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

[Thomas Shey]

Hey, I have some friends who rabidly collect board games. I rarely know what I'm getting into when they ask me to play. Usually I find the rules to be obtuse, can't figure out a good strategy, and lose without really grokking why.

So I tell them "hey, I didn't have fun with that, can we play something else?"

If they insisted "no, these are the games we have to play!", then I stop showing up, but that's not the fault of the games, that was their refusal to compromise. And if they're ok with ostracizing me because I'll scream if I have to play another game of House on Haunted Hill, maybe they weren't people I should be gaming with in the first place.

As I said, a board game is a different beast than an RPG (unless the latter is only done on a one-off/tryout basis). Its much more likely to turn into extended and acrimonious situation because of the time commitment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And everything you've described still sounds to me Iike a social issue rather than a game failure. Because what has to happen is that people (both GM and players) have to be deciding that the game is more important than the participants.

I don't consider people being there first to play a game a social issue. And frankly, any solution to some of these things is going to do harm to someone in many cases. So, no, I don't think describing it as "a social issue" says anything here.

I'm sure that's a thing that happens. And I wouldn't say that there is anything necessarily wrong with people making those choices.

It's just hard for me to buy "x edition broke up my gaming group" when there are so many social levers to pull to avoid that result.

And so easy to miss you need to until its too late. As I've noted before, there are a lot of motives for people to forge through, and not everyone figures out immediately how much a given game will annoy them until they've been at it a while.

As I mentioned earlier, its a different situation if they get into the game already knowing some of them will dislike it strongly, but that's not particularly uncommon for it not to be the case, especially with a new game system. Its not particularly common for the feelings within one group to be so strongly opposite that its a big issue (barring brand new game groups) but its absolutely a thing that can happen, and its usually traceable to the game at hand.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Probably right, but if you ask people which edition broke their gaming group five will get you ten its 4E.

Eh, once you get outside the D&D sphere there's plenty of others than can do it. Often for the same kind of reasons, too.

 

[Mannahnin]

Probably right, but if you ask people which edition broke their gaming group five will get you ten its 4E.

Although this brings us into a bit of chicken or egg territory. Because then we're into the factors which made people less likely to adopt 4E (some of which were contextual, like edition release churn) as compared to, say, 3E, which was also a radical change from the prior edition but had a better environment for acceptance.

If 3E had come out immediately following a profuse stream of book releases for a 2.75 edition steadily published since 1995, following another reboot called 2.5 in 1992, we might have found things like "Dwarves can be wizards?!" and "What do you mean multiclassing is additive, not simultaneous?!" to be weightier straws now frequently credited as having broken the camel's back. Instead 3E came out when 2E had been moribund for a while and folks had feared the death of D&D, and so were primed to welcome a new edition, even a radically changed one.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As I said, a board game is a different beast than an RPG (unless the latter is only done on a one-off/tryout basis). Its much more likely to turn into extended and acrimonious situation because of the time commitment.

And yet .... Diplomacy.

Start a Friday night as a group of friends, leave Sunday as the bitterest of enemies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Although this brings us into a bit of chicken or egg territory. Because then we're into the factors which made people less likely to adopt 4E (some of which were contextual, like edition release churn) as compared to, say, 3E, which was also a radical change from the prior edition but had a better environment for acceptance.

If 3E had come out immediately following a profuse stream of book releases for a 2.75 edition steadily published since 1995, following another reboot called 2.5 in 1992, we might have found things like "Dwarves can be wizards?!" and "What do you mean multiclassing is additive, not simultaneous?!" to be weightier straws now frequently credited as having broken the camel's back. Instead 3E came out when 2E had been moribund for a while and folks had feared the death of D&D, and so were primed to welcome a new edition, even a radically changed one.

Agreed.

I've mentioned this before, but people forget that-

1. There was pushback to 3e. 3e was what birthed OSR.

2. 3e was able to innovate in many ways precisely because D&D was both in such bad shape, and also so long in the tooth (the OD&D-1e-2e line had gone on for more than a quarter of a century).

3. Finally, IIRC 3e went out of its way to try to market continuity even with the changes ... "Back to the Dungeon" & re-release of Greyhawk stuff (Living Greyhawk etc.) and then turning to all the Realms stuff and everything else. In other words, even with many changes, the overall emphasis was on maintaining that appearance of continuity.

 

[payn]

And yet .... Diplomacy.

Start a Friday night as a group of friends, leave Sunday as the bitterest of enemies.

Diplomacy is still one of the finest games ever made.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Then this:

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.

Then this:

You say things like this, both of which are kind of blatantly insulting, and yet don't take any responsibility for how this tends to perpetuate edition wars. Astounding!

So agreeing with your response to @hawkeyefan that “Bruce Wayne getting vengeance for the shooting of his parents” is in the right ballpark if you sub “gaming group” for “parents” is me perpetuating edition wars?

Or are you now disagreeing with the valorous Bruce Wayne/Batman righteous vendetta analogy mapped onto the situation (particularly a “4e D&D killed my gaming group” or “4e D&D stole my D&D”)?

Or is this a disagreement over whether the observation of “perpetual vitriol” and “unending crusade” are behavioral descriptors associated with scorned lovers or righteous vendettas?

I don’t know what is happening here but what I’m saying is very direct and straight-forward and this feels like a Batman smoke grenade.

 

[billd91]

Diplomacy is still one of the finest games ever made.

Indeed. And there are some board game groups that refuse to play it because of its social dynamic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Its also a problem of the game. To act like they're disconnected is, I think, a counterfactual. If the group can play one game together satisfactorily and another tears them apart, there's only one variable there.

The game does not have a will, Thomas. It cannot exert influence on anyone. Peoples' feelings toward the game are theirs. People allow their feelings about something to influence them.

First off, not every gaming group are particularly close outside of gaming, so "enjoying each other's company" can easily be a secondary consideration to "enjoying the game". I know this is a disconcerting idea to some people, but I think calling it a group dysfunction is a bit much.

Not at all. In such a case, then who will lament the breakup of the group? If there is nothing tying a person to their play group beyond what game is being played, then they absolutely should leave if the group decides to play a game they don't like.

Sooo your group still split? Would you say there was a failing of the group or that the people in your group had issues before the new game was introduced? If not wouldn't that stand to reason the cause of the split was the introduction of the new game?

In the first case, no, the group did not split. As I said, I sucked it up and played the game I wasn't excited about. It went fine.

In the second case, the player opted out, so they didn't play that game. I don't know if I'd call this the group splitting up because as I said, I just wanted to make sure there were no hard feelings. The player opted out of that game, but has returned to play others since. It probably helps that the game in question wasn't planned nor intended to be years long.

The cause of the split was our inability to compromise and come to an agreement on a game.

Come on folks... if you can't agree with your significant other what to watch... they want to watch the Masked Singer and you want to watch The Expanse... and you wind up watching in different rooms, it's not the Masked Singer's fault.

You say things like this, both of which are kind of blatantly insulting, and yet don't take any responsibility for how this tends to perpetuate edition wars. Astounding!

On page 319 of a "Hey Let's Revisit How Crappy 4e Was" thread, I don't think it's fair to accuse others of fueling the edition war. You guys clearly have an axe to grind.

You know what game I played and didn't like? GURPS. Not a fan at all. Check out any conversation about GURPS and see who's not there telling everyone else what the game's problems are.