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

[Gravenhurst48]

Thats not imo a growth plan though. You divert attention that way sure, but you piss an unknown portion of your player base by pushing them to a format/platform they may not be able to, or wish, to use.

How many people have RPG books for systems they will never use on their shelves? I bet most of us.

Now how many people have accounts on VTT platforms they never use, and pay a subscription to regardless? Less, I would argue.

I work on a computer all day. The last thing I want to do is go to VTT University to learn how to use a computer program to play D&D. But I did, forking out hundreds of dollars on Fantasy Grounds to enable distant gaming with my players. It never happened because I burned out from wage work to play work. Not fun. So back to books and reading where I pour money into backing Kickstarters for...you guessed it, 3pp RPGs. Goodman Games, specifically, and 3D miniatures/STLs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nobody is arguing any of that. The issue is simply the philosophy espoused by 4e in this matter (and others) does not meet the needs of a significant portion (probably the majority) of D&D's fan base, and yet is lauded as if it really should be, and feeling otherwise is somehow a problem.

I find this a really strange take, as it seems the other way around to me. Really, I would be classified as "neutral" in this, as I've always been every bit as critical of 4e as I am of 5e (or any other edition - I like parts and I dislike parts of each of them). But, from my (admittedly self-professed) neutral position, I don't see 4e-lovers butting in to other conversations to tell people why they MUST like 4e, as you seem to be suggesting!

They can be defensive, sure, with all the negative connotations of that. But they don't tend to be the attackers, IME.

Or in other words, I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you have to "feel otherwise". You're free to not like 4e!

But if you find yourself in a thread where people post that 4e was somehow harder on verisimilitude than other editions - you're going to find people objecting to it. It's simply a false claim.

Every edition has parts where the mechanics don't line up well with a "realistic" narrative. While playing D&D, we always have to smooth over the rough spots.

Maybe those bumps stood out worse for you in 4e (which is fine!) but 4e was not objectively worse for the phenomenon - it was just what it is.

 

[tomBitonti]

Again, there is a difference between generating profit and maximizing profit.

This is true, but from the perspective of what can companies do, it might be debated. If an economic actor thinks they can make more from an input, they will outbid another thinks they who would make less. There seem to be instabilities that drive maximizing behaviors.
TomB

 

[Fifth Element]

Or in other words, I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you have to "feel otherwise". You're free to not like 4e. But if you find yourself in a thread where people posit that 4e was somehow harder on verisimilitude than other editions - you're going to find people objecting to it. It's simply a false claim.

Indeed. No one gets flack for not liking a particular game. People get flack for crapping on threads with needless bashing of a game. If people are trying to have a productive discussion about 4E, and someone comes in because it's very important to them that people know they don't like 4E, then that someone is going to get flack.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed. No one gets flack for not liking a particular game. People get flack for crapping on threads with needless bashing of a game. If people are trying to have a productive discussion about 4E, and someone comes in because it's very important to them that people know they don't like 4E, then that someone is going to get flack.

I've had more than one narrative game advocate tell me that my playstyle, simulationism, isn't actually real, because they are followers of the Forge. That certainly felt like "needless bashing of a game" to me. Not exactly accepting of other people's preferences either, which I certainly have been, whether I like them or not.

 

[Aldarc]

I've had more than one narrative game advocate tell me that my playstyle, simulationism, isn't actually real, because they are followers of the Forge. That certainly felt like "needless bashing of a game" to me. Not exactly accepting of other people's preferences either, which I certainly have been, whether I like them or not.

What we have here is a straightforward, open-and-shut case of an informal argumentative fallacy we call "Whataboutism."

 

[Micah Sweet]

What we have here is a straightforward, open-and-shut case of an informal argumentative fallacy we call "Whataboutism."

Sorry. It is what it is. You can't claim only one side is engaging in "bad behavior".

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry. It is what it is. You can't claim only one side is engaging in "bad behavior".

Here's the problem. The opposite side of 4e-bashing isn't narrativists who hate simulationism. The opposing side of 4e-bashing tends to be 4e-defenders. That is the other side in question. So you're not addressing the point that @Fifth Element is making about 4e-bashing or even your role in it. Instead, you are trying to open up a new warfront about narrativism vs. simulationism and claiming that this is the opposite side in this thread. Sorry, but that argument is fallacious and ridiculous. If you are engaging in "bad behavior" regarding 4e, which you seem to imply by saying that some other side is ALSO engaging in bad behavior, then cut it out because that's pretty self-damning. That is what it is.

 

[MockingBird]

4e history always interests me. I mean, I was there when it launched. I didn't follow it up until launch so when I saw it on store shelves I was going in completely blind.

 

[Voadam]

• According to a chart he put up, the AD&D 1st Edition Players Handbook sold 1.5 million copies. The AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook (including the revised version, which he says sold almost nothing) sold 1 million copies. The D&D 3.0 Player's Handbook sold just shy of 370,000 copies, while the 3.5 PHB sold a little over 300,000 copies.
• Here, Riggs stressed that the 3.0 and 3.5 numbers were particularly unreliable, because they only covered January of 2001 through December of 2006. That left off not only the initial sales of 3.0 (which was released in the summer of 2000, and here Riggs noted that Ryan Dancey had told him that if that time period was included, it would have almost doubled the sales numbers for the 3.0 PHB) but also any lingering sales of the 3.5 PHB.

At that point, Riggs noted that the 4E PHB sold far less than the 3E PHBs.

Were there any numbers on the 4e PH sales?

I know we have the estimates from $10/month subscriptions later, but any hard numbers on PH to compare to the charts of Oe-3.5 stuff would be interesting.