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

[Micah Sweet]

That’s the point though. If they are sacrificing the causal chain for game reasons then the game is by definition not simulating anything in either the jargon sense or in the plain language one.

Sacrificing anything for game play is the definition of gamist.

Again there’s no value judgement here. It’s a perfectly understandable thing to do. We could delve deep into making the mechanics follow cause and effect. But DnD has never really been interested in doing that.

It is actually possible to sacrifice some things for game reasons (hit points are the classic example), and not sacrifice other things. It's a crazy world, and games are complicated.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, this is the same detante as usual. You'd prefer not to play a game, or to play a bad one because the technology that allows for more involved decision is imperfect.

What do you mean I'd prefer not to play a game? I play a lot of games. They just happen to be different from the ones you like.

The most salient distinctions, for me, are that the ones you like give the GM extremely disproportionate authority over what it is that the participants imagine together, and seem to frame the player role as solving the GM's puzzle. I don't mind puzzle-solving games, but I don't generally play RPGs for this purpose.

 

[pemerton]

4e made a point of saying that the rules were more important than the fiction; ie, "bend the fiction to make the rules work".

Where did 4e say this?

And a parallel question - when a player in your D&D game declares "I run him through!" and then rolls to hit and succeeds, do you narrate the opponent being run through? Or do you bend the fiction to make the rules work, and instead have the player roll a damage die and (assuming that the opponent is not reduced to zero hp) narrate something less dramatic?

 

[Hussar]

Before we get too deep into the weeds, let me clarify.

I’m very much not defending 4e.

My point is, if the sacrifices that 4e made bother you enough to not play the game, why is it okay for 5e to make exactly the same sacrifices? Now @Micah Sweet is at least consistent here. He doesn’t like 5e DnD and has been very clear about that. Nor does @Lanefan. Fair enough.

I’m pointing to the apparent inconsistency where someone says they don’t like what 4e has done but are then perfectly fine with the same things being done in 5e.

See I know why these things don’t bother me. I like them. But for those that say these are major problems, why are they suddenly not problems in 5e?

And the only reason I can come up with is how these things are presented. A 4e style power that lets you run faster is bad. But the same thing stated in natural language in 5e is fine.

 

[Lanefan]

Sacrificing anything for game play is the definition of gamist.

No matter what you do, there's a bunch of things that kinda have to be abstracted in a gamist* way (usually revolving around combat) in order to make a game functionally playable. I think most RPGers accept this as a fact of life.

On the flip side, there's some things that don't have to be abstracted much if at all (often involving character dialogue interactions) as they can be done in real time by the people at the table.

And there's some things where there's a choice as to whether or not to take a gamist tack; and it's what's done with these choices that IMO sets where the game ends up on the gamist-realist spectrum. Metacurrencies, for example, are always gamist; but there's also always a design-level choice as to whether or not to incorporate them into a game system; as they're not outright necessary in order to create a functional game.

* - in the everyday not-Forge sense.

Again there’s no value judgement here. It’s a perfectly understandable thing to do. We could delve deep into making the mechanics follow cause and effect. But DnD has never really been interested in doing that.

Again, though, it comes down to the sum total of a whackload of minor choices around small-scale elements of the game as to whether a game is gamist or not. Do I handwave encumbrance (gamist), or do I enforce it to the ounce (realist), or do I fall somewhere in between. Do I assume everyone always has ammunition (gamist), or do I enforce tracking it (realist), or do I do something in between. Do I have characters completely recover their full stamina every night (gamist), or do I have a detailed injury and recovery-time tracking system where recovery is based on real-world healing rates (realist), or do I do something in between? Does a magical ball of fire neatly conform itself to 5x5' cubes (gamist) or does it just fill to a radius (realist). Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Hussar]

Just to point out @Lanefan.

Tracking ammo and encumbrance is very much gamist. But where the gamist part comes in is weighing things in “coins” and not paying attention to volume.

Tracking ammo is gamist. Particularly in an abstract combat system like DnD where we don’t actually track attacks but for some reason we know exactly how many arrows you’ve shot.

And the fireball example is exactly what I’m talking about. 4e changing to 11 movement from 11 in 3e was a huge issue. It was brought up all the time.

But 5e is even worse. Because you’re right, that fireball is round. But I move 11. So I can move 20 feet and be outside the circle of the fireball.

And this is not a problem at all.

 

[Lanefan]

Just to point out @Lanefan.

Tracking ammo and encumbrance is very much gamist. But where the gamist part comes in is weighing things in “coins” and not paying attention to volume.

I've never used the "coins" weight system - it just never made sense, when it's just a straight conversion from lb-oz anyway.

Tracking ammo is gamist. Particularly in an abstract combat system like DnD where we don’t actually track attacks but for some reason we know exactly how many arrows you’ve shot.

Fair point, though in the very short rounds of the modern games it's quite possible you are tracking every shot as there's not time to take more.

And the fireball example is exactly what I’m talking about. 4e changing to 11 movement from 11 in 3e was a huge issue. It was brought up all the time.

But 5e is even worse. Because you’re right, that fireball is round. But I move 11. So I can move 20 feet and be outside the circle of the fireball.

Sorry, I don't understand what "1 [dice symbol] 1" means.

If you're referring to character movement within a round being almost like a mini-teleport then I agree it's an issue. If you're referring to something else, please elaborate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Where did 4e say this?

And a parallel question - when a player in your D&D game declares "I run him through!" and then rolls to hit and succeeds, do you narrate the opponent being run through? Or do you bend the fiction to make the rules work, and instead have the player roll a damage die and (assuming that the opponent is not reduced to zero hp) narrate something less dramatic?

I don't have to bend the fiction because, provided that the attack doesn't bring the enemy to zero, the PC declared their intention to run their opponent through and failed to do so. This is pretty standard narration. The player doesn't decide the results of actions, just their intention.

 

[Echohawk]

I’m pointing to the apparent inconsistency where someone says they don’t like what 4e has done but are then perfectly fine with the same things being done in 5e.

We humans are rarely consistent in what we say and do.

I'm happy to use myself as an example. I know I have cognitive biases. I'm aware that I'm much more likely to give a game I'm currently playing and enjoying (5e) a pass over poor mechanics/lore/whatever that I am to give a game I've previously played and enjoyed (4e) a pass over poor mechanics/lore/whatever. The fact that a game is giving me great joy at the moment makes me more inclined to overlook any flaws. If I focus too much on those flaws, they might start to annoy me in game and detract from the fun. I'm inherently inclined to be less critical of something I'm actively supporting. None of those things are entirely logical, but I'm fine with that, since I'm human, not vulcan.

I do generally expect someone to make an effort to be consistent in their views within the confines of one conversation/thread, since that seems like a polite way to converse, but beyond that, expecting others to have entirely consistent views on things is likely to lead to disappointment.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, the discussions about gamism v simulationism (a.k.a. realism) go way back into the 1e days, at least around here: I can remember sitting through many such an argument over tea or beer during the mid '80s.

Because even then some of us saw the potential for 1e, with some tweaking (which we were already doing anyway), to become considerably less gamist and - to a certain extent - more simulationist, if never truly realist.

Gary complains about people making arguments about "realism" in the 1e DMG, and he has some nasty things to say about them!