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

[pemerton]

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.

As I posted already, from the first half of 2008 it was obvious what the basic framework and principles of 4e D&D would be. WotC didn't conceal this.

And then the books also made it clear - everyone, for instance, has read the advice to the GM to apply pressure and establish stakes and cut to the action ("say yes to player ideas" (DMG p 28), "move on from the two gate guards" (DMG p 105).

I mean, if someone bought the books and felt ripped off, that's one thing. But after 15 years of opportunity to come to grips with what the game is and how it's meant to work, critiquing its play by way of hypothetical examples that assume the application of principles and methods the game eschews just seems pointless, and silly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 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.

It feels nonsensical to me, because I don't agree with or like its intended playstyle, which itself doesn't make sense to me and which I don't find enjoyable. I'm allowed to feel that way too, and to tell people should it come up. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it was a bad game for me.

 

[pemerton]

It feels nonsensical to me, because I don't agree with or like its intended playstyle, which itself doesn't make sense to me and which I don't find enjoyable. I'm allowed to feel that way too, and to tell people should it come up. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it was a bad game for me.

I have zero interest in Transformers movies. They appeal to me not one bit. Does that mean they're nonsensical?

Nonsensical isn't a synonym for "disliked by me".

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

Is this really just about the phrasing? Would it help if I told you it's a perfectly good game that I just don't enjoy? I think I've said that before, but that never seems to be enough. I understand it just fine, but explaining why I don't like it just seems to irritate it's fans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have zero interest in Transformers movies. They appeal to me not one bit. Does that mean they're nonsensical?

Nonsensical isn't a synonym for "disliked by me".

So it is just the phrasing you're offended by. Fine. I take it back. 4e is perfectly sensible.

 

[Campbell]

It feels nonsensical to me, because I don't agree with or like its intended playstyle, which itself doesn't make sense to me and which I don't find enjoyable. I'm allowed to feel that way too, and to tell people should it come up. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it was a bad game for me.

That's quite different from the claim that it produces fiction in comparison to different versions of the game. The way you interface with the rules are slightly different from AD&D, but that is not in itself mean the game produces bizarre chains of events. Implying that 4e fans are somehow less sensitive to fictional incoherency is frankly incorrect and slightly insulting to the games I and others have played and ran.

There's absolutely room for criticism, but I think it should start with a basic level of respect for the craft of players and GMs that have different stylistic preferences.

 

[pemerton]

Is this really just about the phrasing? Would it help if I told you it's a perfectly good game that I just don't enjoy? I think I've said that before, but that never seems to be enough. I understand it just fine, but explaining why I don't like it just seems to irritate it's fans.

Well, it's the assertion that 4e is nonsensical that I'm responding to. I don't think I'd call that "phrasing". I mean, if what you mean is that it doesn't appeal to you, then why not say that?

 

[Lanefan]

As I posted already, from the first half of 2008 it was obvious what the basic framework and principles of 4e D&D would be. WotC didn't conceal this.

And then the books also made it clear - everyone, for instance, has read the advice to the GM to apply pressure and establish stakes and cut to the action ("say yes to player ideas" (DMG p 28), "move on from the two gate guards" (DMG p 105).

The bolded was one of the specific bits I found both aggravating and disappointing when first reading the 4e DMG, in a "What the hell are they thinking? This is terrible advice!" kind of way.

I mean, if someone bought the books and felt ripped off, that's one thing.

I didn't feel ripped off as such; but after the buildup had somewhat led me to expect (or at least hope for) one thing, to get something else was a considerable letdown.

What this meant, of course, was that I stopped right there; and didn't bother buying any of the second go-round of the core three books (DMG II, etc.). Thus, any tweaks or improvements or fine-tuning there - of which I gather there's a fair bit - is lost on me.

 

[Lanefan]

I have zero interest in Transformers movies. They appeal to me not one bit. Does that mean they're nonsensical?

Ditto, and IMO yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Gaming groups break up all the time. I don’t think it’s ever the game’s fault.

It feels nonsensical to me, because I don't agree with or like its intended playstyle, which itself doesn't make sense to me and which I don't find enjoyable. I'm allowed to feel that way too, and to tell people should it come up. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it was a bad game for me.

That you don’t like it is fins. But saying it’s nonsensical because you don’t like it is not. There’s nothing nonsensical about it, at least not anymore than any other edition of D&D, all of which include nonsensical things like dragons and giants and so on.

The rules of the game, the mechanics of the game… they seem far more sensible and coherent than so much stuff from other editions.