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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Umm.. Who exactly are you arguing with?
That said it is probably the clearest and most concise explanation of the Forge terms I have ever seen on these boards. So, thanks, I guess.

I wasn't arguing with anyone; hence, "Let me elaborate."

That said, I would disagree that D&D isn't good at simulation. It's certainly a better simulation game than, say, the one-shots I regularly design (which tend to be more "D").

Also, I wasn't using the terms used by the Forge. I try to avoid that. I was referring to the earlier terms that the Forge co-opted and changed.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wasn't arguing with anyone; hence, "Let me elaborate."

ok.

That said, I would disagree that D&D isn't good at simulation. It's certainly a better simulation game than, say, the one-shots I regularly design (which tend to be more "D").

Also, I wasn't using the terms used by the Forge. I try to avoid that. I was referring to the earlier terms that the Forge co-opted and changed.

Ok, maybe that is why it was so clear then.

 

[Voadam]

There's no system for determining virtually anything in the setting. Is there a peasant revolt in that kingdom over taxes? Well, that's for the DM to decide.

I think I've seen a D&D rule for specifically determining that.

Yep found it,

1e Oriental Adventures had a system for determining some events like that in a year.

Page 107:

You can run Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Darksun in any version of D&D and they all work. Because nothing in the setting is determined by the system.

The 1e Greyhawk boxed set has charts for determining the weather. I never used them but that seems fairly simulation oriented as a system element.

Dark Sun can be a bit tough to run in various editions because psionics development varies so much across editions and is such a big distinguishing feature of the 2e setting. 2e, 3e, and 4e had psionic classes and powers and are fairly easy. 1e PH has psionic powers but not really a psion class, you could import the 2e class and wild powers fairly easily though. 5e has a couple psionic subclasses, probably some feats somewhere that I am not thinking of but would take some thinking on how the psionics will work. Oe probably had a Dragon or Strategic Review article? I don't think it was in any version of Basic.

You can make it work, but there is a bit of work that varies by edition to get there.

I would feel comfortable running Greyhawk or FR in any edition straight through.

 

[James Gasik]

Man, I miss those lengthy charts of random events. Sure, you had to use common sense, but it made the game feel more alive to me when you could be like "meanwhile, your characters hear that war has broken out in the next kingdom over..." without having to plan it in advance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, I miss those lengthy charts of random events. Sure, you had to use common sense, but it made the game feel more alive to me when you could be like "meanwhile, your characters hear that war has broken out in the next kingdom over..." without having to plan it in advance.

And an excellent argument against the claim that D&D doesn't do setting simulation.

 

[James Gasik]

And an excellent argument against the claim that D&D doesn't do setting simulation.

It occasionally does, but it's rarely front and center.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It occasionally does, but it's rarely front and center.

Certainly not nowadays.

 

[James Gasik]

Certainly not nowadays.

I mean, even the example above is from Oriental Adventures, not a book most games used (IME!).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, even the example above is from Oriental Adventures, not a book most games used (IME!).

The 1e DMG had setting rules as well, as did sources like the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. Lots of tables, mostly, but I'm a big fan of tables.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, even the example above is from Oriental Adventures, not a book most games used (IME!).

Not to derail the thread, but I still recall the "end" of 1e, or, at least, what I consider the end.

It was 1985, and the publication of OA and UA. Personally, I found OA to be an amazing book, filled with great ideas and good design. UA, on the other hand, was an unmitigated mess- a bunch of bad Dragon articles hastily assembled into a cash grab without any concern regarding the actual game.

That said, I generally agree with you- IME, most tables adopted parts (or all) of UA, while very few used OA.