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

[the Jester]

I don't know if it was a lack of vision, or if it was something he said deliberately, to target the people who like this mode of play. After all, this was the time were they publicly said that 4e was an "utter failure"

Wait, is that an actual quotation? Do you have a source?

 

[Alzrius]

Before 4e launched was there a "first look" book? I think it's been mentioned (or I made it up in my head). If there was such a book or document does anyone have any pictures from it or a legal way to look at it?

There were two: Wizards Presents: Races and Classes and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. They're fairly cheap in PDF format.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

 

[the Jester]

Before 4e launched was there a "first look" book? I think it's been mentioned (or I made it up in my head). If there was such a book or document does anyone have any pictures from it or a legal way to look at it?

There were two, Worlds and Monsters and er.... I don't recall the other one's title off hand. I have them both, but I am at my girlfriend's house this morning and am going camping straight from here, so they aren't handy.

That said, those books painted an amazing picture of what 4e's lore would look like while not addressing any mechanics at all. They were super rich with stuff like the planar structure, the new giant lore, etc, and talked about things like the swordmage class years before it would actually see print. I will try to dig them out and snap a few pics for you when I am next at home. Wouldn't hurt to remind me sometime next week, though!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes and no. Obviously, it would not have received any of the pushback (especially the whole, "But it's not D&D!!11!!!!") if it hadn't been part of the D&D chain.

But let's not forget that the only reason it had the sales that it did have was largely because it was part of the D&D chain. If it had been released as some random game from some random publisher, then it likely never would have gotten even a tenth of the sales that it did ... and I'm being generous.

That's the blessing and curse of any established brand / IP. On the one hand, you are guaranteed a level of interest; on the other hand, you are always going to be, to some extent, a prisoner of the brand. That's why being a creative working with a well-established IP has difficulties that a lot of us don't choose to recognize.

This is why I said that 4e's origin makes my counterfactual impossible. In a better world though...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Came to say exactly that.

That’s why I never understand when people say 4e should have been called something else, that it would have fair better under another name. No, it would not. The brand name is a selling point and probably the main reason why people buy and try the game in the first place.

And like it or not, 4e was as much DnD than any other editions. It might not fit what you are looking for (and that’s probably the main reason of the division regarding 4e) in DnD, but it is nonetheless.

It is as much D&D as the other editions because it shares a name and some IP with them.

 

[pemerton]

It is as much D&D as the other editions because it shares a name and some IP with them.

Also it is mechanically a d20-based, race + class + skills game. It takes the D&D list-based approach to PC build (lists of races, lists of classes, lists of feats, lists of spells) to its maximal development, and takes Gygax's fortune-in-the-middle approach to hp and saving throws to its maximal development.

In terms of D&D lore, more than any other edition it gives effect to the whole "start with Kobolds, end with Orcus" approach of the game.

It is 100% a version of D&D.

 

[Red Castle]

It is as much D&D as the other editions because it shares a name and some IP with them.

It's more than that, it also shares all the same mecanical basis. Characters have exactly the same attributes, use a d20 to roll for attack or skills but various different dice for weapons and damage, they all have HP and Armor class, when building a character you'll choose a race and class and then gain different abilities while gaining levels, etc... There is some nuance, like there is with every edition (and that's why different people will prefer different editions), but the basis is the same. I started a 4e campaign a couple months ago with players that never tried it but already played different edition (one coming from 5e, the other from 2e) and they all felt right at home, I didn't have to spend a lot of time teaching them how to play, they already knew most of the rules.

That's not how it went when I played Star Wars Edge of the Empire with players that used to play the WEG version. Now that is two games that share the same name and IP but have two totally different game mecanics.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Well, first of all, Mike certainly was familiar with things like narrativist design concepts, sure. But he wasn't IN CHARGE of 4e's design, AFAIK. Honestly its impossible to say who had what influence and what these different people advocated for. So, it is quite possible that the game went in a direction he NEVER liked and he may well have fought tooth and nail to change that, or he was just a good soldier and did his best to get his boss what he wanted, like most of us do every day. We know he wrote KotS, which IMHO does not speak well of his feel for what would work well in 4e...

And I don't think Mike should be singled out here. I never got the impression that WotC fully understood exactly what they created and how it should best be used.

Adventure design is one the ways this shows. Although later adventures were slightly better than KotS, none of WotC ones really took a Zeitgeist like design of one big map story important combat in between lots of other stuff (exploration, free roleplay, investigation, etc.) which was probably 4e's sweet spot. Or spread out the right amount of XP into multiple rooms that were expected to converge so it turned into one big regular encounter.

Rituals were also almost completely ignored in adventures. (and in the system in general). Imagine if

1) rituals were split into Arcane, Divine, Primal and you only got access to one list with your class (or the feat)
2) traditional full spellcasters like Wizard, Cleric, etc. got a few free Ritual casts a day and that was put into the class description in a Spells Per Day type chart. Say eventually One per day at Level -1, 2 per day at Level -2, and 3 per day at Level -3 or whatever. And got 1 free ritual added to their ritual book per level.
3) adventures assumed you might have access to some of these and enemies use them too

Rituals were such an amazing answer to "how can we have this kind of powerful utility magic that D&D is known for and not have it be tied to certain classes or too often circumvent combat encounters?". Then they completely ignored it, taking away a big part of the "feel" of prior D&D.

Being so wishy washy on explaining some of the effect first mechanics and how that works, etc. Just lay it out -- HP are not meat points, prone is a condition that represents hampering an enemy and usually that can be represented as knocked to the ground but could also...

I find the "creativity/imagination" comment from above very funny, because I found 4e played much much better with players that were creative and imaginative. The kind of players that could make skill challenges work well by reacting to the fiction in a push/pull way, could help wrap a narrative around the occasional mechanics where the default narrative didn't fit perfectly, didn't have a problem using improvised actions which I could easily make worth it using p.42, never thought warlords were shouting wounds closed because they were imaginative enough to think of HPs as partly a narrative device, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That would make sense, sure. Regarding 4e, I actually think it would have been better received as its own game as opposed to part of the D&D chain. Of course, the nature of its origin story makes that impossible, but I do like the counterfactual speculation.

You'd have had to change an enormous amount of nomenclature for it not to be obviously a D&D offshoot at the very least. And probably more structural features than they did.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is as much D&D as the other editions because it shares a name and some IP with them.

And, you know, classes, levels, level elevating hit points, armor effecting to-hit--about the only things that were not typical D&Disms were the "hit against defense rather than roll saves" and the relative lack of Vancian magic.

I think people who spend too much time in the D&D-sphere don't realize how much the assumptions it works under are not assumed as soon as you get out of it.