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

[Mannahnin]

The rule is designed to speed combat up. That doesn't make it a narrative mechanic anymore than losing HP increases dramatic tension makes that HP a narrative mechanic.

I disagree, obviously. It speeds up combat in a way that has much more to do with drama than it does with how a battle would go in any realistic way.

Show me how this isn't just a difference of opinion then. How am I just "wrong"?

Can you articulate why automatic damage to speed up combat is "more to do with drama than it does with how a battle would go in any realistic way" without giving a reason which applies equally to hit points?

Dave Arneson invented hit points specifically for the reason that a player was unsatisfied that their heroic knight character died in a single set of rolls (one on each side) fighting a troll.

Gary's description of hit points covers a lot of stuff, but most of it boils down to "ability to defend oneself and not suffer a fatal/incapacitating blow". In my experience, weariness interferes with one's ability to dodge and parry- to defend oneself. So inevitably as a fight wears on and one gets tired, one's defense gets worse. Having every attack deal a certain minimum damage can be a simulation of this effect. Serving a simulationist purpose.

The OSR game Into the Odd achieves a similar effect by skipping To Hit rolls entirely. Every round you just roll damage, though armor can reduce it.

 

[Umbran]

You're welcome to be wrong, obviously.

Mod note:
Cut the snark, please. It doesn't help.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do, but what does that have to do with the behavior of other people and whether or not it was considerate or appropriate (which it largely was not IME)?

Fair enough. I'm glad you get to play a game you enjoy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can you articulate why automatic damage to speed up combat is "more to do with drama than it does with how a battle would go in any realistic way" without giving a reason which applies equally to hit points?

Dave Arneson invented hit points specifically for the reason that a player was unsatisfied that their heroic knight character died in a single set of rolls (one on each side) fighting a troll.

As has been said many times, hit points aren't great either. It is another step in that direction, however, and everybody has a line.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Eh, I don't think it is really 'one more' exactly. You have two games, neither of which is particularly all that realistic, 3.5e and 4e. The 'ooze' in either one is fairly unrealistic, baseline (if it was more realistic I doubt it could even exist, but short of that its still pretty gamist). Now you say one game is 'less unrealistic' because it doesn't allow the application of certain attack bonuses vs oozes under certain conditions. I mean, taken in isolation you kinda make a point, but in context its a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of thing. Maybe 4e's ooze is MORE realistic! I don't even think we can make such a determination, or that it has any real meaning to start with.

And again, as I said up thread, I see nothing in 4e which claims that fiction is not to be taken into consideration. I see 100's of plain obvious examples of how it IS taken into consideration, and meant to be. Overwhelmingly fiction matters, and if you were to say use 'Trip Up' with a polearm against an ooze, don't you think the GM will narrate something that can plausibly be emulated using the prone condition without straining anyone's disbelief any more than usual? IIRC I narrated the prone ochre jelly as someone stabbed it in a vital part of its body and it momentarily lost its ability to move, etc. I mean, I could change that to some other condition instead, but are you telling me the game is a good enough simulation of reality that you can honestly state that 'dazed' or 'grants combat advantage' or whatever is objectively 'better'??? I don't think you can make that argument convincingly.

So, yeah, I reject the entire "it's more gamist" line of argument on the face of it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me the compelling use case would be to play them. You can't really go zero-to-hero without starting at the zero end, and a 1st-level character in 4e is a fair way along from zero.

I mean, it takes all kinds, right? Personally I got bored of that kind of play by around 1981 or so. Gygax and Arneson both took to starting PCs at level 3 unless they were running for a bunch of noobs by the late '70s, if not the mid-70s. There was a dragon article at one point that introduced a fairly straightforward "you start without any powers and a few less hit points" '0-level' and went through a couple 'negative levels' or something until you wound up at level 1. It was designed to take a couple sessions, maybe, at a guess. Never gave it much thought myself. Honestly I found the "you are a real Fighter/Ranger/Wizard/Whatever from the get-go" to be pretty satisfying play.

 

[darjr]

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

This is in preparation for a book and I know more interesting revelations will be had.

Finally this panel was recorded. Not by Ben it seems but by GenCon.

I think I can get that recording and am trying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, it takes all kinds, right? Personally I got bored of that kind of play by around 1981 or so. Gygax and Arneson both took to starting PCs at level 3 unless they were running for a bunch of noobs by the late '70s, if not the mid-70s. There was a dragon article at one point that introduced a fairly straightforward "you start without any powers and a few less hit points" '0-level' and went through a couple 'negative levels' or something until you wound up at level 1. It was designed to take a couple sessions, maybe, at a guess. Never gave it much thought myself. Honestly I found the "you are a real Fighter/Ranger/Wizard/Whatever from the get-go" to be pretty satisfying play.

As you say, it takes all kinds.

 

[Aldarc]

Show me how this isn't just a difference of opinion then. How am I just "wrong"?

The Escalation Die was not fundamentally about narrative anything. 13th Age comes out of a collaboration between Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, the lead designers of 3e and 4e, respectively. One of the criticisms of 4e D&D was that combat lasted too long. It's fundamentally about addressing this oft-cited problem with 4e D&D combat gameplay: i.e., how do we speed up combat so it doesn't last so long at the table? The Escalation Die was the proposed solution. It was never about being a narrative mechanic, though it is a combat pacing mechanic. There is also nothing from what I recall in their design diaries, blogs, etc. where they reference it in terms of narrative. It's almost always talked about in terms of speeding up combat while also providing some incentives or skilled play about when to use your abilities, as you are more likely to hit as combat goes on. If anything, it's "gamist" rather than "narrativist."

 

[Mannahnin]

First of all, I'm going to assume that the meme is meant as gently ribbing and isn't mean-spirited (since I've explained how I feel about memes). Secondly, that rule is designed to, among other things, increase dramatic tension as the fight goes on, leading to a climax. It IS a narrative mechanic. That doesn't make it bad by any means, and it has practical use as well in play. But it is intended to influence the narrative through mechanical force. Regardless of anything else, that makes it a narrative mechanic.

Feel free to stop being personal at your earliest convenience.

Oh, and I already commented that the healing idea I favor is one of the things from 4e that I like and would like to transfer to other games.

I want to start off by expressing my appreciation for how well you took that ribbing and kept the discussion civil.

So, honestly, why are you still engaging with this thread? You already know 4E doesn't produce the fiction you want. What do you think you'll gain by repeatedly telling people an edition of the game that's been out-of-print for 10 years doesn't suit you?

What do people get by repeatedly telling others an edition of the game that's been out of print for 10 years suits them? It keeps coming up is the answer to both questions.

Find other fans and connect with them over a shared interest. Like...as in the literal purpose of fan communities.

Now that I've answered you, how about answering me?

I see no problem with explaining my opinion on why a particular game that gets a lot of discussion time on this forum doesn't work for me. I'm not being dishonest, or intentionally misrepresenting 4e or other games I don't care for. If I'm proven wrong about a statement, I'll own up to it and apologize. Heck, you called me out on my feelings being mostly, well, just that, and I agreed. Should I not express them because other people have different feelings?

I don't think 4e is a bad game. I played and ran it for well over a year before a variety of issues I and my group had with it led us to stop, and go back to our 1e game before 5e came out and we gave that a try. It wasn't for me, for specific reasons I've explained.

What you're asking for feels like wanting people who don't like what you like to stop talking about it.

I'm really a bit confused about how you can equate these two things though. It's a similar concept to why + threads exist or why threadcrapping is a moddable offense. Or like the whole reason we appreciate the generally positive tone of the ENwold forums over a lot of other spaces on the internet.

Talking about things we like is inherently rewarding. It feels good, it allows us to experience sharing an interest with others.

Talking about things we dislike... well, it can certainly feel good to vent with other people who share similar frustrations. Although I'm not sure how or why 4E could still be causing frustration for people who don't play it and don't have to deal with it being the only form of sanctioned or easily-available play anymore.

Of course if there's a thread that's an open call for everyone's views on a subject than naturally it makes sense for people to chime in both positive and negative. But I'm really a bit at a loss to see the point of walking into a conversation about a subject I dislike strictly for the purpose of dumping on it. That just seems like it would take the conversation and turn it into a worse experience for everyone involved.

And maybe that's not what you generally do or intended to do here! But when you say that you don't see any meaningful difference between talking about a thing you like or talking about a thing you hate, I hope this helps to explain some of why that confuses me.