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

[Micah Sweet]

To be honest, why are we really even entertaining the first type? I mean this earnestly and not in an insulting way: the power itself doesn't mention any sort of specific method that it's using, it's not outlining a specific technique or making mention of any sort of specific in-universe mechanic to work, so why are we trying to find one? It feels like it is missing the point of 4E's design.

To give an example, in PF2E the Demoralize action has a bunch of limitations, largely because it's specifically outlined what is meant to be happening when you do that. You can do it in other ways, with penalties (or feats that take away those penalties), but the rules outline those limitations very clearly. And if you have problems with that, okay, that's something to discuss, because we can agree or disagree with how it's modeling it. But we can clearly see that the designers intended to have specificity in how it works.

Here, we have the opposite: we do have flavor text, but there's nothing specific in how it acts beyond the rule mechanic itself. Like a lot of 4E powers it's clearly meant to be open-ended so that it can't be preemptively DM-limited in some way like, say, against mindless undead if it were simply an insulting taunt. It's open-ended to give it as much applicability as possible, and you're free to come up with a variety of ways.

To me, the problem is that people are looking at 4E with a 3E mindset: 3E something that is built around very specific ideas, limitations, etc. These things can be bent, avoided, and even skipped, but 3E is typically built around specificity in how things work; It is concerned with cause. Meanwhile we have 4E, which doesn't really care as much for how something it is done as much as what it does; it is concerned with effect.

Now there's nothing wrong with being more in-sync with 3E (or other, more specific/simulationist RPGs) mindset, but I don't really see that as a flaw of 4E. That feels more like the problem of the player, in the same way someone criticizing using clocks for enemies in BITD instead of hit points is missing the point of the design by trying to fit it into a box it's not meant to fit in. I feel like that's what is going on with CaGI so often: people try to put specificity on it and when they can't, they call it "magic mind control" because in D&D magic tends to be much more open-ended and interpretative when it comes to cause, which is largely missing here.

I don't think anyone is denying that, but if as you say cause has priority over effect for you (as it does for me), 4e is going to seem nonsensical, even though it isn't.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I understand that, but my point was exactly that final summary. Some folks have a 3E mindset and 4E doesnt compute. That isnt 4Es fault, its not their's either if its how they want the game to work.

Sure, but that's not how it's been talked about in here. People are talking about how it's "illogical" or "mind control" because they aren't engaging with the system. I mean, it's kind of like critiquing my local bagel place for not serving fries: I'm not really critiquing it on what's it's trying to do. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert and how it tried to judge a movie on what it was trying to do rather than to always trying to compare it to Citizen Kane.

I don't think anyone is denying that, but if as you say cause has priority over effect for you (as it does for me), 4e is going to seem nonsensical, even though it isn't.

Yeah, but my point is why is that actually a part of the discussion about the game when that's about the player? Again, it's like trying to critique Blades in the Dark for not using HP to model damage on an opponent: there are critiques you could make about how combat works in that system that engages with what it's trying to do, but asking why it's not like D&D is a flaw of the critique and not the game.

 

[payn]

Sure, but that's not how it's been talked about in here. People are talking about how it's "illogical" or "mind control" because they aren't engaging with the system. I mean, it's kind of like critiquing my local bagel place for not serving fries: I'm not really critiquing it on what's it's trying to do. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert and how it tried to judge a movie on what it was trying to do rather than to always trying to compare it to Citizen Kane.

As ive been told it works like, "you just walk into that bagel shop and say I want fries. Then the cook say coming right up." For other folks with the wrong type of mind, that doesnt compute.

Yeah, but my point is why is that actually a part of the discussion about the game when that's about the player? Again, it's like trying to critique Blades in the Dark for not using HP to model damage on an opponent: there are critiques you could make about how combat works in that system that engages with what it's trying to do, but asking why it's not like D&D is a flaw of the critique and not the game.

At this point in the discussion, folks are simply trying to understand the disconnect and each other. If somebody doesn't get it, but still doesnt like it, that is not on 4E. We can agree on that. I am not saying 4E is bad because it doesn't work for some folks.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure, but that's not how it's been talked about in here. People are talking about how it's "illogical" or "mind control" because they aren't engaging with the system. I mean, it's kind of like critiquing my local bagel place for not serving fries: I'm not really critiquing it on what's it's trying to do. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert and how it tried to judge a movie on what it was trying to do rather than to always trying to compare it to Citizen Kane.

I don't know if that comparison holds. We're talking about versions of D&D here, in theory they're being designed and marketed to the same audience. This is ordering fries and receiving a bagel, not going to the wrong restaurant. 4e was specifically positioned as a replacement for an existing thing. We're not comparing D&D to a non-D&D game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but that's not how it's been talked about in here. People are talking about how it's "illogical" or "mind control" because they aren't engaging with the system. I mean, it's kind of like critiquing my local bagel place for not serving fries: I'm not really critiquing it on what's it's trying to do. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert and how it tried to judge a movie on what it was trying to do rather than to always trying to compare it to Citizen Kane.



Yeah, but my point is why is that actually a part of the discussion about the game when that's about the player? Again, it's like trying to critique Blades in the Dark for not using HP to model damage on an opponent: there are critiques you could make about how combat works in that system that engages with what it's trying to do, but asking why it's not like D&D is a flaw of the critique and not the game.

The issue as I see it is that 4e was explicitly trying to do something no other D&D had explicitly tried, and it didn't sit well with a lot of people. It's understandable I think to judge a game called Dungeons & Dragons at least in part by other games called Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know if that comparison holds. We're talking about versions of D&D here, in theory they're being designed and marketed to the same audience. This is ordering fries and receiving a bagel, not going to the wrong restaurant. 4e was specifically positioned as a replacement for an existing thing. We're not comparing D&D to a non-D&D game.

The "replacement" aspect in particular can be really difficult to accept.

 

[Justice and Rule]

As ive been told it works like, "you just walk into that bagel shop and say I want fries. Then the cook say coming right up." For other folks with the wrong type of mind, that doesnt compute.

I get the reference you're trying to make, but I think it doesn't really work with what I was trying to say?

At this point in the discussion, folks are simply trying to understand the disconnect and each other. If somebody doesn't get it, but still doesnt like it, that is not on 4E. We can agree on that. I am not saying 4E is bad because it doesn't work for some folks.

No, but I think my point is that there are things we can talk about like the flawed monster math and such which are actually about 4E. People who couldn't change their mindset from 3E isn't really about 4E as much as it's about the player. I guess I just don't find it a particularly great 4E discussion.

I don't know if that comparison holds. We're talking about versions of D&D here, in theory they're being designed and marketed to the same audience. This is ordering fries and receiving a bagel, not going to the wrong restaurant. 4e was specifically positioned as a replacement for an existing thing. We're not comparing D&D to a non-D&D game.

I mean, by that logic shouldn't I be able to say that 5E is terrible simply because it isn't enough like 4E, which was D&D before it?

4E was dungeon-adventuring with similar trappings that we had seen before. It wasn't a narratively-driven space diplomacy game, it was still a fantasy RPG, right down to having skills, spells, etc. But each edition has made changes and had different design philosophies, and if you aren't engaging with the philosophies at all that's simply closing the book on any sort of useful discussion.

The issue as I see it is that 4e was explicitly trying to do something no other D&D had explicitly tried, and it didn't sit well with a lot of people. It's understandable I think to judge a game called Dungeons & Dragons at least in part by other games called Dungeons & Dragons.

I dunno, I think just reflexively judging something on what came before and not actually judging it on its own terms is kind of not great. It's a human reaction, for sure, but at the same time I just don't find it a particularly enlightening discussion about the system itself as much as people just saying "I'm not going to really examine the game on its own terms". It's not really a discussion as much as trying to find out why we are refusing to have a discussion, and at this point it feels kind of tiresome?

 

[payn]

No, but I think my point is that there are things we can talk about like the flawed monster math and such which are actually about 4E. People who couldn't change their mindset from 3E isn't really about 4E as much as it's about the player. I guess I just don't find it a particularly great 4E discussion.

There is a thread for talking about 4E on its own terms, and not about what went wrong. Its also +.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Great! Now do it in six seconds, reliably, every time.

Sure just like every other reliable 6 second thing in D&D.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There is a thread for talking about 4E on its own terms, and not about what went wrong. Its also +.

I didn't say it had to be a + thread, there were clearly problems with how 4E ran. I just think talking about how it didn't conform to the standards of 3E is kind of like having a PF2 discussion where someone talks about how they should have never switched from PF1 in the first place. It's fine to have that opinion, but it's not really discussing PF2, y'know?