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

[pemerton]

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.

In other words, you narrate the outcome to fit the mechanics. Thus, bending fiction!

In what way is 4e different from this?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In other words, you narrate the outcome to fit the mechanics. Thus, bending fiction!

In what way is 4e different from this?

For the umpteenth time, this is not about hit points, and you can't use that excuse every time someone has an issue regarding verisimilitude.

There was I believe a Sage Advice column where a complaint about applying conditions that don't appear to make sense when applied to a specific creature (the prone ooze is the premier example) was answered by the suggestion to just apply the mechanic and then come up with some explanation to fit it. I took this as a general design philosophy for 4e, and more than anything else that led me to reject it. To me, you use mechanics to fit the setting as much as possible. You don't design the other way 'round unless (like hit points) you really have to for playability.

 

[pemerton]

For the umpteenth time, this is not about hit points, and you can't use that excuse every time someone has an issue regarding verisimilitude.

What "excuse"? Hit points are a fundamental mechanic in all versions of D&D.

There was I believe a Sage Advice column where a complaint about applying conditions that don't appear to make sense when applied to a specific creature (the prone ooze is the premier example) was answered by the suggestion to just apply the mechanic and then come up with some explanation to fit it. I took this as a general design philosophy for 4e, and more than anything else that led me to reject it. To me, you use mechanics to fit the setting as much as possible. You don't design the other way 'round unless (like hit points) you really have to for playability.

This is no different from coming up with an explanation as to why the successful attack didn't run the opponent through. In both cases, the fiction is narrated to fit the mechanics.

If you want to make some or other creature immune to prone, you can. That's a very easy change to a creature's stat block!

 

[Hussar]

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

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.

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.

Ahh sorry. On phone.

Movement in 5e is the same as 4e. You do not count diagonals. So you move the same number of squares regardless if you move diagonal or orthogonal. So it’s 1 : 1 : 1 counting.

But spell effects count the diagonals. The way you would in 3e. So 1 : 2 : 1 counting.

This was a huge issue in 4e. Proof that 4e hated simulation. But it elects a shrug in 5e.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I suppose. But it gets very hard to have a conversation when I point out the inconsistency and then get shouted at for not simply accepting what someone says. If it’s inconsistent then own up to it.

Funny thing is. I play 5e. I like 5e. I’m a pretty consistent 5e fanboy. I actually like a lot of the changes 5e made. Making combat much faster. Simplifying a lot of rules. 5e is far less fiddly than 4e. I certainly don’t miss nested chains of reactions that could get very, very long and eat up all sorts of table time. 5e has some of the strongest adventures DnD has ever seen.

There’s tons of reasons to like 5e.

I just don’t get the unwillingness to acknowledge the 4e elements. Maybe it’s because I like both? I don’t see a problem with saying, “yup that’s a 4e idea right there”.

 

[Yalım]

Re:diagonals, think this is another case of a bad sample leading to incorrect conclusions.

I definitely hear (and voice) complaints about 5e diagonals. The only shrugs I've seen about it are "thankfully this rule is so commonly hated that VTTs let us turn it off easily".

 

[Alzrius]

Because it’s not like 5e is any more simulationist than 4e. So if people dropped 4e because it wasn’t sim enough, why does 5e get the pass?

Quite frankly, I think this argument is bizarre. 5E is more simulationist than 4E; again, does 5E have damage on a miss? No? Well, that's a highly gamist mechanic which – by virtue of confusing the issue about whether or not hit point loss is injury or stamina reduction – negatively impacts the simulationist aspect of play. Since 5E doesn't have it (or related mechanics, such as "minion" monsters who are defeated if they take any damage, but for some reason can't be damaged on a miss), it's therefore more simulationist.

That's a single example, to be sure, but it serves to undercut the central argument. Small changes like that abound in the 4E-to-5E comparison, but they add up to the same overall conclusion.

More broadly, however, what you seem to be asking about is why aren't people turning on 5E en masse the way they did 4E, if 5E has some of the same issues (e.g. the fighter's having a "second wind" power)?

I've seen a lot of people in this thread say that it's because people are inconsistent, and while that's true as a generality, I don't think that it's the case with regard to the 5E vs. 4E issue. Rather, it's that people (for the most part) didn't reject 4E for any single issue; there was no one thing that made them look at it and say "I was fine with the game, but this is a bridge too far!"

Rather, it was because 4E piled up enough straws that they eventually broke the camel's back. Most people are willing to play a game that's less than ideal/perfect/fits their conception of everything they want in an RPG. It's usually only when it breaks from enough of their expectations that they'll throw their hands in the air and say, "nope, that's it!" They certainly might point to a single instance of where they lost their patience with it, but in virtually every circumstance, there were a lot of steps that led them to that moment, rather than one single thing taking them directly from "fine" to "I hate this."

In that regard, 5E's flaws are (to most people that I'm aware of) both less numerous and less egregious than those of 4E, and so people are willing to give it a pass enough to invest in it, or at least to not regard it as a complete betrayal of their expectations. Which makes sense, because 5E was made as a reaction to the backlash that 4E provoked, and so it's no surprise that it moved away from it in so many regards. Yes, some of the issues that its predecessor had are still there (5E took inspiration from every prior edition of the game, 4E included), but not as many, and not as extreme in their intrusiveness. Whether it was verisimilitude or having an SRD that didn't punish third parties who used it, 5E was better – or at least not as bad – as 4E.

Hence, the idea that 5E is just as bad as 4E, with its implication that the people who rallied against the latter but are fine with the former are somehow hypocrites, rings completely false to me.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's fairly obvious that contemporary demand for seriously simulationist RPGs is modest at best - there seems to be no widespread resurgence of RQ, or RM, or C&S, or other classic simulationist systems.

The most obvious differences to me, between 4e and 5e, is that 5e is less technically complicated when it comes to building and playing PCs, and that it's non-combat mechanics (ie the mechanics that are used in the system to transition from scene to scene) allow for, and even encourage, plenty of GM force.

I think these differences are also contribute to differences in popularity.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's fairly obvious that contemporary demand for seriously simulationist RPGs is modest at best - there seems to be no widespread resurgence of RQ, or RM, or C&S, or other classic simulationist systems.

The most obvious differences to me, between 4e and 5e, is that 5e is less technically complicated when it comes to building and playing PCs, and that it's non-combat mechanics (ie the mechanics that are used in the system to transition from scene to scene) allow for, and even encourage, plenty of GM force.

I think these differences are also contribute to differences in popularity.

Or maybe the more important difference there is really crunchy sim vs light crunch sim.

 

[soviet]

Quite frankly, I think this argument is bizarre. 5E is more simulationist than 4E; again, does 5E have damage on a miss? No? Well, that's a highly gamist mechanic which – by virtue of confusing the issue about whether or not hit point loss is injury or stamina reduction – negatively impacts the simulationist aspect of play. Since 5E doesn't have it (or related mechanics, such as "minion" monsters who are defeated if they take any damage, but for some reason can't be damaged on a miss), it's therefore more simulationist.

That's a single example, to be sure, but it serves to undercut the central argument. Small changes like that abound in the 4E-to-5E comparison, but they add up to the same overall conclusion.

More broadly, however, what you seem to be asking about is why aren't people turning on 5E en masse the way they did 4E, if 5E has some of the same issues (e.g. the fighter's having a "second wind" power)?

I've seen a lot of people in this thread say that it's because people are inconsistent, and while that's true as a generality, I don't think that it's the case with regard to the 5E vs. 4E issue. Rather, it's that people (for the most part) didn't reject 4E for any single issue; there was no one thing that made them look at it and say "I was fine with the game, but this is a bridge too far!"

Rather, it was because 4E piled up enough straws that they eventually broke the camel's back. Most people are willing to play a game that's less than ideal/perfect/fits their conception of everything they want in an RPG. It's usually only when it breaks from enough of their expectations that they'll throw their hands in the air and say, "nope, that's it!" They certainly might point to a single instance of where they lost their patience with it, but in virtually every circumstance, there were a lot of steps that led them to that moment, rather than one single thing taking them directly from "fine" to "I hate this."

In that regard, 5E's flaws are (to most people that I'm aware of) both less numerous and less egregious than those of 4E, and so people are willing to give it a pass enough to invest in it, or at least to not regard it as a complete betrayal of their expectations. Which makes sense, because 5E was made as a reaction to the backlash that 4E provoked, and so it's no surprise that it moved away from it in so many regards. Yes, some of the issues that its predecessor had are still there (5E took inspiration from every prior edition of the game, 4E included), but not as many, and not as extreme in their intrusiveness. Whether it was verisimilitude or having an SRD that didn't punish third parties who used it, 5E was better – or at least not as bad – as 4E.

Hence, the idea that 5E is just as bad as 4E, with its implication that the people who rallied against the latter but are fine with the former are somehow hypocrites, rings completely false to me.

Well, I think that both 4e and 5e feature a large number of unrealistic abstractions for the sake of gameplay.
I agree that 4e has more of this than 5e, but not massively more, and both have a lot more of it than many other RPGs including other editions of D&D.
I think if someone takes the position that 4e was slightly too far on this track but 5e is just right then that's fair enough. The straw that broke the camel's back, as you say.
But anyone taking the position that 'no no, those few additional abstractions push 4e into a different category altogether, 5e is realistic and immersive and full of depth while 4e is gamey dissociated shallow nonsense and not even really an RPG'... that person is wrong.
(I realise this is an exaggeration of many people's actual positions.)