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

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it's true. I think that's why I really enjoyed those old Creature Crucible products of the 80s/90s, or the more recent Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and Glory of the Giants. The reception for these products has been rather lukewarm, but I really appreciated how--through a narrowed focus--those books were able to provide both a rich lore and abundant stats. I'd love to see more, like:

Nihiloor's Codex of the Illithids: a deep-dive into mind flayers. Their history, society, mythos, and more, complete with stats for all the many (MANY) types of illithids from the Elder Brain all the way down to the smallest tadpoles, new rules options for psionics and aberrant character backgrounds for the players to enjoy...

Slarkrethel's Guide to the Undersea: Everyone's favorite kraken gives us a tour of the underwater kingdoms of the realm, with lots of info on geography of the Purple Rocks, the struggles between merfolk, tritons, sahuagin, and kuo'toa, the eldritch origins of the aboleths and krakens, loads of history and lore of undersea creatures, stats for hordes of aquatic creatures, new rules options, some new druid subclasses...

Nerull's Necronomicon: A deep delve into the world of the living dead. Obviously we would need new spells and character creation options, sure, but also: cultists and necromantic factions, the lore behind the ancient mummy lords, NPC liches and vampires ready to pounce on your unsuspecting heroes. Throw in some maps of tombs, vaults, and temples, maybe a couple of pre-written adventures...

Contact me directly, Wizards of the Coast. I have oodles of ideas, and they can be yours for a small consulting fee.

Those would be excellent products on DMsGuild.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They do, but, they're also not functionally amorphous like oozes are - gelatinous cubes included despite naturally being in a cubic shape. If you were small enough (or it large enough), could you trip an amoeba? Probably not in any functional way like you could anything with legs. There's no top, bottom, front, or back to them. Most people consider it to be the same with oozes.

I mean, I really don't get the "realistically..." part of this. Realistically, a gelatinous cube HAS to have a membrane, or it would splosh into a puddle. An amoeba only gets away with being as squishy as it is (and it also has a membrane) by being so small. We have no idea if it has a top, bottom, front or back (you're making that up!) But that doesn't even matter - it could easily be momentarily discombobulated by being tipped over. Heck, precisely because it's gelatinous, it would conceivably squish downward under its own weight if you managed to tip it (as it thumped down on the other side) that it might take a moment to blob back up.

That's only one possibility. I could go on for pages with ways in which it could be momentarily squashed (long enough to have whatever disadvantages "trip" gives before it rights itself) by a character using a method that resembles the many ways in which someone could use an action that resembles "tripping". (Put your shield under it and LIFT). It's all dependent on 1) Who's doing the tripping and what do they have; 2) What's the terrain/room like; 3) What previously happened to the cube (did someone just firebolt it? Is there anyone inside? Did it just shuffle forward?, etc, etc).

IMO, every piece of story informs every other piece of story.

The argument "I don't like it" is fine by me. The argument "It's not realistic" is not. Even aside from the cube is not realistic in the first place, realistically it HAS to have some sort of form. There's no realistic reason why that form can't be manipulated in some way that would cause the cube to need to effectively take a moment to straighten itself out.

 

[pemerton]

Put your shield under it and LIFT

Like I said, a spatula would seem handy.

 

[roger semerad]

There was never any trip arguments in 3E/PF1. Now grappling....

Oh man I feel this one. It's still not the worst overcomplicated rule I've come across. I vaguely remember the rules for a car crash in the World of Darkness book (don't know how this edition is referred, the one where the World of Darkness was an unique book that worked as a foundation of the whole system) were so ridiculous I read it three times before I even understood the process.

Not just more important. Fiction didn’t matter.

I find most of the arguments about 4E in this thread unecessary and tedius, but this needs a little push back. Saying the fiction doesn't matter is a vast exaggeration. As Fitz said, and as the official explanation said, you come up with a reasonable explanation for how an enemy suffers from a particular debuff. For those of us that like this approach, the fiction is still a very important part of the game. I would absolutely need the DM or player to come up with an explanation for how things are happening. So the rules take precedence, but the fiction remains important.

 

[CleverNickName]

Those would be excellent products on DMsGuild.

There's that name again, DM's Guild.

It would be a great product anywhere, in my opinion. It's more likely that WotC would produce it, all official-like, since they're the IP holders. Maybe I'm missing something but producing it on DM's Guild isn't going to automatically make it better, right?

 

[Zeromaru X]

Oh and just to pull it out of the blog post here is the 3.5 FAQ entry, though I haven't looked to verify it.

The person who wrote this definitely hasn't seen a flipped up snake...

 

[Aldarc]

A huge part of the lore of the game can be found in monster books, especially lore-heavy ones like the 2e Monstrous Manual (my all-time favorite). I value that part greatly, because it is interesting and inspiring. The statblocks themselves fill a necessary function, but IMO they're not the most important part of a monster book, and we don't need to prioritize writing them like a technical manual over discussing what they are and their place in the world.

I would say that the stats are the most important part of the Monster Manual. especially for people with a simulationist agenda, as these are the mechanics that enable the players to interact with the fiction in a "tangible" sense.

What about the DMs leisurely reading? I can't tell you how many game books I've read for pleasure.

Sure, but I read fiction and non-fiction for inspirational leisurely pleasure.

Not just more important. Fiction didn’t matter.

This is blatantly false and harmful against 4e to boot. It's pretty clear IMHO that 4e D&D harmonized the fiction of the implied setting to a far greater degree before or sense in D&D. The fiction for the monsters, player abilities, and more were vastly important to the overarching meta-narrative of the World Axis cosmos.

 

[Zaukrie]

Those would be excellent products on DMsGuild.

They would, but, man, it is SO HARD to justify the time for how little money the author would get.

 

[darjr]

I ran a lot of public 4e. Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms and others. With a few other DMs. Mostly local. One thing I noticed was DMs throwing up their hands when incongruent rules interactions that didn’t match the fiction would happen. Sure incongruity happens in any RPG but it seemed to happen a lot in 4e.

I especially noticed it at GenCon.

I think, like me, the drip drip drip of constantly doing things like the FAQ suggests, grew tiresome.

The rules won over the fiction cause it was just easier. 4e fought against you.

But absolutely, imho.

Now… harmful? Really?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I really don't get the "realistically..." part of this. Realistically, a gelatinous cube HAS to have a membrane, or it would splosh into a puddle. An amoeba only gets away with being as squishy as it is (and it also has a membrane) by being so small. We have no idea if it has a top, bottom, front or back (you're making that up!) But that doesn't even matter - it could easily be momentarily discombobulated by being tipped over. Heck, precisely because it's gelatinous, it would conceivably squish downward under its own weight if you managed to tip it (as it thumped down on the other side) that it might take a moment to blob back up.

That's only one possibility. I could go on for pages with ways in which it could be momentarily squashed (long enough to have whatever disadvantages "trip" gives before it rights itself) by a character using a method that resembles the many ways in which someone could use an action that resembles "tripping". (Put your shield under it and LIFT). It's all dependent on 1) Who's doing the tripping and what do they have; 2) What's the terrain/room like; 3) What previously happened to the cube (did someone just firebolt it? Is there anyone inside? Did it just shuffle forward?, etc, etc).

IMO, every piece of story informs every other piece of story.

The argument "I don't like it" is fine by me. The argument "It's not realistic" is not. Even aside from the cube is not realistic in the first place, realistically it HAS to have some sort of form. There's no realistic reason why that form can't be manipulated in some way that would cause the cube to need to effectively take a moment to straighten itself out.

And all those reasons are fine. My issue isn't that there's no reason that it should work the way 4e says it does (although I don't personally agree with those reasons). My issue is that those reasons are being presented because the priority is making sure the rules work as written, because that's the most important thing. That's my issue, and I stand by it.