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

[payn]

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 in the first place. It's fine to have that opinion, but it's not really discussing PF2, y'know?

If it was a "what happened to PF2" topic it might be.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think many criticisms of 4e are due to misunderstanding on the part of the ones being critical. They’re either trying to apply a different approach to play, as @Justice and Rule mentioned, or they’re refusing to accept the game on its own terms. Some of this, at least, has to do with it being an edition of D&D.

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.

I think part of the problem is the way these labels get applied. You admit here that it’s not nonsensical… but you’ll continue to use that to describe the game.

That seems much more nonsensical.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think many criticisms of 4e are due to misunderstanding on the part of the ones being critical. They’re either trying to apply a different approach to play, as @Justice and Rule mentioned, or they’re refusing to accept the game on its own terms. Some of this, at least, has to do with it being an edition of D&D.

In fairness, the early APs had the same misunderstanding, unfortunately. I speak as someone who remembers giving up pretty early on in our only session because of this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In fairness, the early APs had the same misunderstanding, unfortunately. I speak as someone who remembers giving up pretty early on in our only session because of this.

Sure! I’m not even a huge fan of 4e. I liked some ofthe things it did quite a lot. Others, not so much. But no edition of D&D is flawess. And I’d argue most are more flawed than 4e.

But the perpetual vitriol, the unending crusade against 4e by many online… it’s like they’re little Bruce Waynes and 4e just shot their parents, and they’ve set down a path of vengeance.

It’s bonkers.

 

[billd91]

But the perpetual vitriol, the unending crusade against 4e by many online… it’s like they’re little Bruce Waynes and 4e just shot their parents, and they’ve set down a path of vengeance.

In some cases, the introduction of 4e did break up gaming groups. People have related those stories here. So, maybe not shot their parents but did shoot their game group.

 

[payn]

I think many criticisms of 4e are due to misunderstanding on the part of the ones being critical. They’re either trying to apply a different approach to play, as @Justice and Rule mentioned, or they’re refusing to accept the game on its own terms. Some of this, at least, has to do with it being an edition of D&D.

I think most of it has to do with being an edition of D&D.

I think part of the problem is the way these labels get applied. You admit here that it’s not nonsensical… but you’ll continue to use that to describe the game.

That seems much more nonsensical.

I know you are quoting someone else here, but I am not saying 4E is nonsensical. Im just saying it is to some people, and that's their subjective take which they should own (like I do).

 

[Pedantic]

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?

That's a chain of primacy that leads back to games neither of us want to play, but...yes? That isn't exactly a novel criticism, we see "4e resolved this problem in X way" all the time, and you don't ever get "you simply don't understand 5e" as the response. Instead the argument tends to be that 4e's underlying design philosophy isn't desirable making the solution untenable, and then there's a proxy discussion about the assorted games' book sales/popularity.

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.

You can't have both. Either it's different enough it requires engagement on its own terms, or it is similar enough it can be judged for failing to meet the existing audience's expectation. If we're going to treat all the versions of D&D as distinct games, that's certainly one thing, but if we're holding them in conversation with each other, then it isn't incumbent on existing D&D players, either now or in 2008 to evaluate 4e without their preexisting norms.

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?

That's sort of exactly backwards. It's not on me to be sold on the new game that was replacing the thing I liked, it was on the thing to sell itself. Plus, there's nothing "reflexive" about the judgements in question, especially 15 years on. 4e certainly sharpened my tastes to a finer point, in that I had to spend a lot of time articulating and trying to grasp at what precisely about this new thing undermined the experience I was going for, and certainly broadened my horizons in realizing a great many things I'd taken as background norms for the D&D experience were no such thing.

 

[payn]

Sure! I’m not even a huge fan of 4e. I liked some ofthe things it did quite a lot. Others, not so much. But no edition of D&D is flawess. And I’d argue most are more flawed than 4e.

I think @Hussar has a good take on this. A lot of it is in the presentation. I think the launch was inelegant and WotC did nothing to help folks move into 4E. In fact, it seemed like they did quite a bit to shell shock folks.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, got it. Thanks.

An interesting question is to what extent should we think of a D&D combat as closed scene resolution?

Some bits are similar - eg the hit point depletion. But at least on some approaches, other bits are not - eg the GM often is understood to enjoy a very broad power to make decisions that will change, or close, the scene (eg reinforcements arrive; a cliff collapses and separates the two sides; etc) that are independent of the process of action declaration - resolution - consequence.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's no one's "fault" that they do or don't enjoy things. There are plenty of RPGs that I don't (or wouldn't) enjoy, and don't play for that reason.

But I think that even if someone has a "3E mindset" it's not that hard to understand how 4e works, even if it's not their preference. And interpreting the game in a way that ignores its rules and obvious principles of play, so as to then criticise it on the basis of that (mis)interpretation, seems silly.

I far prefer bridge to poker as a card game; but I don't critique poker on the grounds that when we play poker we don't take and count the tricks properly.

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.

Similar to @Justice and Rule, my response to this is - are you really incapable of understanding rules and principles for a RPG that you nevertheless would not enjoy.

I mean, I don't really enjoy Gygaxian dungeon-crawling that much; but I don't read the books and complain about the lack of rules for narration of consequence on action declarations. I can see how the wandering monster clock, and related ideas like making a wandering monster check if the PCs do something especially noisy, fills the role of establishing consequences even though it's not my preferred approach.