster, it would kill people in part because they'd be frozen in fear at the sight of it.

For me, a big part of the appeal of 4e is that - in the context of combat - creatures reveal their nature not via descriptive text but via how they actually play, the actions they perform and the effects that they generate at the table.

Keywords - like the [fire] keyword in your example - also play a clear role here. As is recognised in the rules for affecting objects that are found in the DMG.

 

[Zeromaru X]

I wish that he'd said that in his post then.

Ben did say it sold less than the numbers he stated for 3.0 and 3.5.

It would have been nice if he showed evidence to back up these claims.

 

[darjr]

It would have been nice if he showed evidence to back up these claims.

An exact number of 4e sales vs the 3rd sales would have changed your mind? Vs him saying it without a number? Really?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

the function of the "trip" power as it would apply to gelatinous cubes in 4e.

Relatedly, in 5e you can grab a hold of the very melt-y gelatinous cube with a grapple, stopping them from engulfing you, because they need to move into your space to engulf you... when your hand is already stuck to them...

Oozes are just special like that.