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

[Retreater]

Ha, yeah I only did a couple one shots and it was a bit confusing. So was D&D though first time I played it. Like anything, given time you learn to flow. If you dont like the feel off the start though, its a a hard sale.

The first TTRPG I tried to run was TMNT and Other Strangeness. There's nothing like being 12 and trying to figure out a Palladium system without access to the Internet or anyone else who's ever run an RPG.

 

[overgeeked]

The first TTRPG I tried to run was TMNT and Other Strangeness. There's nothing like being 12 and trying to figure out a Palladium system without access to the Internet or anyone else who's ever run an RPG.

We had so much fun with that as kids. Mostly because we largely ignored the book and just played. Like AD&D. Use these bits and ignore the rest.

 

[darjr]

The first TTRPG I tried to run was TMNT and Other Strangeness. There's nothing like being 12 and trying to figure out a Palladium system without access to the Internet or anyone else who's ever run an RPG.

Well as long as no one took boxing. Then the world would be safe from the dimensional rift tearing recursive never ending mind twisting demon summoning anti matter character building option.

Wait?! You did didn’t you? So all “this” is your fault!

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Yes, and per my post, those people should expect flack for doing so, and they do receive it.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

Did anyone do this?

 

[Alzrius]

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.

It was in this very thread where another poster told me that having a set of impersonal rules to fall back on was "the illusion of empowerment," compared to their preferred style of play (where the GM decided absolutely everything).

 

[darjr]

It was in this very thread where another poster told me that having a set of impersonal rules to fall back on was "the illusion of empowerment," compared to their preferred style of play (where the GM decided absolutely everything).

Was it really absolutely everything?

 

[Alzrius]

Was it really absolutely everything?

In terms of task resolution (i.e. how things turned out when the PCs attempted something), that was my understanding.

 

[Pedantic]

It was in this very thread where another poster told me that having a set of impersonal rules to fall back on was "the illusion of empowerment," compared to their preferred style of play (where the GM decided absolutely everything).

This continues to bother me as a talking point, because it makes me feel like I'm in some weird, centrist position of TTRPGs that gets batted back and forth by every other design school.

It's either "impossible" to write down a reasonably comprehensive set of actions and subsystems and to try and do so is to constrain the tactical infinity that makes TTRPGs, or it's a complete lie to try and write such things down because a GM's role as world-builder means they ultimate are still determining your success by manipulating the difficulty of all tasks.

No one is even trying to do it the way I want it done! The closest D&D came was 3e, which is somehow both a trad game, and also the enemy of trad play that spawned the OSR, depending who you ask. Worse, it gets treated as complete, as if it for all its flaws is the best possible expression of the design, and now that we've exhausted the avenue of writing all the actions and difficulties down, we can't and shouldn't revisit such a thing because it's clearly a design dead end that allows for no more progress.

 

[overgeeked]

It's either "impossible" to write down a reasonably comprehensive set of actions and subsystems and to try and do so is to constrain the tactical infinity that makes TTRPGs, or it's a complete lie to try and write such things down because a GM's role as world-builder means they ultimate are still determining your success by manipulating the difficulty of all tasks.

It's not either, or. They're not mutually exclusive. They both point to the same conclusion: it's pointless to try to write rules for everything.

First, you literally can't write comprehensive rules for every possible situation that might come up. Second, even if you could, the referee is still in charge of the game and decides everything that's in the world, including the difficulty you're rolling against.

No one is even trying to do it the way I want it done!

So do it yourself.

The closest D&D came was 3e, which is somehow both a trad game, and also the enemy of trad play that spawned the OSR, depending who you ask. Worse, it gets treated as complete, as if it for all its flaws is the best possible expression of the design, and now that we've exhausted the avenue of writing all the actions and difficulties down, we can't and shouldn't revisit such a thing because it's clearly a design dead end that allows for no more progress.

No, it's not dead. There's still Pathfinder and you can still play 3X to your heart's content. Limited only by the willingness of others to play with you or for you to play solo.

3X and 4E are the high points of "mechanics for everything" in D&D design. The players and designers simply got tired of it, exhausted by the rigor, so abandoned it for "rulings not rules." Nothing's stopping you or others from designing that way. A lot of other games do, along with a lot of 3PP supplements for 5E.