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

[hawkeyefan]

The skill may still be gone (though partly covered by backgrounds), but it’s not like 5e is badwrongfunning people who used it in their marketing publications. Notable difference.

Oh stop it. They said the Profession skill probably wasn’t all that meaningful to many games. It’s a minor critique… and a valid one… not a major insult.

 

[Echohawk]

Oh stop it. They said the Profession skill probably wasn’t all that meaningful to many games. It’s a minor critique… and a valid one… not a major insult.

I agree. I would probably also agree with a broader claim that none of the critiques of previous editions offered during the 4e marketing was particularly insulting or entirely unfounded. And yet... at the time, experiencing the 4e marketing strategy as a whole, I was definitely left with a sense that WotC was being unnecessarily critical of the game I was currently playing in order to sell the new version. That irritated me.

For context, I was burned out on the complexity of late 3.5. I was excited to see 4e. I ended up being a fan. I ran an ensemble 4e campaign right up to level 30, and introduced more than a dozen new players to D&D during the 4e era. In short, I was exactly the sort of person that their marketing was targeting. I still found it annoying and inappropriate.​

 

[billd91]

Oh stop it. They said the Profession skill probably wasn’t all that meaningful to many games. It’s a minor critique… and a valid one… not a major insult.

Stop excusing bad marketing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Stop excusing bad marketing.

I didn’t say 4e was marketed well or poorly. All I said was that the quited criticism about the Profession skill was far from insulting.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that instead of saying “was counter to my preferences” people instead say “was insulting”.

It makes their arguments sound more objective when really it’s all subjective.

That those same people who claim insult tend to happily eviscerate any game or media they don’t like makes it all the more obvious.

I just would prefer people address the content of a critique instead of trying to have a critique dismissed by labeling it as “insulting”. It’s old and it makes discussion very difficult.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. I would probably also agree with a broader claim that none of the critiques of previous editions offered during the 4e marketing was particularly insulting or entirely unfounded. And yet... at the time, experiencing the 4e marketing strategy as a whole, I was definitely left with a sense that WotC was being unnecessarily critical of the game I was currently playing in order to sell the new version. That irritated me.

For context, I was burned out on the complexity of late 3.5. I was excited to see 4e. I ended up being a fan. I ran an ensemble 4e campaign right up to level 30, and introduced more than a dozen new players to D&D during the 4e era. In short, I was exactly the sort of person that their marketing was targeting. I still found it annoying and inappropriate.​

Sure. That the marketing of 4e seemed to fail for some folks doesn’t seem to be in doubt. I myself remember liking some things but not others. I was similarly burnt out on 3.5e and looking for a change, but reluctant to switch.

I don’t blame anyone for not liking 4e or for not liking how it was marketed. But the claim of insult is just unnecessary.

 

[Echohawk]

All I said was that the quited criticism about the Profession skill was far from insulting.

Referring to it as insulting feels a bit hyperbolic to me too, but according to my Mac's dictionary, an insult can be anything from "disrespect" to "scornful abuse", so using it to describe disrespectful marketing isn't wrong.

 

[jeffh]

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that instead of saying “was counter to my preferences” people instead say “was insulting”.

This is something I've noticed more and more of. People identify with their preferences in entertainment media - in the fairly literal sense of making being a Star Wars fan or whatever part of their identity, a big factor in how they think of themselves - to an unhealthy degree. And as a result, they take criticism of media they like personally, as though it were an attack on themselves. Of course there's always been passionate fans of this or that, but this thing of people seeming so personally invested seems like a relatively new, mostly online thing. It was already quite noticeable by 2008 and has only grown louder and shriller since. It's actually a little disturbing, the frequency with which people (a) feel personally attacked by the existence of people with different tastes than themselves, and (b) even when not doing this themselves, treat it as normal and expected, rather than, as it seems to me, pathological.

 

[overgeeked]

This is something I've noticed more and more of. People identify with their preferences in entertainment media - in the fairly literal sense of making being a Star Wars fan or whatever part of their identity, a big factor in how they think of themselves - to an unhealthy degree. And as a result, they take criticism of media they like personally, as though it were an attack on themselves. Of course there's always been passionate fans of this or that, but this thing of people seeming so personally invested seems like a relatively new, mostly online thing. It was already quite noticeable by 2008 and has only grown louder and shriller since. It's actually a little disturbing, the frequency with which people (a) feel personally attacked by the existence of people with different tastes than themselves, and (b) even when not doing this themselves, treat it as normal and expected, rather than, as it seems to me, pathological.

WotC has literally pushed D&D as a "life-style brand" for years now. It's not all down to people spontaneously deciding to overly identify with their entertainment. I worked in a comic shop for a few years around 2000 and let me tell you, it was absolutely a thing even then. Fans being overly attached to Star Wars or Star Trek and the long-standing faux rivalry between the franchises, or at least their fans. Hardcore Doctor Who anoraks who snottily deride episodes to the writers' faces on TV as far back as 1986. This kind of thing has a long history in fandom. What's new, to me at least, is you now see this all over the place, even outside geek culture. Harley-Davidson barely even produces motorcycles anymore, they mostly produce merch with the Harley-Davidson logo on it. Adults who overly identify with Disney movies. Etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is something I've noticed more and more of. People identify with their preferences in entertainment media - in the fairly literal sense of making being a Star Wars fan or whatever part of their identity, a big factor in how they think of themselves - to an unhealthy degree. And as a result, they take criticism of media they like personally, as though it were an attack on themselves. Of course there's always been passionate fans of this or that, but this thing of people seeming so personally invested seems like a relatively new, mostly online thing. It was already quite noticeable by 2008 and has only grown louder and shriller since. It's actually a little disturbing, the frequency with which people (a) feel personally attacked by the existence of people with different tastes than themselves, and (b) even when not doing this themselves, treat it as normal and expected, rather than, as it seems to me, pathological.

I think it’s something that’s existed for quite some time, but was relatively isolated until the internet. Now we encounter it all the time in online spaces.

And as a fan of many things… RPGs, comics, movies, sports… I get it. But it sure makes discussion really difficult. As soon as someone criticizes something, it’s labeled an insult and folks try to shut the conversation down.

 

[Ondath]

Sure. That the marketing of 4e seemed to fail for some folks doesn’t seem to be in doubt. I myself remember liking some things but not others. I was similarly burnt out on 3.5e and looking for a change, but reluctant to switch.

I don’t blame anyone for not liking 4e or for not liking how it was marketed. But the claim of insult is just unnecessary.

Consider this: Maybe we don't get to decide what is insulting for a person? Something that feels completely normal to you may be insulting to them, and if that's the case, I think it's both unhelpful and incredibly bad manners to go "This isn't insulting, stop feeling insulted!"

I didn't really play D&D back when 4E was released, but I did start playing with 3.5 and got around to checking 4E only a few years ago. Are some of the design choices well ahead of their time? Actually, yes. Did people perhaps malign it too much for daring to slay the sacred cows? In hindsight, probably, people tend to be biased about keeping things that they like even if something better could replace it. But I feel like some 4e fans (both on this site and in places like Reddit) have a revisionist view of history where 4e and its marketing did nothing wrong and that people are actually, morally at fault for not liking 4e. What is true is that the game's earlier marketing misunderstood its main demographic, and that main demographic did really feel insulted (whether you think the marketing is insulting or not is irrelevant at this point).

I read both of the Wizards Presents books and I have to admit, I like a lot of the ideas they presented there. But the book did feel like it was insulting me for liking "forced symmetry", 3.5-style hardcore worldbuilding, simulationist rules etc. and the whole throughline was essentially "All these years your D&D games were impure in lore and mechanics, but the almighty Scramjet has now descended from heavens to fix your incorrect game!". And I didn't like that. And I'm saying this as someone whose current homebrew setting is closer to 4e's World Axis than the Great Wheel in terms of cosmology.