The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[TheSword]

Why do we think 4e is seeing a comeback now.

My suggestion, was that maybe without the pressure of being the current edition people might be able to enjoy it as an alternative more. There’s less heat on it.

Any other reasons? Was it just 10 years ahead of its time?
Have revived versions got better formatting?

 

[mamba]

Of course, this doesn't resolve the question of whether or not 4E was the worst selling edition. To determine that, we'd first need to agree on how to measure. Is "worst selling" determined solely by number of PHB1's sold? Total print products sales over the lifespan of the edition?

without having found the exact Ben Riggs statement, only the one about the PHB, I believe we can rule out lifespan, it will be based on sales. I think we can also rule out all sales across all products, as he will not have that data. It will either be core books or PHB(s).

The sales falling off a cliff came from the guy who was supposed to work on the DL offering and while they were negotiating and hashing out details, WotC cancelled DL for 4e because in his words sales had fallen off a cliff. I did not manage to find his actual post, has been a while I guess, posts disappear, only someone else referring to what he had posted at the time.

Let’s see if Ben releases some 3e and 4e numbers ahead of his next book, like he did for BX, 1e and 2e for the last one…

 

[Tigris]

I've been thinking about the seemingly conflicting points of view on the financial success of 4e that we have from various parties and wondering if there is anyway to reconcile them. I think there may be.

I reread @Alzrius's summary of Riggs's presentation at GenCon 2023 as well as @Alphastream's analysis of the various comments made by WotC staffers that 4e sales were solid.

Something that leapt out at me was that despite @mamba repeatedly claiming that Riggs said 4e was the worst selling edition, that's not what Alzrius wrote in their summary. They wrote: "At that point, Riggs noted that the 4E PHB sold far less than the 3E PHBs." For me this is an important distinction, because PHB sales is not the same thing as overall sales across an edition, especially when it comes to 4E.

So let's assume that Riggs is correct on this specific point (that the 4E PHB sold less than the 3E PHBs), but also assume that Chris Sims is telling the truth when he says "the game did fine early in its life cycle" and that Alphastream is correct when he writes "4E [had] stronger presales and opening sales than 3E" and "Sales held strong throughout the edition's lifetime" and "4E enjoyed strong book sales, although they declined over time as all prior editions have declined".

​

I think it is much easier than this. He looked mostly at PHB1 sales for the different edition. And he states that "Riggs noted that the 4E PHB sold far less than the 3E PHBs". What happened here is just that 3E PHB1 and 3.5 PHB1 are counted together. This is exactly the point I saw elsewhere that 4E PHB sold more than 3E PHB and 3.5 PHB but less than both together. This easily explains all the points you brought up.

Mod Note:
Hey, @Chemo - you are being about 10x too aggressive, and come off as far too invested in calling people liars. So, you're done in this thread. Don't repeat this performance with others.

@mamba - next time, when you make strong claims, make sure you can bring strong evidence, because insisting you have the truth without evidence is uncool, and sets up this nonsense. And when you get called on not having evidence, maybe disengage rather than argue a point you won't support.

I fully understand why you removed one user from the discussion (and I am glad this back and forth has stopped). However I dont 100% understand why the person who was instigating a huge unneeded discussion with tripple posts etc. and who states old flamebaits without any evidence (even after links disproving it are posted) and just goes "oh the 4 people who actually saw the numbers and posted might be lying" could not also be removed, since it feels like this could just go on again.

Since I dont post this often: Does this mean its also ok to go into OSR discussions and claim that OSR is played almost only by alt rights, because this was written on blogpost I read? Or go into the D&D 2E discussions and say "How can you play a game with satanist influence?" Because thats also something I have read before. (And actually mirrors the D&D 4E is influenced by WoW being spread in this thread, since even though the lead designer said it was not, there might still be some other designer who read some satanic material (not because they believe but because designers read lots of different things!) which got them inspired for some material).

Of course its also on us to just not engage with such things (and I wont anymore), but for me both these users made this thread a lot harder to read and find actual useful information. (Or people asking a honest question to answer like the Wyrdwood Wand.)

So I dont question your decision. I just ask you to maybe also remove the other side to help this thread to not derail any further.

Why do we think 4e is seeing a comeback now.

My suggestion, was that maybe without the pressure of being the current edition people might be able to enjoy it as an alternative more. There’s less heat on it.

Any other reasons? Was it just 10 years ahead of its time?
Have revived versions got better formatting?

Well this is easy:

• There is now not anymore a full Pathfinder fangroup who hates on 4E as before. When Paizo first talked about 4E one designer stated "what I saw was so bad we had to make our own game" (in slightly different words). And the big Pathfinder community / paizo fans were annoyed with WOTC (because of stupid license which is fair), so there was a lot of negativity and repeated misinformation going on. (Like "Pathfinder outsold 4E4", "you need to half monster health and double damage in 4E", "4E is just like WoW" etc.).
  • Now with Pathfinder 2 being to big parts built on 4E design, even paizo indirectly aknowledges that 4E does indeed have good gamedesign. Also there main "enemy" is now 5E.
  • This can be really seen. There might still be lots of negativity against 4E here, but it is now possible to sometimes have 4E posts in other places (like reddit rpg), where no one brings old wrong 4E memes up!
• More people who are used to modern gamedesign are in the Hobby. 15 years ago there were %wise more people who never played a modern boardgame or computer game in RPGs than nowadays. So these big changes in 4E were for them really strange. Now with more people coming from other nerd hobbies like magic the gathering, gaming and boardgames, people are used to modern gamedesign since thats used in these places as well.
  • The clear rules are taken from Magic the gathering and most boardgames mirror these kind of wordings.
  • Giving all classes the same class structure to make it easier to understand and compare different characters is absolutely normal in computer games. Its used in LoL, DotA2, Overwatch etc.
  • Similar having easy to read rules with high contrast and lot of whitespace like 4E books have is common in boardgames and card games (if possible), especially since it also helps visually impaired people to have an easier time reading it.
• Dungeons and Dragons 5e has shown over time many flaws (some smaller, some bigger), and D&D 4E is often used to improve on this flaws. There are many content creators and forum discussions on reddit etc. where 4E mechanics are used to improve 5E.
• Several content creators who dismissed 4E initially, because they got caught in all the negativity surrounding it, gave it now an actual chance. Since many people who did not like 4E never really played it.
• EDIT: One thing I forgot: D&D 4E also did improve a lot over its duration. The most extreme case is the adventurers. The first ones were just not good at all. Later ones can be great. Additional a lot of things are added over time. Improved monsters, simple classes, more non combat powers/features (especially for martials) etc.

EDIT: Completly missed this:

Wyrdwood Wand by Candy Hammer Games

Wizardry and roleplaying! A fantasy game and campaign setting focusing on tactical team combat.

candyhammer.itch.io

Wyrdwood Wand looks cool! How closely does it use the 4e ideas?

Wyrdwood Wand is one of the games with most 4E influence in it.

• You have 3 different roles. Striker, defender and controller. (Not sure if Leader will also come)
  • And mechanics to make these roles work. Like good opportunity attacks, many control options etc.
• These 3 roles have huge influence
• You have typical the at will and encounter abilities. And a bit more flexible daily abilities. (You have a daily ressource which can be used to empower certain spells, but the empowerment is huge so it really makes spells of power level of daily spells)
• In general it uses some streamlining so spells have no level as an example. This also makes it easier to make lot of different classes etc.
• It has the split between combat spells and rituals with a big focus on the rituals
• Your level 1 is pretty similar to level 1 in 4E in terms of power
  • High starting health (and not too much health gained per level compared to it)
  • Already having several spells and some daily ressources as well as role feature to make you able to fulfill your role.
• It uses several 4E mechanics
  • It uses healing surges to limit healing and also allow healing without a leader
  • You add half your level to your proficiency
  • It uses several different defenses like tenacity, evasion etc.
  • You have a once per combat spend healing surge power
  • you have pushs, hindering terrain
  • Blasts and burst
• Representation of actions looks really similar with the boxes than 4E does.
• Monster stat blocks also look similar to 4E ones.
• Advancement is not class bound, but there are things which are similar to paragon paths (can only be selected if you have a certain "baseclass" (spell school).

So it is still a work in progress, but its already a cool game and looks really well done.

 

[mamba]

I dont get how the person instigating a huge unneeded discussion with tripple posts etc. and who states old flamebaits without any evidence (even after links disproving it are posted)

nothing was disproven, I explained several times that saying 4e sold more than PF1 has no relevance to whether 4e sold more than 3e. I am sure you can figure this one out too…

I agree that this has gone on long enough though, so unless either side has something new there is no point in continuing

 

[TheSword]

Well this is easy:

• There is now not anymore a full Pathfinder fangroup who hates on 4E as before. When Paizo first talked about 4E one designer stated "what I saw was so bad we had to make our own game" (in slightly different words). And the big Pathfinder community / paizo fans were annoyed with WOTC (because of stupid license which is fair), so there was a lot of negativity and repeated misinformation going on. (Like "Pathfinder outsold 4E4", "you need to half monster health and double damage in 4E", "4E is just like WoW" etc.).
  • Now with Pathfinder 2 being to big parts built on 4E design, even paizo indirectly aknowledges that 4E does indeed have good gamedesign. Also there main "enemy" is now 5E.
  • This can be really seen. There might still be lots of negativity against 4E here, but it is now possible to sometimes have 4E posts in other places (like reddit rpg), where no one brings old wrong 4E memes up!
• More people who are used to modern gamedesign are in the Hobby. 15 years ago there were %wise more people who never played a modern boardgame or computer game in RPGs than nowadays. So these big changes in 4E were for them really strange. Now with more people coming from other nerd hobbies like magic the gathering, gaming and boardgames, people are used to modern gamedesign since thats used in these places as well.
  • The clear rules are taken from Magic the gathering and most boardgames mirror these kind of wordings.
  • Giving all classes the same class structure to make it easier to understand and compare different characters is absolutely normal in computer games. Its used in LoL, DotA2, Overwatch etc.
  • Similar having easy to read rules with high contrast and lot of whitespace like 4E books have is common in boardgames and card games (if possible), especially since it also helps visually impaired people to have an easier time reading it.
• Dungeons and Dragons 5e has shown over time many flaws (some smaller, some bigger), and D&D 4E is often used to improve on this flaws. There are many content creators and forum discussions on reddit etc. where 4E mechanics are used to improve 5E.
• Several content creators who dismissed 4E initially, because they got caught in all the negativity surrounding it, gave it now an actual chance. Since many people who did not like 4E never really played it.

This post makes it clear that the antagonism clearly comes from both sides. I’ve never thought of any alternative system or its players as the ‘enemy’. Competitor is a much better word.

That list doesn’t seem easy at all.

I can see boredom with 5e being a reason people would seek alternatives. 4e being a possible one but it doesn’t explain why 4e is the one they chose rather than one of one of the many live systems.

Again you’re saying that Pathfinder 2 uses 4e concepts but in which case why not play Pathfinder 2 and if you don’t like Pathfinder 2 why you go back, unless it was specifically the 4e elements you like - which brings us back to the previous point.

Lack of haters doesn’t make sense to me. This thread has shown that hasn’t really changed. We played pathfinder because 4e wasn’t to our taste and we really liked Pathfinder. Taking Pathfinder away doesn’t change the first point. When it comes to us shouting down proponents of 4e I don’t see that. I see very specific bickering about points that don’t really have much to do with the game itself.

Clearer rules? Formatting aside (4e core books were horrendous to read - half of each book feels like it’s written in boxed text). I don’t see how that would make a person want to play the game over other systems. I find it hard to believe people are turning away from 5e because the rules aren’t clear. Corner cases aside. Plus there are many games simpler than 4e.

 

[mamba]

Ok, finally found a statement by Ben Riggs, not exactly the one I remember about every edition selling worse than the one before (with 3e and 3.5 as two editions), but similar enough

“BR: My understanding is that latter scenario is how we got 5th Edition. My understanding is that Third [Edition] does better than D&D was doing in the late 90s but it doesn't sell like Second [Edition]. 3.5 doesn't sell like Third [Edition].

And Fourth [Edition] was the “We’re going to bring new people” edition, and it did worse than 3.5.”

Ben Riggs & the Death of the Golden Age of TTRPGs - Pt 1 — GM Cellar

Ben Riggs is a tabletop RPG historian and author of the excellent and well-researched book, Slaying the Dragon: a Secret History of Dungeons and Dragons published by Macmillan in 2022. On January 3rd, Riggs shared a lengthy post on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit that was later shared on ENWorld in wh

www.gmcellar.com

 

[Aldarc]

Man, some folks are really, really invested in refusing to entertain the possibility that 4E might not have been so bad, in retrospect.

I genuinely don't understand why some people can't let it go. Hating takes a lot of work. And constantly coming into 4e threads to hate on it is just tiring, especially for other people who just want to talk about what they enjoy about it or the positive of the game. But maybe derailing a positive discussion about 4e is entirely the point.

So anyway here is a four hour video of Knights of the Last Call talking about 4e: what it did well, what it could have improved, its influence in other games, and how he would potentially do it differently.


I do like the idea presented here of distinguishing the "sameyness" of 4e by power source, so that you could tell that you were playing an Arcane class rather than a Divine class. You get some of that with Psionic, but it probably should have been there towards the beginning.

 

[Tigris]

How does in other editions like 5E divine classes be different from arcane classes?
For me wizard and cleric always felt not thaat different.
Both are just casters, just with different spell lists. Often with overlapping spells


When you compare pre essential (there class structures in general were more different) arcane classes to divine classes in 4E you have the following differences

• Divine classes all have the Channel Divinity feature. Which allows once per combat to use the power of 1 god.
• Each class has their complete own spell list
  • Divine spell lists have lots of radiant powers on it and not much elemental
    • Arcane are the other way round
  • Divine attacks often will (around 2 times as often as reflex and fortitude).
    • Arcane attacks often will and reflex (and less con)
  • Arcane spell lists have way more healing in general (Bard being a leader also needs some healing). Even on non leader classes. Same with temporary HP
• There are different feats for arcane and divine
  • Divine classes get unique feats for their different at wills being able to customize them
    • And many feats interacting with channel divinity
  • Arcane on the other hand has the possibility to get a familiar and a lot centered around that
    • And many feats interacting directly with spell casting
  • Different keywords like radiant or elemental (or healing) have feats which can be applied to them. So the above difference in spell list also makes here a difference.
• You can also have some different options for paragon paths and epic destiny
• And Divine classes normally have higher defenses (can use shield, better armor, have some armor of faith feature etc.)
• Arcane classes had more a focus on int as main stat (or charisma) where divine are more towards wisdom (and strength). This makes in 4E a bigger difference to other editions, since different defenses are linked to int and wis. Also other skills which have a bigger impact. (Ritual casting, and skill powers, and skill challenges as big mechanic).

I agree presentation wise it could be more different. To make it more obvious that these classes which have a common power source, also have some mechanical similarities.


Because these differences you only find when you know the system, and not when you just skip through one book. So other systems like PF2 make this more clear by calling something "the divine spell list" etc. And saying a class has access to it. This sounds different to "the arcane spell list" and people overflying the book will see this as difference where having just powers listed per level might look more similar. (Even though on a mechanical level in 5E and PF2 you also get to choose at the same levels new spells looking similar).

 

[Morrus]

I think it is much easier than this. He looked mostly at PHB1 sales for the different edition. And he states that "Riggs noted that the 4E PHB sold far less than the 3E PHBs". What happened here is just that 3E PHB1 and 3.5 PHB1 are counted together. This is exactly the point I saw elsewhere that 4E PHB sold more than 3E PHB and 3.5 PHB but less than both together. This easily explains all the points you brought up.



I fully understand why you removed one user from the discussion (and I am glad this back and forth has stopped). However I dont 100% understand why the person who was instigating a huge unneeded discussion with tripple posts etc. and who states old flamebaits without any evidence (even after links disproving it are posted) and just goes "oh the 4 people who actually saw the numbers and posted might be lying" could not also be removed, since it feels like this could just go on again.

Since I dont post this often: Does this mean its also ok to go into OSR discussions and claim that OSR is played almost only by alt rights, because this was written on blogpost I read? Or go into the D&D 2E discussions and say "How can you play a game with satanist influence?" Because thats also something I have read before. (And actually mirrors the D&D 4E is influenced by WoW being spread in this thread, since even though the lead designer said it was not, there might still be some other designer who read some satanic material (not because they believe but because designers read lots of different things!) which got them inspired for some material).

Of course its also on us to just not engage with such things (and I wont anymore), but for me both these users made this thread a lot harder to read and find actual useful information. (Or people asking a honest question to answer like the Wyrdwood Wand.)

So I dont question your decision. I just ask you to maybe also remove the other side to help this thread to not derail any further.

Do not address moderation in-thread. Please review the rules regarding this.

 

[Echohawk]

Ok, finally found a statement by Ben Riggs, not exactly the one I remember about every edition selling worse than the one before (with 3e and 3.5 as two editions), but similar enough​

I thank you for finally citing a source, but by his own admission Riggs is relying entirely on hearsay, and not at all on any actual sales figures, in making that claim.

Quoting from the article: "It's the only edition I have no numbers for. But every creator told me that that it sold worse than 3.5. And 3.5 sold worse than 3.0. And 3.0 sold worse than Second [Edition]. Second [Edition] sold worse than First [Edition] and there we are."

I hope that if Riggs does plan to publish a 3e/4e follow-up to Slaying the Dragon he is diligent enough to consider the digital sales of 4e products in any comparisons he does.

For the first nine months of 4E, WotC sold PDF versions of its books—everything up to and including the Player's Handbook 2—concurrently with the printed books. This practice stopped abruptly after the PHB2 in a knee-jerk reaction to piracy, but a fair comparison of sales across editions would, I hope, include those digital sales.

Then, we need to consider D&D Insider. That didn't have anywhere near the volumes of users that D&D Beyond has now, but for a monthly subscription fee of US$5.95, you could buy/rent access to all of the 4E content, so it was fairly popular for 4E fans. An analysis of the number of D&DI subscribers put the minimum at 80k in mid 2013. Compared to Riggs' sales estimate of 300k total 3.5 PHBs, that is a significant number.

Given this, unless we are agreeing to measure how well an edition sold based purely on the sales of printed books, 4E's digital sales seem relevant for comparison purposes.

Anecdotally, not one of the players in my 4E campaign bought a single printed book. But most of them paid for D&D Insider accounts. (The others borrowed the accounts of the ones who were paying.)​