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

[Micah Sweet]

Accept as what?

That they have them? That there is some basis for them? That they are correct to have those feelings? Something else about them?

And about the whole system? Or particular aspects of it?

Because, it seems to me, that, at least in the recent discourse, the thrust was "I understand that some people don't like this system and that's fine, but I don't find this particular criticism convincing"

And that's fine. If we all accept that other people have valid opinions, then what are we talking about?

 

[pemerton]

it seems to me, that, at least in the recent discourse, the thrust was "I understand that some people don't like this system and that's fine, but I don't find this particular criticism convincing"

In my professional fields - humanities and humanities-adjacent, non-empirical social science - it is taken for granted (i) that the fields will have ongoing disagreements among practitioners, and (ii) that it is acceptable and indeed obligatory to provide reasons for one's views.

One upshot of (i) and (ii) is that people spend a lot of time explaining why they think others are wrong in their views.

If someone tells me that the 4e rules are unrealistic, and says that one reason for that is that a miss can cause harm, and then - when it is pointed out that the game uses a technical definition of miss to mean a roll that falls short of a stipulated target number and explains that even a miss in this technical sense might still, in the fiction, be a glancing blow - continues to assert that it seems unrealistic to them, I think some version of @Red Castle's response is appropriate: if you can't play the game by the rules, play a different game. But that doesn't change what the rules are, and what they say.

 

[MichaelSomething]

With DoaM, 4e isn't just saying it's not necessarily a full miss, it's saying there is NO full miss. And that's the bridge too far for me because, with a DoaM attack, it doesn't matter how hampered the attacker is and how advantageous the situation is for the defender - the attack cannot fail.
With so much of D&D's history with hit points and AC and the abstraction of combat, it has always been the case that a hit is not necessarily a full on hit like a sword thrust through the vitals. Or a miss wasn't always a strict miss but an abstract reckoning of how well an AC protected the target. DoaM removes one of possible results and that's where I think it goes too far as a game mechanic for little real gain.

So you would be okay if the power went, "when you miss, roll a d6. Deal 2 damage if the d6 is a 5 or 6."

 

[Red Castle]

That's because Fireball et al don't do damage on a miss. If you're in the area that gets lit up, you're hit by the spell and take damage*; if you're not in the area, you're missed and take nothing. Put another way, AoE spells "hit" the entire area they affect.

Having established that you only take damage if you're hit by the spell (i.e. are in its AoE), the saving throw - along with protective devices/spells and other factors - merely determines just how much you can mitigate that damage.

* - "evasion" notwithstanding, but I've never been fond of that ability as it far too often crosses my disbelief threshold.

But that is exactly how Fireball works in 4e:

Fireball (Daily)
Standard Action
Area Burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence Vs Reflex
Hit: 3d6+Intelligence modifier fire damage
Miss: Half Damage

Like it or not, Fireball in 4e is doing damage on a miss and is one of the example to show that Damage on a miss is doing exactly the same thing as a successful saving throw in other editions. Same narrative, same intention, same result; only difference is that it is the attacker rolling the dice instead of the defender.

So if you are okay with Fireball hitting on a miss because it's an area attack or magical or any reasons, but not okay with a fighter attack hitting on a miss... then the problem is not entirely the 'Damage on a Miss' mechanic being a binary operation since there is another factor entering the equation. It becomes a double standard: the same mechanic works in certain case but not others. It's okay, I can understand that. I don't agree, but I can understand. And that's what I was not agreeing with Snarf, that it's not something as simple as the idea of a 'to hit roll' being a binary operation to some people, there is other factors in play and I do believe that those other factors play a bigger part.

 

[Red Castle]

Sure, but 4e isn't just it's own separate game (although it absolutely is that, and ideally should be treated as such). It's part of the history of official D&D, and it is unreasonable to analyze it without considering the other games before and after it, some by the same publisher and even the same designers, that have officially gone under that name. If 4e were made by someone other than WotC or if it had been called something else, it would be different. But it wasn't, so it just can't be judged solely on its own merits, particularly when people's feelings are involved.

You are absolutely right. That's the thing, just like any other editions of DnD, 4e is it's own separate game and should be treated as such. Legacy can be a nice thing, but a new edition should not be bound by it. Each edition should be judged and treated as their own separate games. I will not judge mechanics in Ad&D2nd like I would in 4e, and vice versa, because they are different games with different parameters. There is things that I like in 2nd that I would hate in 4e, just like there is things that I like in 4e that I would hate in 2nd.

If it was an evolution of the same edition, like 3 to 3.5, 4 to essentials or soon to be 5 to OneDnD, then I would agree a lot more with people judging the evolution (3.5) using the same parameters from the original (3e). Never forget that with each new editions, there is a lot of new players joining the game. For them, their first edition is what they know and will base their parameters on that edition, not those that came before. Those parameters is wht they know and what they'll use to judge it. Does it mean that their opinion is worth less? So when people say that a rule doesn't make any sense, basing their opinion on parameters from another edition, I think it's disrespectful to players that love the said edition and do care about the parameters of the current edition.

Would a Damage on a Miss attack work and make sense in 2nd edition? I don't think so. Does it in 4e? Absolutely.

 

[Hussar]

You are absolutely right. That's the thing, just like any other editions of DnD, 4e is it's own separate game and should be treated as such. Legacy can be a nice thing, but a new edition should not be bound by it. Each edition should be judged and treated as their own separate games. I will not judge mechanics in Ad&D2nd like I would in 4e, and vice versa, because they are different games with different parameters. There is things that I like in 2nd that I would hate in 4e, just like there is things that I like in 4e that I would hate in 2nd.

Again, this is where language breaks down. You are saying that each edition of the game is a separate game, but, for many people, this simply isn't true. Each edition is a different iteration of the same game. And that's why 4e became so problematic. Because for people like you or me, which judges each edition as a unique game, 4e wasn't an issue. To you or me, it's self evident that each edition is a separate game. I'll take a wild stab and guess that you didn't bother with converting 2e characters to 3e. Why would you? It's a new game, so, new characters.

However, there are those who don't follow this line of thinking. That each edition isn't a unique game. Each edition is simply the same game with some new ideas.

 

[Red Castle]

With DoaM, 4e isn't just saying it's not necessarily a full miss, it's saying there is NO full miss. And that's the bridge too far for me because, with a DoaM attack, it doesn't matter how hampered the attacker is and how advantageous the situation is for the defender - the attack cannot fail.
With so much of D&D's history with hit points and AC and the abstraction of combat, it has always been the case that a hit is not necessarily a full on hit like a sword thrust through the vitals. Or a miss wasn't always a strict miss but an abstract reckoning of how well an AC protected the target. DoaM removes one of possible results and that's where I think it goes too far as a game mechanic for little real gain.

So a Fireball doing damage on a miss is a bridge too far for you?

 

[Red Castle]

Again, this is where language breaks down. You are saying that each edition of the game is a separate game, but, for many people, this simply isn't true. Each edition is a different iteration of the same game. And that's why 4e became so problematic. Because for people like you or me, which judges each edition as a unique game, 4e wasn't an issue. To you or me, it's self evident that each edition is a separate game. I'll take a wild stab and guess that you didn't bother with converting 2e characters to 3e. Why would you? It's a new game, so, new characters.

However, there are those who don't follow this line of thinking. That each edition isn't a unique game. Each edition is simply the same game with some new ideas.

Oh I know that. There is people that believe that 4e should not have been called DnD, that with another name it would have been more successful (I don't share this opinion at all, but I still hear it from time to time... or the classic DnD Tactics...).

 

[pemerton]

I'll take a wild stab and guess that you didn't bother with converting 2e characters to 3e. Why would you? It's a new game, so, new characters.

I've statted the same characters, or very similar ones, in AD&D, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel.

And of course there are many AD&D characters that are also statted in 4e D&D - red dragons, Orcus and Demogorgon, etc. Some of these I've also statted in RM. I've statted balrogs in AD&D, RM and Burning Wheel.

I'm currently using the Moathouse from the AD&D module T1 Village of Hommlet converted to Torchbearer 2e. This includes converting NPCs as well as architecture and geography.

Etc.

In each system, I stat that character as fits that system. So, for instance, in 4e D&D an implacable warrior does damage on a miss. A magic-user in AD&D has spellbooks, but in RM knows spell lists. The resolution of the Wand of Orcus's death touch is different in different systems. Etc.

To me, this goes back to the idea that different RPGs approach the mechanics-fiction relationship differently, and so represent the same trope or archetype in different ways.

 

[cavalier973]

As I understand it, Dungeons and Dragons and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are different games, and that it was proven so in a court of law.

So, I propose that 4e be called “Extreme Advanced Dungeons and Dragons”, to prevent confusion.