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

[Alzrius]

D&D has always bundled a bunch of things together in one mechanic. The attack roll includes both landing a blow and penetrating armor; those are awfully different things and what may make one easy can make the other hard, but there it is from day one.

I think it's more accurate to say that Armor Class amalgamated being able to both dodge the incoming attack entirely, and also to catch the blow on your armor/shield such that it did no damage. And this has been a problem for a lot of people as well; "armor should be damage reduction, not an AC boost!" has been around for quite some time.

 

[Alzrius]

Your notion of "different operation" has no purchase that I can see.

Then you're not looking very carefully. I'll refer you to a few posts back, which did an excellent job denoting why attack rolls and saving throws are different.

 

[Hussar]

No, the game itself is doing the heavy lifting (as it's supposed to) by telling us that the mechanical operation of the cure light wounds spell is, in fact, curing wounds. You'll notice that I've already said that that the degree of information conveyed with regard to the in-character nature of the wound received when hit points are lost is rather sparse. Which is fine, since its conveyed the essential element of the operation: that a physical injury has been received.
/snip

That part of your quote, right there, I think highlights the entire crux of the issue. That, the idea that the game itself doing the heavy lifting, and that's the way it should be, is the heart of the difference between the reactions to 4e and 5e. For fans of 4e, it's not a problem that the game doesn't do the heavy lifting. It just doesn't bother me that "Come and Get It" (to name a hoary old chestnut) looks like magical mind control. It just doesn't faze me in the slightest. I have no problems squaring that circle and coming up with fifteen different in game world justifications as to why and how it works. I can do it as the DM or as the player. It's 100% not a problem for me.

But, and again, this is a bit of an epiphany for me and ties into @Snarf Zagyg's point about how logic arguments just don't work here, there is a fundamental difference in the language we are using to describe games. You are saying that it's a good thing that the game defines these in world effects. That the game becomes nonsensical if the game doesn't define these. Which is why we (and others) keep butting heads. We're fundamentally not speaking the same language. Which also goes a long way towards explaining why I think that it's so much about how these rules are presented.

See, again, to me, damage on a miss does not create any cognitive dissonance because I do not expect the rules to explain the game world. To me, D&D has never done so. Note, this is how I interpret the game, and, I suspect, how a lot of people who don't have problems with 4e view the game (for example @pemerton, I don't think, will have any problems with what I'm describing). Which means you, @Alzrius, and @Bill91 and others won't be able to come to any sort of agreement here because fundamentally, we're not communicating. You want the system to define this stuff. Which is what you mean by "simulation", I think. Which, again, explains why we keep talking past each other. For me, D&D has never defined the in game reality in anything more than very broad, vague strokes. Alive/Dead is about the only thing I think D&D actually defines. Any point in between is up to the table to decide.

Interesting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, and that's why I have no problem with it, even though I still find it funny. But I also I have no problem with Damage on a Miss in 4e so...

Although technically speaking, if the character is throwing himself flat on the ground to 'dodge' the fireball, shouldn't he get the prone condition for it?

Yup. But that's only reality; the cinematic conceit sometimes just shows people running away, doing a barrel roll on the ground, dodging behind things or any number of other narrative conceits. Games a little more serious about this do either move you or set you prone after the equivalent, but like any number of other things in it, D&D says "It just works, 'kay?"

 

[Alzrius]

That part of your quote, right there, I think highlights the entire crux of the issue. That, the idea that the game itself doing the heavy lifting, and that's the way it should be, is the heart of the difference between the reactions to 4e and 5e. For fans of 4e, it's not a problem that the game doesn't do the heavy lifting. It just doesn't bother me that "Come and Get It" (to name a hoary old chestnut) looks like magical mind control. It just doesn't faze me in the slightest. I have no problems squaring that circle and coming up with fifteen different in game world justifications as to why and how it works. I can do it as the DM or as the player. It's 100% not a problem for me.

But, and again, this is a bit of an epiphany for me and ties into @Snarf Zagyg's point about how logic arguments just don't work here, there is a fundamental difference in the language we are using to describe games. You are saying that it's a good thing that the game defines these in world effects. That the game becomes nonsensical if the game doesn't define these. Which is why we (and others) keep butting heads. We're fundamentally not speaking the same language. Which also goes a long way towards explaining why I think that it's so much about how these rules are presented.

See, again, to me, damage on a miss does not create any cognitive dissonance because I do not expect the rules to explain the game world. To me, D&D has never done so. Note, this is how I interpret the game, and, I suspect, how a lot of people who don't have problems with 4e view the game (for example @pemerton, I don't think, will have any problems with what I'm describing). Which means you, @Alzrius, and @Bill91 and others won't be able to come to any sort of agreement here because fundamentally, we're not communicating. You want the system to define this stuff. Which is what you mean by "simulation", I think. Which, again, explains why we keep talking past each other. For me, D&D has never defined the in game reality in anything more than very broad, vague strokes. Alive/Dead is about the only thing I think D&D actually defines. Any point in between is up to the table to decide.

Interesting.

I think this is a very salient point, and is articulated very well. Major kudos to you, here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it's more accurate to say that Armor Class amalgamated being able to both dodge the incoming attack entirely, and also to catch the blow on your armor/shield such that it did no damage. And this has been a problem for a lot of people as well; "armor should be damage reduction, not an AC boost!" has been around for quite some time.

That's my point though; being suddenly fussy about the sprawl of what hit points represent and when, is being a little late-in-the-day about it, since this has been true from day one, too. If you start pulling on those kinds of threads, after a while the logical answer is "play something other than D&D".

 

[Hussar]

I think this is a very salient point, and is articulated very well. Major kudos to you, here.

Heh. It often takes me a while, but, I get there eventually.

 

[Alzrius]

That's my point though; being suddenly fussy about the sprawl of what hit points represent and when, is being a little late-in-the-day about it, since this has been true from day one, too. If you start pulling on those kinds of threads, after a while the logical answer is "play something other than D&D".

That goes back to why we're talking about this in the context of 4E, though. Gygax's old essay in the DMG notwithstanding, the presentation of the operation surrounding hit point loss/restoration was remarkably consistent across the decades in being one thing: injuries taken/healed. 4E changed the paradigm by walking the walk where Gary had only talked the talk, and that was something a lot of people held against it.

 

[Hussar]

Yup. But that's only reality; the cinematic conceit sometimes just shows people running away, doing a barrel roll on the ground, dodging behind things or any number of other narrative conceits. Games a little more serious about this do either move you or set you prone after the equivalent, but like any number of other things in it, D&D says "It just works, 'kay?"

Again, going back to the point about people fundamentally speaking different languages, I think this hits the whole "simulation" thing on the head. To me, a sim game would define what happens when you make/fail a saving throw. The game itself would tell you, "in order to do X, you must satisfy condition Y" in order to simulate what is going on in the game world.

I think for those who disagree with you, and where something like Damage on a Miss or whatnot becomes a major sticking point is that they've taken the notion that the description of the saving throw itself has defined what is going on in the game world. Sorry, I'm not explaining that very well because, honestly, I fundamentally don't understand. It's like trying to explain what green looks like to a color blind person. I can intellectually know that there is a difference between green and red, but, I can't see it so I can't really explain it.

 

[Alzrius]

Sorry, I'm not explaining that very well because, honestly, I fundamentally don't understand. It's like trying to explain what green looks like to a color blind person. I can intellectually know that there is a difference between green and red, but, I can't see it so I can't really explain it.

Speaking as someone who's red/green colorblind, I resemble that remark.