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

[Thomas Shey]

This whole question got confused when they changed the unit of time measurement in combat from 1 minute to 6 seconds.

Its not like the former didn't have just as many problems, as was obvious from various issues involving archery and ammunition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean...it's certainly going to be more widely useful. That's why the Swiss army makes them that way.

And yet other people buy lots of specialty tools, and would get poorer results just using the Swiss Army knife. You seem like you'd be defining a specialty tool as "worse design" than the Swiss Army knife.

 

[Parmandur]

Its not like the former didn't have just as many problems, as was obvious from various issues involving archery and ammunition.

Sure, there are always issues. But the abstract nature of the D&D combat resokition system including AC and HP is way more clear when you have big chonksnof time to narrate exactly what you do based on the numbers. 6 seconds is not long.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet other people buy lots of specialty tools, and would get poorer results just using the Swiss Army knife. You seem like you'd be defining a specialty tool as "worse design" than the Swiss Army knife.

Knives aren't games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean...it's certainly going to be more widely useful. That's why the Swiss army makes them that way.

"Widely useful" and "better" are not synonyms.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Knives aren't games.

Ok, so a game designed for a subset (a specialty game) is worse design than one designed for wider use? Objectively? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Parmandur]

"Widely useful" and "better" are not synonyms.

But for a game, more widely played and enjoyed is better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But for a game, more widely played and enjoyed is better.

Better for what?

 

[Parmandur]

Ok, so a game designed for a subset (a specialty game) is worse design than one designed for wider use? Objectively? Is that what you're saying?

I mean, it is more limited, by design. A game is a process for people to have fun together: having more limited fun for fewer people doesn't seem like better design to my mind, certainly.

Designing for different sorts of fun, certainly, but once a target us set figuring out how to maximize the fun does seem to be a solid measure of success. B/X does seem like a better designed game than AD&D, from my rear view mirrror, for example.

 

[Parmandur]

Better for what?

Exaxtly: better for being played and enjoyed by as many people as possible.