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

[Gammadoodler]

Perhaps, but I think generally closer to the second than the first of these.

That's just it, though - the broader population might very well have class levels, or be able to acquire such, though probably not many.

Ah, there's where we differ.

I see adventuring as merely being the high-risk fast-track to gaining levels. Stay-at-home types who perform the same functions as adventurers - a soldier, a street thief, a lab mage, a temple cleric - also all gain levels as they go along and learn their trade, only that gain accrues MUCH more slowly than it does for adventurers in the field. Meanwhile those in truly non-adventuring professions - a jeweller, a baker, a valet, a painter - never gain levels of any kind; yet they could, if they chucked those trades and got out into the field.

My point is that it should take no time whatsoever.

Indeed, this is true; but were it more capable I probably wouldn't allow the player to take it over (not yet anyway) and if it's less capable the player is merely taking on more of a challenge.

The one thing I won't do is have an NPC be capable of doing things a PC of the same species and class can never aspire to do.

I don't actually think we differ that much. I've never commented on what I think the broader population could be but on what they are, at least in a typical setting. And I don't think it should be controversial to expect commoners to be..common..in most settings, or for PCs to be a cut above those commoners from a capabilities perspective.

Could one of those commoners forge a life of adventure, gaining experience and capabilities beyond their peers? Sure, but that would be...uncommon.

Likewise I didn't actually suggest that adventuring was the only way to attain the more advanced capabilities that class levels represent. I discussed how they would be gained through experience, exotic energies, magic and the like. Some or perhaps even most of these could be encountered through some other professions. But the time and peril required would, I expect again, make this uncommon.

And if adventuring is the "fast lane" to such experience, then it is reasonable to expect your professional adventurer PCs capabilities to rapidly outstrip those of their former non-adventurer peers (should they survive).

All of this, to me, sounds like D&D operating as intended. PCs start out stronger than the crowd and that gap increases with time. Are there others within the setting whose capabilities are on par or beyond the PCs, sure, but these are also exceptions.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't actually think we differ that much. I've never commented on what I think the broader population could be but on what they are, at least in a typical setting. And I don't think it should be controversial to expect commoners to be..common..in most settings, or for PCs to be a cut above those commoners from a capabilities perspective.

Could one of those commoners forge a life of adventure, gaining experience and capabilities beyond their peers? Sure, but that would be...uncommon.

Likewise I didn't actually suggest that adventuring was the only way to attain the more advanced capabilities that class levels represent. I discussed how they would be gained through experience, exotic energies, magic and the like. Some or perhaps even most of these could be encountered through some other professions. But the time and peril required would, I expect again, make this uncommon.

And if adventuring is the "fast lane" to such experience, then it is reasonable to expect your professional adventurer PCs capabilities to rapidly outstrip those of their former non-adventurer peers (should they survive).

All of this, to me, sounds like D&D operating as intended. PCs start out stronger than the crowd and that gap increases with time. Are there others within the setting whose capabilities are on par or beyond the PCs, sure, but these are also exceptions.

Yeah, maybe we are closer on this than it appears.

The bolded does point to one question: how big, if at all, should that gap be? And a corollary question, if the gap is big enough can - or should - other "levels" be designed to fill it in?

In 0e it's a fairly small gap. In 1e there's certainly room for a 0th level between commoner and 1st, this is formalized in UA with the Cavalier class and was always there informally with the "militia or man-at-arms" designator. 3e also formalizes a 0th-level between commoner and 1st.

In 4e the gap is close to immense. There's room to shoehorn maybe 4 or 5 more levels in there.

 

[dbolack]

I've been selling D&D books since 1993, and I think I finally understand why I've always thought that 3.5 was the most popular edition (before 5e). It certainly wasn't personal bias - it's my own least favorite edition. It's that 2e was getting "old" when I started (and the black books didn't do very well). 3e was BIG in game stores, but never hit the mainstream like 1e or 5e.

I think there's also a feeling of transitive success from the sales ( even the glut ) of OGL products where the ecosystem made the core products feel more successful than they were.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think there's also a feeling of transitive success from the sales ( even the glut ) of OGL products where the ecosystem made the core products feel more successful than they were.

Good point! When we're selling "d20 Modern" or any of the many other 3e-derived games, it all gets lumped in to 3e when you think of how successful it was, which doesn't always mean "core book sales".

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point is really that the modeling of stuff is only very shallow and highly subject to gamist considerations, as well as other sorts of considerations possibly. So why sweat "prone just means the ooze can't move this round" or whatever? We're not entering some new territory in terms of approximating things.

I think the bulk of the D&D Community proved to be fairly disappointing, yes.

Is there a reason you can't just play 4e if you want to?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps, but I think generally closer to the second than the first of these.

That's just it, though - the broader population might very well have class levels, or be able to acquire such, though probably not many.

Ah, there's where we differ.

I see adventuring as merely being the high-risk fast-track to gaining levels. Stay-at-home types who perform the same functions as adventurers - a soldier, a street thief, a lab mage, a temple cleric - also all gain levels as they go along and learn their trade, only that gain accrues MUCH more slowly than it does for adventurers in the field. Meanwhile those in truly non-adventuring professions - a jeweller, a baker, a valet, a painter - never gain levels of any kind; yet they could, if they chucked those trades and got out into the field.

My point is that it should take no time whatsoever.

Indeed, this is true; but were it more capable I probably wouldn't allow the player to take it over (not yet anyway) and if it's less capable the player is merely taking on more of a challenge.

The one thing I won't do is have an NPC be capable of doing things a PC of the same species and class can never aspire to do.

And vice versa.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, maybe we are closer on this than it appears.

The bolded does point to one question: how big, if at all, should that gap be? And a corollary question, if the gap is big enough can - or should - other "levels" be designed to fill it in?

In 0e it's a fairly small gap. In 1e there's certainly room for a 0th level between commoner and 1st, this is formalized in UA with the Cavalier class and was always there informally with the "militia or man-at-arms" designator. 3e also formalizes a 0th-level between commoner and 1st.

In 4e the gap is close to immense. There's room to shoehorn maybe 4 or 5 more levels in there.

Yeah, my preferred OSR does the same with 0-level characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is really that the modeling of stuff is only very shallow and highly subject to gamist considerations, as well as other sorts of considerations possibly. So why sweat "prone just means the ooze can't move this round" or whatever? We're not entering some new territory in terms of approximating things.

I agree with the premise. There are alot of gamist considerations out there already.

You are essentially saying 'what's one more??'. I get that. (Except it wasn't really just one more, it was a ton more, but that's a story for another post).

I would say 'why are we moving in the wrong direction!!!'. Previous to 4e editions proved that we didn't need gamist considerations around proning an Ooze. Game worked perfectly fine. So why force that gamist consideration when we didn't have to. And that's where different play priorities surface - which ends up being the long and short of all 4e discussions. 4e catered to a significantly different set of play priorities than prior d&d's. I did like 4e (i would say i shared many of those priorities at that time), but i get why it wasn't for many.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes. Ever play D&D with kids? The rules won’t help you.

I co-DMed a game for a group that included 4 kids age 11 and under, just a couple of weeks ago. Youngest was 6. The rules were VERY helpful in adjudicating what they wanted to do. So yeah, you're wrong about that.

 

[Fifth Element]

A trend I will continue to see as unpalatable, no matter how many people like it.

You don't say.