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

[Alzrius]

I am very puzzled by this report that someone on the "management team" unilaterally increased all the monster hit points right before publication. It doesn't seem plausible that someone in a business role (as opposed to game development) would know or care enough to meddle at that level. I could imagine a suit saying something like "add a way to play a dragon person," but why would someone at this level decide that combat with a goblin skullcleaver needed to last another 2 rounds? If this actually happened, it must have been a developer/designer who did it, yes?

I feel the need to reiterate that I posted this thread roughly a week after the seminar in question, so while I'm mostly confident that I got that right, the possibility that I'm mixing up a salient detail remains distinctly possible. @darjr was also there, and if I got something wrong, I hope he'll correct me!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Much appreciated.

I will opine, as politely as I may, that folks who've played a lot of 4E and learned how to adapt to its assumptions and approaches and how they differ from preceding editions seem to often have the experience of seeing criticisms leveled at it which seem grounded in misconceptions about those assumptions and approaches.

Some of those misconceptions seem on the order of "objectively wrong" or actively misrepresent how the game works or what it's trying to do. I always try to bear in mind that some of these things REALLY ARE subjective, not objective, that some of them are simply matters of personal taste and preference, and that nearly all misrepresentations and misconceptions are the product of error, not malice. And also the hardest one- that I may be factually wrong about some things. Where I think a misconception or misunderstanding is in play I'll generally try to clarify and explain how I see it differently.

Some of the people offering criticisms here have some good direct experience with the game.

Some of them clearly don't. Like we saw with the Healing Surges discussion. Or some of the posts about Tripping. Or size disparities and how they're handled in different editions.

4E may have design priorities which make it incompatible with your desired play style. It may even actively offend you. But isn't there an easier way to deal with that in just ignoring it? Rather than entering a discussion between fans of a thing to tell them that the thing they like sucks and why?*

* (both things they'll inevitably disagree with, prompting a friendly debate at best or an acrimonious argument at worst)

In fairness, the OP was explicitly about a recent presentation by a historian.

The historian has (apparently) uncovered some new information, and confirmed a great deal of older information, about 4e. A large part of this goes directly to issues that have discussed for some time. These include-

1. That 4e had disappointing sales, both in terms of the expectations of management and in terms of 3e.

2. That 4e had issues during the design process, at least partly due to competing factions within the company.

3. The design of 4e was heavily influenced by the perception of WoW, likely including design decisions, desire for recurring licensing revenue, and the issues that surrounded the OGL.

4. That people (both internally, and externally ... Paizo ...) quickly realized that 4e would prove to be divisive to segments of the core audience of D&D during the design process.

Obviously, we will need to see what he publishes, but those are certainly interesting claims. The fact that people wish to rehash the same old debates about the merits of 4e qua 4e are unsurprising, but I'm not sure that this thread is the one to complain that the actual issue is that the reason the thread is getting sidetracked is because of people that are expressing their viewpoints that are in accordance with the OP.

Again, it might be interesting to discuss the ways in which 4e was marketed incorrectly, or rolled out poorly, but given that we now know that WoTC was well aware during the design process (as was Paizo) that 4e would be divisive, I certainly think it is strange that we continue to see people say that the real issue with 4e is that people simply didn't understand it. People can understand something, and even appreciate parts of it, while still finding that it doesn't work for them.

 

[Pedantic]

Again, it might be interesting to discuss the ways in which 4e was marketed incorrectly, or rolled out poorly, but given that we now know that WoTC was well aware during the design process (as was Paizo) that 4e would be divisive, I certainly think it is strange that we continue to see people say that the real issue with 4e is that people simply didn't understand it. People can understand something, and even appreciate parts of it, while still finding that it doesn't work for them.

Cat is well out of the bag now, but I do wonder what an improved 4e presentation targeted at limiting division without making substantive rules changes would have looked like. That feels like a blog post someone must have already made somewhere.

 

[darjr]

I feel the need to reiterate that I posted this thread roughly a week after the seminar in question, so while I'm mostly confident that I got that right, the possibility that I'm mixing up a salient detail remains distinctly possible. @darjr was also there, and if I got something wrong, I hope he'll correct me!

You got it right. Someone who Ben didn’t name changed the monster hp before printing.

They would have needed access to the documents sent to the printer or been in charge of someone that did. I’d think.

Ben didn’t say who nor what they did for the company nor how they changed the document.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Cat is well out of the bag now, but I do wonder what an improved 4e presentation targeted at limiting division without making substantive rules changes would have looked like. That feels like a blog post someone must have already made somewhere.

At a minimum, if you are aware that there might be issues with the reception of the product, you work hard on the rollout to make sure you educate people and minimize those issues.

I don't know that better PR and marketing could have saved 4e, but I do know that the rollout, from everything I understand, was practically criminal given what they knew.

 

[Kannik]

4e has fundamental design priorities that make it incompatible with the desired playstyle of many D&D fans, both then and now. For those to whom it was compatible, an enormous aura of defensiveness surrounds their every post, such that expressing any opinion of 4e that isn't a rave is taken as a personal attack.

I think what happened (and still happens) is that often the conversations do not begin with "4e does some things that bumps against my personal playstyle," but instead begins with "4e is objectively terrible because..." or "4e breaks reality/verisimilitude because..." (sometimes written in a mocking tone) or "4e doesn't allow for fiction because..." type statements that belie the 'fact' that many people did (and still do) just fine with and had no problems with how 4e is set up and maintained a rich, vibrant, fiction-filled, game and campaign where the mechanics did not break their immersion or joy. Plus there's that (A)D&D has always contained many elements that are verisimilitude breaking should you examine them for more than a few moments -- but as someone pointed out upthread, these are so deeply rooted in the (A)D&D history (and that many people started using/playing with when they were very young/less critical) that they've internalized them and don't notice them. (And, as a second layer, might not know how to react when the curtain is pulled back to reveal them.)

Historically, there were also "You can't roleplay in 4e..." or "4e is not D&D" type assertions thrown around. (Though not that I've seen in this thread.) With the implication that those who enjoyed 4e were therefore inferior, 'stupid', and to be excluded, and that's going to hurt. Add to it that, given that counter-examples can be readily given, these 'criticisms', mockery, and rejection can feel most unfair.

And so when an edition that has been out of print for nearly a decade and should be off everyone's radar receives new and vigorous reiterations of these old saws, with the same type of "4e IS..." type entry points rather than "I couldn't get into 4e" (or just silence, since it wasn't their thing and so they just moved on), I think it's not entirely a surprise that hackles (can) get raised.

 

[Mannahnin]

In fairness, the OP was explicitly about a recent presentation by a historian.

The historian has (apparently) uncovered some new information, and confirmed a great deal of older information, about 4e. A large part of this goes directly to issues that have discussed for some time. These include-

1. That 4e had disappointing sales, both in terms of the expectations of management and in terms of 3e.

2. That 4e had issues during the design process, at least partly due to competing factions within the company.

3. The design of 4e was heavily influenced by the perception of WoW, likely including design decisions, desire for recurring licensing revenue, and the issues that surrounded the OGL.

4. That people (both internally, and externally ... Paizo ...) quickly realized that 4e would prove to be divisive to segments of the core audience of D&D during the design process.

Obviously, we will need to see what he publishes, but those are certainly interesting claims. The fact that people wish to rehash the same old debates about the merits of 4e qua 4e are unsurprising, but I'm not sure that this thread is the one to complain that the actual issue is that the reason the thread is getting sidetracked is because of people that are expressing their viewpoints that are in accordance with the OP.

Again, it might be interesting to discuss the ways in which 4e was marketed incorrectly, or rolled out poorly, but given that we now know that WoTC was well aware during the design process (as was Paizo) that 4e would be divisive, I certainly think it is strange that we continue to see people say that the real issue with 4e is that people simply didn't understand it. People can understand something, and even appreciate parts of it, while still finding that it doesn't work for them.

Great recap!

The text in green and blue has two premises I do not agree with, and I don't think accurately describe this thread. The thread has wandered all over the place, certainly. I'm totally sympathetic to folks interested in the original premise of the thread and wanting to hear more of Riggs' data. I'm one of them. I'm grateful to @darjr that he's going to post a new thread when we get more info/a video.

The text in red contains two premises that I don't think are necessarily contradictory. Poor marketing, rushed release with wonky math, GSL shenanigans and alienating Paizo, and a few years of Hardcover Book Firehose Wallet Fatigue leading up to it are all things I've opined contributed to problems for 4E and its reception. But one of them certainly has to be the sheer extent of the changes and reinventions and the abandonment of a fair number of assumptions D&D had been sticking to for 30-34 years. It's not an edition which everyone "groks" immediately. And some of the stuff said about it, fair as your own criticisms may be, in this thread has certainly seemed like the product of incomprehension rather than personal preference. For Gygax' sake, we had someone who didn't know that 4E healing is primarily proportional to fractions of the character's max hit points, but was still comfortable sounding off about it. And another person who seemed to be grounding their criticisms in 1E.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The text in red contains two premises that I don't think are necessarily contradictory. Poor marketing, rushed release with wonky math, GSL shenanigans and alienating Paizo, and a few years of Hardcover Book Firehose Wallet Fatigue leading up to it are all things I've opined contributed to problems for 4E and its reception. But one of them certainly has to be the sheer extent of the changes and reinventions and the abandonment of a fair number of assumptions D&D had been sticking to for 20-24 years. It's not an edition which everyone "groks" immediately. And some of the stuff said about it, fair as your own criticisms may be, in this thread has certainly seemed like the product of incomprehension rather than personal preference. For Gygax' sake, we had someone who didn't know that 4E healing is primarily proportional to fractions of the character's max hit points, but was still comfortable sounding off about it. And another person who seemed to be grounding their criticisms in 1E.

Thoughtful response. On this, I would say the following-

First, I honestly believe that had the powers that be at Hasbro seriously considered the feedback they were getting internally, they likely would have changed the rollout. It is quite possible that a different rollout and marketing could have saved 4e. But the other way to view it is that if they had seriously considered the internal feedback, then they might have changed tack completely- which would have meant something very different. And while I am not a fan of 4e, I do appreciate the design, and think that the world is a better place for it existing ... and think that it would have been a shame if they had not even tried. I'm grateful that a well-designed system was released that gave a lot of people a lot of joy. That's the problem with counterfactuals- you're never sure how they will go.

Second, the issue with these conversations is always the same. Are there people who "don't like" 4e without having played it? Sure. But there are also a lot of people who, like @darjr ... are quite familiar with it and ran it, and their opinions are also discounted. More importantly, however, the problem with the conversations is the same you get when you try to engage fans in any subject. A person who doesn't like something will almost always, by definition, have less knowledge about something than someone who does like something! There were, in fact, a lot of people who played 4e a little, or haltingly, 14-15 years ago, and bounced off of it. It is perfectly reasonable that they will have less rules-knowledge (or specific recollection) than someone who was a devoted fan who played it consistently for years. So you end up in the same conversations- people trying to describe why they didn't like it - honestly. And then being countered by people who would prefer to engage in rules conversations about 4e because they know the rules, and therefore that's some way to "win" the conversation.

...but it's not. If someone doesn't like, say, American football despite having watched it, I'm not going to make them like it because I point out to them that they don't understand that a safety is actually only worth two points.

This dynamic pops up a lot- for example, if there's a conversation about Star Wars. Or about music. Or about any thing where a person wants to shift the conversation from why someone doesn't like something to the topic of how little the person knows. In effect, it's an argument that in order to truly not like something, you have to have done it just as long, and know it just as well, as people who love it.

...which is rarely the case.

 

[Zaukrie]

Thoughtful response. On this, I would say the following-

First, I honestly believe that had the powers that be at Hasbro seriously considered the feedback they were getting internally, they likely would have changed the rollout. It is quite possible that a different rollout and marketing could have saved 4e. But the other way to view it is that if they had seriously considered the internal feedback, then they might have changed tack completely- which would have meant something very different. And while I am not a fan of 4e, I do appreciate the design, and think that the world is a better place for it existing ... and think that it would have been a shame if they had not even tried. I'm grateful that a well-designed system was released that gave a lot of people a lot of joy. That's the problem with counterfactuals- you're never sure how they will go.

Second, the issue with these conversations is always the same. Are there people who "don't like" 4e without having played it? Sure. But there are also a lot of people who, like @darjr ... are quite familiar with it and ran it, and their opinions are also discounted. More importantly, however, the problem with the conversations is the same you get when you try to engage fans in any subject. A person who doesn't like something will almost always, by definition, have less knowledge about something than someone who does like something! There were, in fact, a lot of people who played 4e a little, or haltingly, 14-15 years ago, and bounced off of it. It is perfectly reasonable that they will have less rules-knowledge (or specific recollection) than someone who was a devoted fan who played it consistently for years. So you end up in the same conversations- people trying to describe why they didn't like it - honestly. And then being countered by people who would prefer to engage in rules conversations about 4e because they know the rules, and therefore that's some way to "win" the conversation.

...but it's not. If someone doesn't like, say, American football despite having watched it, I'm not going to make them like it because I point out to them that they don't understand that a safety is actually only worth two points.

This dynamic pops up a lot- for example, if there's a conversation about Star Wars. Or about music. Or about any thing where a person wants to shift the conversation from why someone doesn't like something to the topic of how little the person knows. In effect, it's an argument that in order to truly not like something, you have to have done it just as long, and know it just as well, as people who love it.

...which is rarely the case.

I'll just add you left off the part where certain posters come into every conversation negatively, so they get discounted here a lot.....over and over.

 

[Mannahnin]

Another great and thoughtful post.

I might suggest that the defenders of 4E, here, might in some cases be less interested in "winning" a discussion than in trying to dispel what they see as persistent myths or misconceptions. Some of which are defended as being matters of personal preference, and therefore incontestable, after being presented as flaws or failings of the game, in a sort of motte-and-bailey argument.