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

[Lanefan]

At what point looking at 5% of the data that doesn't fall within the majority isn't a time sink? Legit question.

Legit answer: until you look at that data you don't know whether it falls within the majority or not, or (if things are close) whether it makes the difference as to what the majority actually is.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, but, you are just flat out wrong here @Lanefan. This is done all the time when collecting data from large groups. Of course you have to limit your pool of responses. That's just how it works. And you keep ignoring WHY they ignored the older gamers - they knew from previous research that the longer you stayed in the hobby the less money you spend.

Why would they include the opinions of people who are not going to buy products in a product survey?

Same reason they should include the opinions of those not intending to spend anything now: to try and determine why they don't plan to spend anything and then how to get them to spend at least something.

Additionally, you are pretending that the original survey is the ONLY market research they ever did in the past thirty years. Good grief - do you really think they didn't do any more? They released the results of ONE market survey. Just one. We know for a fact that they were doing market research all the time. They didn't share the results, but, we do know that they were gathering information.

The one they did release taints any research they've done since, and will until-unless they make some current research transparent by releasing a similar report including the (de-identified) data.

The fact that WotC's cut off for that one specific bit of research also dovetails PERFECTLY with every other similar survey of the time - the age of players, the time spent in the hobby, etc. done by places like Paizo, TSR Dragon, and various other sources, cannot possibly be lost on you. You keep harping about this, thirty years after the fact.

And I'll keep on harping about it every time anyone points to WotC's market research as justification for anything, because until-unless they prove otherwise it flat-out isn't.

 

[Voidmoji]

Now, plenty of people don't seem to care about that burden, but plenty more did, since the issue was one that was perennially raised with regards to criticisms of 4E. I'm suggesting that those could have been avoided if both ideas weren't tied to a single operation.

I am on the side that it didn't matter, and was not a problem. After some initial discussion on how 4e was different, then some more in the first session or two of plan, it never came up again, for the long running 4e game I ran. It never came up at all in a group where I was a play.

I think it's fine to have a problem with it, of course. We all care about different crap in our magical elf games. But I am glad they didn't do it any different, because even if they changed that one thing, 4e was doomed. There was too much about it that simply didn't work for a lot of D&D fans. I am a serious 4e fan who is fine with that idea. I'll defend 4e as a game. Not sure I have it in me to really defend it as a good choice for D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

Including loss of hp from psionic attacks (DMG p 77)? And "suffering damage from phantasmal missiles or from falling into an illusory pit full of sharp spikes" if deceived by a phantasmal force spell (PHB p 75)?

Or a 60 hp fighter being "hit" by the arrows shot by four Hobgoblins, and suffering a total of 7 hp of damage?

I don't think these things are presented as taking wounds at all.

Taking physical, visible wounds and injuries? No. But causing pain? Most certainly; and a simple five-word note in the cure spells to note they also relieve pain would have solved a whole lot of these issues long before they arose.

 

[Alzrius]

I am on the side that it didn't matter, and was not a problem. After some initial discussion on how 4e was different, then some more in the first session or two of plan, it never came up again, for the long running 4e game I ran. It never came up at all in a group where I was a play.

Which is fine; there's no rule that says you have to care, can't tweak how things work in your game, etc. I just think it's important that there's a general acknowledgment that 4E was doing things differently in this regard; that it was a change at all (since other editions only paid brief lip service to the idea that hit point changes were more than just a matter of wounds, but never actually implemented that on an operative level), and deserves to be discussed as such when analyzing the various reasons for why that edition garnered the reaction that it did. There were (as you correctly noted) plenty of reasons why 4E had a bad reception, and they can all be examined in turn, including this one.

 

[Echohawk]

More competence in business acumen, perhaps, but I still hold TSR on the whole made better stuff.

I am actively reading some old TSR stuff recently, and while I like it personally I have to say that this is not true. Recent WotC output is simply better than old TSR on average.

Obviously, you are both voicing opinions so you are both right. The quality of each product is entirely subjective, so there can be no answer to the question of whether TSR or WotC made better stuff on average. Every edition has products that stand out from the rest.

However the sheer volume of TSR's output gives them an advantage in terms of the number of real gems and the number of absolute stinkers. There are more TSR products that instilled a sense of delight and wonder when I first read them than there are WotC products that did the same. But there are also a lot more TSR products that made me go "what were they thinking?".

In general, I tend to remember the stuff I like more than the stuff I don't, so in my head TSR has produced more gems than WotC. But I am aware that that says nothing about the average quality of each company's output.

 

[Parmandur]

To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that having hit point loss/restoration be representative of two different things (i.e. personal stamina and bodily injuries) is a problem, because it creates confusion (for lack of a better term) by having the same mechanic represent multiple things despite only having a single operation. Mechanically, healing word and inspiring word do the same thing, but just read the descriptive text and you can see that that's not the case from an in-character perspective.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to have a stamina depletion mechanism in the game, but not when it's folded into a mechanic that already does something else. That creates burden on the mechanics insofar as representing the game world goes, because you run into a point where someone loses hit points due to an attack inflicting bodily harm on them, and then have those hit points be regained because an ally yelled at them to tough it out.

Now, plenty of people don't seem to care about that burden, but plenty more did, since the issue was one that was perennially raised with regards to criticisms of 4E. I'm suggesting that those could have been avoided if both ideas weren't tied to a single operation.

I mean, Gygax described HP as folding in a lot of that sort of thing under one easy mechanical header. HP have always been an abstraction, same as "Armor Class" and even what a hit constitutes.

Though even as an abstraction, hut in a miss is a bit silly as it muddles the abstraction.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see how you could take either of those to mean anything except the loss of hit points means that bodily harm is being received.

What bodily harm is caused by imagining you're falling into an (illusory) pit? Or by having your ego whipped by a psionic attack?

I mean an Ogre is walking along, the illusionist casts phantasmal force creating the illusion of a pit, the Ogre (being dimwitted) imagines that it has fallen into the pit. Are you saying its legs break? What broke them?

Yes, since as you noted, he's being hit by arrows, so of course he's taking damage, i.e. being wounded.

So you really do envision that fighter as having all these arrows sticking out of their body, as they fight on unhampered?

And yet he flat-out says that they're resulting in damage being taken, to the point of spelling out that means physical wounds.

From the PHB, p 34:

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. . . . the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces. . . .

Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points.​

I don't think potential damage - ie the threat of damage averted in virtue of skill, luck and magical forces - manifests as physical wounds.

And from the DMG, pp 61, 81, 111-12:

As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful. . . . Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. . . .

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. . . .

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5% hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points. . . .

the accumulation of hit points and the ever-greater abilities and better saving throws of characters represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces.​

Mere nicks and scratches, at worst, and not actually a measure of physical damage.

 

[pemerton]

Wilful ignorance is when a legitimate piece of gathered data (in this case, a survey response) is ignored due to an arbitrary standard that has nothing to do with the data.

It's not an "arbitrary standard".

Even when collecting statistics to try and create knowledge about a general population, there are methods for dealing with outliers.

When collecting statistics for a more specific purpose, namely, of working out who might buy its stuff, WotC is very rationally going to ignore data about bits of the population it surveyed who it has good reason to believe are not feasible targets for its sales efforts.

 

[Parmandur]

Obviously, you are both voicing opinions so you are both right. The quality of each product is entirely subjective, so there can be no answer to the question of whether TSR or WotC made better stuff on average. Every edition has products that stand out from the rest.

However the sheer volume of TSR's output gives them an advantage in terms of the number of real gems and the number of absolute stinkers. There are more TSR products that instilled a sense of delight and wonder when I first read them than there are WotC products that did the same. But there are also a lot more TSR products that made me go "what were they thinking?".

In general, I tend to remember the stuff I like more than the stuff I don't, so in my head TSR has produced more gems than WotC. But I am aware that that says nothing about the average quality of each company's output.

Precisely my point. I think the average bar for 5E products has been ludicrously high, when the consensus "worst" books are stuff like Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Spelljammer or Strixhaven. Compared to what I have seen in old TSR products I have gone back to check out as they were before my time...a lot to like, from my point of view, but there were issues, particularly if you stray from the beaten trail of the best examples a little bit.

Though even the roughest stuff from any Edition I find has some gold nuggets to mine.