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

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the interests of brokering peace among folks, I would hasten to point out that this is stirring the ashes of a long dead issue. Let's be fair here, a lot of our defense of 4e is sour grapes. We definitely lost this argument. People didn't like 4e, made their opinion known loud and clear, and we've moved on to 5e (most of us anyway). It never hurts to take a deep breath and just sort of let it go. OTOH, it is rather cathartic to bitch about something that has so little actual importance. Nothing pisses people off more than stuff that just does not matter in the slightest.

Completely agree. After all, most of us are here for interminable debates over the tiniest things. It comes with the territory; whether it's disintegrate v. wildshape, or what's going on with orcs, or alignment, or hit points, or edge cases involving stealth, if you ask three people, you'll get four opinions.

That said, it is a continuing and unfortunate feature of discussions about 4e in particular that we can't actually have a discussion about the historical issues w/r/t the design of 4e. Personally, I find the history of RPGs (and design) to be fascinating, as you know from reading my incredibly lengthy posts on various topics. Digging into issues like, for example, whether Zeb Cook's design of the Kensai in OA influenced his later ideas about the Ranger? Or (as I just did) the original schism between Arneson and Gygax played into the origins of the hit point debate?

Awesome! But when it comes to 4e, even in a thread about that exact topic, we end up in the same pattern ... because we always have the same individuals that need to re-litigate 4e every time. Which is a shame.

Take this thread. Off the top of my head, in addition to the brief (and derailed) discussions that the OP brought forward, I just learned two other interesting things. The first was from you, discussing the RPGA aspects that may have played into the design. The second was from @Parmandur sharing what Mearls had to say about the insular nature of the design team (something I had surmised, but I didn't realize he had addressed).

If people want 4e to be treated like every other edition, then we should be able to discuss the history and design process, as well as the facts and other information about it, just like every other edition.

As an aside, I kind of wish Petersen was doing the book- he tends to be more fact-based. While I think that Riggs does excellent work in terms of uncovering facts, he will often "take sides" in his prose to create more compelling narratives.

 

[Voadam]

This is all exaggerated.

The base formula for hp didn't change, except later solos tend to be 4x rather than 5x standard hit points.

The base formula for NPC/creature damage did change, from 8 + level/2 to 8 + level. This is not very noticeable at Heroic tier, but is very significant at higher levels.

The other significant change between early and later monsters was (1) to reduce the defences of elites and solos (early ones tended to have +2 over what their AC "should" be based on role and level) and (2) to not gives brutes the -2 to attack that the DMG says they should have, and that early brutes tended to have.

If you compare Heroic tier standards and elites in the MM and the MV, you won't see much difference:

Eg MM Goblin Warrior, Level 1 skirmisher, AC 17, 29 hp, damage 1d6+2 or 1d8+2; MV Goblin Cutthroat, level 1 skirmisher, AC 15, 30 hp, damage 1d6+5

MM Gnoll Marauder, level 6 brute, AC 18, 84 hp, damage 1d8+6 plus good buffs vs bloodied; MV Deathpledged Gnoll, level 5 brute, AC 18 (19 at 6th level), 70 hp (80 at 6th level), damage 2d6+9 plus small buff vs bloodied

MM Owlbear, level 8 elite brute, AC 22, 212 hp, damage 2d6+5; MV Owlbear, level 8 elite brute, AC 20, hp 212, damage 4d6+6.​

This is all greatly exaggerated, as per my examples just above. I used MM monsters throughout my campaign, with the only changes being to up their damage to MM3/MV values, and to give Brutes a better attack bonus.

I was conflating advice I saw for dealing with the slog of large number of combat rounds with the more modest changes to Monster Math that mostly did not affect lower heroic play. It has been a while and I do not have the monster math changes at hand.

I do remember the solos going from x5 to x4 and I think the recommended number of minions per PC changed, but I am surprised if there was no lowering of monster hp, that seemed something that was suggested more than once early on as a fix to late fight slogging. Wasn't there also a lowering of ACs so the hp could be chewed up faster? I seem to recall that with soldier monster roles in particular being an early sticking point.

I did play in a 4e game (different group from the other one that dropped 4e after the beholder solo fight) where the DM generally was cutting monster hp by half from that listed and 50-100% increase in damage was used and the combats sang.

 

[James Gasik]

Thats true. Though, for a moment it didn't seem like folks would have a safe landing zone for their gaming preference. That anxiety I think led to some obnoxious E war behavior. I think afterwards, that led further into a certain Ford Vs Chevy kind of culture. Fortunately, I think that has died down since 5E and PF2.

Or more accurately, the console wars. Sega vs. Nintendo (before Sony dropped a flying elbow drop on both of them).

 

[James Gasik]

One thing I would add is that while some features of 4e, especially the explicit rules text and clear templates for powers, do seem informed by Organized Play the way skill challenges and rituals worked always seemed at odds with Organized Play to me, largely because they are real hassles to deal with when trying to engage in linear adventures which often rely on GM Fiat outside of combat.

I have noticed similar issues the like 4 times I played in a Pathfinder Society game for PF2 with it's much more explicit skills outside of combat.

I can attest to this. Public play mods rarely had time for rituals, and were written with the idea that you'd achieve noncombat success in one very specific way (some sort of skill challenge). I ran into this problem during the CALI mods- we had a goal, we had to cross a desert to get there. The mod had this detailed extended skill challenge to allow us to make good time and not use up all our water and such.

"Or," my Death Priest of Dumathoin suggested, "I could cast this ritual that gives us all spectral mounts, and this other ritual that makes it so you don't need food or water for 24 hours. It'll cost me some residuum, but I don't really mind."

The DM blinked at me and said (paraphrased), "You could do that, but then there won't be much of an adventure."

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I can attest to this. Public play mods rarely had time for rituals, and were written with the idea that you'd achieve noncombat success in one very specific way (some sort of skill challenge). I ran into this problem during the CALI mods- we had a goal, we had to cross a desert to get there. The mod had this detailed extended skill challenge to allow us to make good time and not use up all our water and such.

"Or," my Death Priest of Dumathoin suggested, "I could cast this ritual that gives us all spectral mounts, and this other ritual that makes it so you don't need food or water for 24 hours. It'll cost me some residuum, but I don't really mind."

The DM blinked at me and said (paraphrased), "You could do that, but then there won't be much of an adventure."

Wouldn't every version of D&D have that problem, though? In 5E the issue would be that there are basically no rules for non-combat, so there is no "system" for a player to bypass using spells in the first place, but even if such a system could be created it could just as easily be bypassed by spells

It's not really a flaw that is unique to 4E. It is a typical D&D problem where spells can solve any problem.

 

[Kannik]

While I think we have been careful to note the parallels between the pushback to 3e (with the OSR movement) and 4e, there was also a significant pushback to 2e as well. Which, from today's perspective, might seem insane given that 2e was completely interoperable with 1e.

Amusingly, just the other day I was thinking to myself that while I was playing AD&D during the 1e to 2e switch (and our group did, indeed, switch -- on the day before the books were officially released), I wasn't yet plugged into a wider community of RPGers and so missed any brouhaha or upset that might have surrounded the new edition. Such simpler and quieter times...

But clearly something must have happened, because when the reprints of 2e came out (the ones with the black covers, IIRC), the first thing in the introduction was a very bolded "This is not 3rd edition!" with a "you can put down your pitchforks now" kinda vibe.

(And as I noted earlier, I did witness the brouhaha during the 2e to 3e release, but it felt much vicious against fellow players than what rose during the 3e to 4e release.)

 

[Aldarc]

Or more accurately, the console wars. Sega vs. Nintendo (before Sony dropped a flying elbow drop on both of them).

I can’t say that I want a PS5 but the Switch was the first console I have wanted since my last console I owned which was Super Nintendo.

 

[Kannik]

re: how quickly 4e was 'abandoned' by Hasbro/WotC, I'm now wondering if, in the same way that some of the moves that led to the rapid 3.5e revision and the 4e schedule and limitations, ($$ reasons, restricting the 4e SRD/open gaming release, PDF lockdowns, etc), when sales for 4e came in lower than desired to meet their $100m core brand requirement (not necessarily bad, just not meeting the lofty and perhaps unattainable levels), there was a whopping overcorrection that led to more uncertainty which created less buy-in which hastened in turn the clearing of the deck and start of 5e development.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

re: how quickly 4e was 'abandoned' by Hasbro/WotC, I'm now wondering if, in the same way that some of the moves that led to the rapid 3.5e revision and the 4e schedule and limitations, ($$ reasons, restricting the 4e SRD/open gaming release, PDF lockdowns, etc), when sales for 4e came in lower than desired to meet their $100m core brand requirement (not necessarily bad, just not meeting the lofty and perhaps unattainable levels), there was a whopping overcorrection that led to more uncertainty which created less buy-in which hastened in turn the clearing of the deck and start of 5e development.

One of the things that is essentially unknowable right now (despite people loudly telling you otherwise from opposing points of view) is just this! And it's something that I hope we will understand better with the facts and figures that might be available in Riggs' forthcoming book.

We have a decent idea of the timeline, and know the "when" in terms of cancellation. At least well enough to place it within two years of the launch.

But what we don't know is this- was it because Hasbro had such insane expectations, and 4e didn't match them? Or is it because, even though it wasn't meeting the expectations, the trends were so bad?

I don't know the answer to that, and either is plausible. Or, it could be a mixture of both; in other words, unrealistic expectations weren't met, and then the trends were bad enough that they chose to abandon it completely instead of just keeping it on a maintenance schedule.

That said, based on what we've learned, Essentials wasn't a correction; by the time of its release, 4e was already killed off internally. Which makes me wonder if Essentials might have originally been thought of as an attempt to put 4e in more of a maintenance mode (in terms of design) before the chose to kill of 4e prior to the release.

Again, I'm hopeful that we can finally get actual facts to better understand the history.

 

[deganawida]

re: how quickly 4e was 'abandoned' by Hasbro/WotC, I'm now wondering if, in the same way that some of the moves that led to the rapid 3.5e revision and the 4e schedule and limitations, ($$ reasons, restricting the 4e SRD/open gaming release, PDF lockdowns, etc), when sales for 4e came in lower than desired to meet their $100m core brand requirement (not necessarily bad, just not meeting the lofty and perhaps unattainable levels), there was a whopping overcorrection that led to more uncertainty which created less buy-in which hastened in turn the clearing of the deck and start of 5e development.

Likely. If you’re given an impossible task at work, fail to deliver, new industries start taking your potential customers, and it looks like a competitor might beat you, heads start rolling, and those who survive the cuts begin panicking. An over correction was inevitable, based on the sales target and conjectures made earlier in this thread or in a different one (cannot recall, sorry) that the entire RPG market was less than $100 million.

There really was likely a confluence of factors, a perfect storm, if you will.

1. $100 million annually mandate from Hasbro.
2. World of Warcraft taking the spare time of the market of people who like any kind of RPG (P&P, CRPG, JPRG, MMORPG).
3. Breakup of gaming groups due to (2). Remember, WotC had advertisements telling people that only D&D could provide the opportunity to play a real elf.
4. Poorly handled marketing.
5. GSL scandal.
6. Paizo catching a break with (4) and (5) to great acclaim with Pathfinder.
7. A tremendous amount of material for Pathfinder released during 4e (miniatures, terrain, and so forth). Anecdotally, my DM never bought WotC miniatures when running 4e, just bought Paizo’s stuff.
8. The Great Recession, which affected the ability of customers to purchase 4e’s breakneck speed releases. Again, anecdotally, but I bowed out of 3.5 fairly quickly in part due to rules, but also largely due to content coming too quickly, with too much power creep, and thus value dropped.
9. Going back to (2) and tying in (8), $50 one time plus at most $14/month was for WoW was far more palatable than $90 for first 3 PHN, DMG, and MM, with the subsequent “core” books and power source books rapidly behind.
10. Next we come to the VTT and Gleemax failing.
11. The official forums switching due to (10) likely had an impact, to an extent, as people don’t like communities changing.
12. The VTT failure caused WotC to offer those of us who were early adopters lifetime subscriptions to D&D Insider, which had to cost a pretty penny.

All these combined? It’s a miracle that 4e sold as well as it did, and that D&D wasn’t moved to a mothballed status within the first year.