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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not trying to win, or to convince you that you're wrong, or trying to play d&d with you.

I said before that if someone's position is that they just don't like hit on a miss, then I have no issue.

The issue is when people try to dress up that personal preference as a category difference. 'Games with hit on a miss are inadequate/shallow/dissociated/too boardgamey' etc. At least, when there are a hundred other mechanics they do accept that would seem to also tick those boxes or have those issues.

Well, they are trying to explain why their personal preference feels the way it does to them.

Just like you're trying to explain why your personal preference feels the way it does to you.

They are no more hypocrites than you are. You just have a different view. Saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite isn't a winning strategy. D&D, especially, isn't 100% consistent in any direction.

 

[Manbearcat]

But they are those things...for them. No amount of you calling them hypocrites will change that.

Its not about being a hypocrite Micah.

Its a conversation about the tenuousness or robustness of a position. Its about how much purchase said position should be granted (in both subsequent conversation about gaming and in terms of catering to those interests in subsequent design) on the strength of the position alone rather than in the emotional intensity one expresses over the position (like "I REALLY HATE DAMAGE ON A MISS AND INSPIRATIONAL HEALING SO CUT IT OUT WOTC").

Its not a commentary on someone's "do as I say not as I do" qualities. Its not personal.

I don't think someone is a hypocrite for hating DoaM. I just see their position as being deeply tenuous (see my post just above) broadly and specifically when it comes to a system (D&D) where escalating HPs and escalating damage expressions are core features. The historical D&D record on the subject isn't absolutely necessary for me to arrive where I'm at (and where I've long been), but it clearly further backstops my thoughts on the subject (see the array of evidence in this thread and there is more out there on it).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its not about being a hypocrite Micah.

Its a conversation about the tenuousness or robustness of a position. Its about how much purchase said position should be granted (in both subsequent conversation about gaming and in terms of catering to those interests in subsequent design) on the strength of the position alone rather than in the emotional intensity one expresses over the position (like "I REALLY HATE DAMAGE ON A MISS AND INSPIRATIONAL HEALING SO CUT IT OUT WOTC").

Its not a commentary on someone's "do as I say not as I do" qualities. Its not personal.

I don't think someone is a hypocrite for hating DoaM. I just see their position as being deeply tenuous (see my post just above) broadly and specifically when it comes to a system (D&D) where escalating HPs and escalating damage expressions are core features. The historical D&D record on the subject isn't absolutely necessary for me to arrive where I'm at (and where I've long been), but it clearly further backstops my thoughts on the subject (see the array of evidence in this thread and there is more out there on it).

But the thing is, there is a line of how much escalating damage and hp and how many and how prevalent DoaM and similar mechanics is too much and too many for an individual, and you can't expect folks to just decide that their line makes less sense than your line and come around to your point of view. For me personally, for example, I was fairly comfortable where the line was in 1e and 2e back in the day. Damage and hp escalated, but less than they have in more modern times. 3e stretched it, but I could ignore it because I still liked a lot of what I saw. I gave 4e a decent shot, but in the end if just went too far for me. 5e brought it back to a place I could handle for a while, but lately its been creeping up again. Also, my line has shifted in recent years in the opposite direction than WotC has moved it. That, and a host of other reasons, has led me to reject the current design philosophy WotC is following with their version (and it is only a version) of the game. For those who do like it, I wish them happy gaming, but I'm under no obligation to agree with their line.

 

[Manbearcat]

But the thing is, there is a line of how much escalating damage and hp and how many and how prevalent DoaM and similar mechanics is too much and too many for an individual, and you can't expect folks to just decide that their line makes less sense than your line and come around to your point of view. For me personally, for example, I was fairly comfortable where the line was in 1e and 2e back in the day. Damage and hp escalated, but less than they have in more modern times. 3e stretched it, but I could ignore it because I still liked a lot of what I saw. I gave 4e a decent shot, but in the end if just went too far for me. 5e brought it back to a place I could handle for a while, but lately its been creeping up again. Also, my line has shifted in recent years in the opposite direction than WotC has moved it. That, and a host of other reasons, has led me to reject the current design philosophy WotC is following with their version (and it is only a version) of the game. For those who do like it, I wish them happy gaming, but I'm under no obligation to agree with their line.

On the bolded:

This feels like a subtle shift in conversation or digression.

I don't see how we can litigate escalating HP and damage expressions in D&D. That is the deal in every game from AD&D1e to B/X to BECMI to RC to AD&D2e to 3.x to 4e to 5e. Its a core feature of the game engine.

EDIT - One that I'm not tied to by the way. I play lots of games and even "D&D-inspired games" that don't feature either of those things.

On DoaM:

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to change your opinion on the subject(s) or to alter your intuitions about how these things do work in an actual physical system or should work in a fictional physical system or the sensation it creates within you when DoaM happens.

What I'm doing is giving my reasons for disagreement (about the pervasiveness of collateral damage in physical clashes IRL and about the role of diminishing resolve, fortitude, energy budget, and morale in that). Which inevitably harken to the intractable "what are HP really" question. Which inevitably requires examination of the historical implementation of such.

You can feel how you feel on the subject, Micah. No worries. But now and again (much much much more sparingly these days compared to 10 years ago!) I'm going to throw some words at the subject(s). You can engage with the substantive components of my position if you'd like...or not if you'd like. I'm not "unpersoning" you or disparaging you...not as a human nor as a D&D player. Just disagreeing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the bolded:

This feels like a subtle shift in conversation or digression.

I don't see how we can litigate escalating HP and damage expressions in D&D. That is the deal in every game from AD&D1e to B/X to BECMI to RC to AD&D2e to 3.x to 4e to 5e. Its a core feature of the game engine.

EDIT - One that I'm not tied to by the way. I play lots of games and even "D&D-inspired games" that don't feature either of those things.

On DoaM:

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to change your opinion on the subject(s) or to alter your intuitions about how these things do work in an actual physical system or should work in a fictional physical system or the sensation it creates within you when DoaM happens.

What I'm doing is giving my reasons for disagreement (about the pervasiveness of collateral damage in physical clashes IRL and about the role of diminishing resolve, fortitude, energy budget, and morale in that). Which inevitably harken to the intractable "what are HP really" question. Which inevitably requires examination of the historical implementation of such.

You can feel how you feel on the subject, Micah. No worries. But now and again (much much much more sparingly these days compared to 10 years ago!) I'm going to throw some words at the subject(s). You can engage with the substantive components of my position if you'd like...or not if you'd like. I'm not "unpersoning" you or disparaging you...not as a human nor as a D&D player. Just disagreeing.

Fair enough. My preferred solution, which official D&D has never really done, is that some amount, however small, of attacks that cause damage physically connect, to allow for things like poison and damage types to make sense to me. Additionally, serious injury is possible, but only after dropping to zero and having someone try to render aid, at which point you can roll on a table with modifiers to determine what actually happened to the victim. If injury is sustained, rest and recovery is needed to be back in fighting shape (probably, there's always the chance that it was relatively minor and the victim can get back into the fight). Said rest and recovery would take a variable amount of time depending on the severity of the injury, but would certainly be more than one night, and some injuries will linger indefinitely unless serious magical healing is used.

This is all subjective, and I understand that plenty of folk are happy with a simpler and more abstract and/or narrative system, but what I want could and has been applied to a D&D-like system, so I know it can work.

 

[Red Castle]

For some people, the idea that a "to hit" roll is a binary operation (you either hit, or you miss) is it. Period. For others, it's just another mechanic that happens to be a part of the game. There is no right and no wrong to how people feel about these operations, because ... the game is just a fictional space that we create. How the rules and fiction interact will vary depending on the person.

First of all, I said so earlier and will repeat it again, I really don't care how other people decide to play the game or not, their table their rules. And I won't ever think that I can somehow convince other people to play or view something differently, I've been on the internet for long enough to know that it is not how things work. On the contrary, it has the tendancy to force both party into an entrenchment and start to see things as black and white only with no grey area. Doesn't mean that I don't like to argue from time to time on the internet because quite honestly, I like to have my perception/opinion challenged sometimes, it helps to stay out of the echo chamber where you are only surrounded by persons who thinks like you. Doesn't mean that I will change my idea, but still, it can be good to be reminded that not everybody thinks like you.

Where I don't agree with you, it's about the source of the problem, it's not about the idea that a to hit roll should be a binary operation for some. Quite frankly, I have never, ever saw someone have a problem with the Fireball spell, or any spell, doing damage on a miss like it does in 4e. This 'problem' always come up regarding a martial class doing damage on a miss. So it's not really about the mechanic, it's about the narrative tied to it. It's really about the idea that a fighter who miss its attack should not be able to still do some damage. It's working for magic, but not for martial attack. And quite frankly, in other editions, I could accept that, I would turn it into a saving throw. For exemple, I don't think there would be a problem with that power, would there be?

Reaping Strike: You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses. The defender must make a dexterity Saving Throw. If he fail, he suffer 1(W)+Strength modifier damage. If he succeed, he takes half your Strength Modifier damage or equal to your Strength modifier if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

But in the case of 4e, it is made clear, written black on white, that a miss can still have hit the target. It is made clear that it is not, in fact, a binary operation. So it is about refusing the parameter set from a game and then saying that it is unrealistic, that it doesn't make any sense. For me, it is the same as if someone would refuse that a character still take damage from a successful saving throw. I mean, he succeeded right? So why does he still take damage if he succeed? Or if someone would refuse that you can still have a consequence even if you succeed your roll in a PbtA. You can disagree with it, but don't judge it by refusing to take into account the parameter of the rule. Because the parameter that a miss can still involve being hit is made clear, so saying that 'a miss should be a miss! Period!' is the same as saying that 'a success should be a success! Period!'... and I don't see people bringing this up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

First of all, I said so earlier and will repeat it again, I really don't care how other people decide to play the game or not, their table their rules. And I won't ever think that I can somehow convince other people to play or view something differently, I've been on the internet for long enough to know that it is not how things work. On the contrary, it has the tendancy to force both party into an entrenchment and start to see things as black and white only with no grey area. Doesn't mean that I don't like to argue from time to time on the internet because quite honestly, I like to have my perception/opinion challenged sometimes, it helps to stay out of the echo chamber where you are only surrounded by persons who thinks like you. Doesn't mean that I will change my idea, but still, it can be good to be reminded that not everybody thinks like you.

Where I don't agree with you, it's about the source of the problem, it's not about the idea that a to hit roll should be a binary operation for some. Quite frankly, I have never, ever saw someone have a problem with the Fireball spell, or any spell, doing damage on a miss like it does in 4e. This 'problem' always come up regarding a martial class doing damage on a miss. So it's not really about the mechanic, it's about the narrative tied to it. It's really about the idea that a fighter who miss its attack should not be able to still do some damage. It's working for magic, but not for martial attack. And quite frankly, in other editions, I could accept that, I would turn it into a saving throw. For exemple, I don't think there would be a problem with that power, would there be?

Reaping Strike: You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses. The defender must make a dexterity Saving Throw. If he fail, he suffer 1(W)+Strength modifier damage. If he succeed, he takes half your Strength Modifier damage or equal to your Strength modifier if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

But in the case of 4e, it is made clear, written black on white, that a miss can still have hit the target. It is made clear that it is not, in fact, a binary operation. So it is about refusing the parameter set from a game and then saying that it is unrealistic, that it doesn't make any sense. For me, it is the same as if someone would refuse that a character still take damage from a successful saving throw. I mean, he succeeded right? So why does he still take damage if he succeed? Or if someone would refuse that you can still have a consequence even if you succeed your roll in a PbtA. You can disagree with it, but don't judge it by refusing to take into account the parameter of the rule. Because the parameter that a miss can still involve being hit is made clear, so saying that 'a miss should be a miss! Period!' is the same as saying that 'a success should be a success! Period!'... and I don't see people bringing this up.

I will be brief.

1. I don't think comparing other games, such as PbTA, is particularly helpful. Other games are other games. If a person is playing a different game, they are already accepting different rules, aren't they?

2. I think that changes in a brand (such as D&D) are not a simple matter. You can complain until the cows come home about this change or that change, but the simple issue is this- for many people, 4e was "too much." How much? I don't know, I'm not them. But as others have pointed out, as the game changes, things change. Maybe "graze" (aka, miss on a hit, for certain individuals, with certain weapons) will be fine in 5.5e. People often use synecdoche when having these discussions; after all, for you this is just a rehash of the evergreen "martials v. casters" debate. But the reason that 4e was divisive wasn't just about "miss on a hit." That was one of a number of changes. So again, you can argue with people about the way that they feel the way they do, or accept it. But you're not going to convince them.

(And I would note that I have covered the issues, and difference, between saving throws and other mechanisms with D&D, and the historical roots, extensively in the past. So I am comfortable saying that while you do not see a difference, many other people do. And that's okay! Different strokes for different folks.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, that’s what I wrote earlier.

Hit on a miss in 4e and saving throw in other editions has the same narrative, the same intention and the same effect.

The only difference is the mecanic (one is the attacker rolling, the other the defender) and somehow, for some people, it seems to change the narrative completely.

Thinking that the attacker missing is different than the defender dodging or parrying imply that when you attack someone the defender do absolutely nothing and that missing is entirely on the attacker fault, which is nonsense. I’ll refer to my past years of fencing again and I’ll tell you: when I attack someone and miss, it’s because the defender either dodge or parry the blow, not because somehow I could not hit the target.

This is why some systems have separate rolls for attack and defense. That way you can tell which end the problem was at in the failure. Of course it requires two rolls, which some people have a (what sometimes seems to me irrational degree of) resistance to.

 

[Red Castle]

This is why some systems have separate rolls for attack and defense. That way you can tell which end the problem was at in the failure. Of course it requires two rolls, which some people have a (what sometimes seems to me irrational degree of) resistance to.

Trudvang Chronicles works this way.

You attack against a fixed DC, regardless of the target. You either hit or don’t.

Then the defender can, if he have the points for it, try to parry. He either succeed or fail.

If the attack pass, you then roll damage and a part from it can be absorb by your armor if you have one.

When I feel like playing in a more « realistic » fantasy setting, that’s my game of choice.

 

[Red Castle]

I will be brief.

1. I don't think comparing other games, such as PbTA, is particularly helpful. Other games are other games. If a person is playing a different game, they are already accepting different rules, aren't they?

2. I think that changes in a brand (such as D&D) are not a simple matter. You can complain until the cows come home about this change or that change, but the simple issue is this- for many people, 4e was "too much." How much? I don't know, I'm not them. But as others have pointed out, as the game changes, things change. Maybe "graze" (aka, miss on a hit, for certain individuals, with certain weapons) will be fine in 5.5e. People often use synecdoche when having these discussions; after all, for you this is just a rehash of the evergreen "martials v. casters" debate. But the reason that 4e was divisive wasn't just about "miss on a hit." That was one of a number of changes. So again, you can argue with people about the way that they feel the way they do, or accept it. But you're not going to convince them.

(And I would note that I have covered the issues, and difference, between saving throws and other mechanisms with D&D, and the historical roots, extensively in the past. So I am comfortable saying that while you do not see a difference, many other people do. And that's okay! Different strokes for different folks.)

Maybe you misunderstood me, I’m not saying that I don’t understand why some people didn’t like 4e, or that I can’t accept it, or that I’m trying to pinpoint a particular reason why, because there is not. I was there, and like you said, it was about many things. And again, like you said, different strokes for different folks… as a positive person, I’m glad to be a part of the people that do love 4e.

Just wanted to say why I disagreed with the binary operation part (and still do) and say why, instead of just say I disagree. But don’t worry, I’m not the kind to lose sleep when someone doesn’t agree with me and I don’t pretend like I know better than the others, I just hope that people can offer the same courtesy.

EDIT: I’m also aware that being french and english being my second language, I can sometimes sound more direct or aggressive than I would like because my vocabulary is limited. It is not my intention.