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


log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
[*]According to his sources, the early versions of 4E were wildly different from not only what we eventually saw, but anything that had come before. Things like your damage dealt depending on if you rolled an odd number or an even one, etc. A lot of these were rolled back later on, but one thing that stayed popular from the get-go was the idea of implementing "cooldown" periods for powers. This eventually became the AED part of the AEDU suites of abilities.
I wouldn't be shocked if that "odd/even" mechanic came from Rob Heinsoo, since a similar mechanic exists (to general dislike) in 13th Age.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
That timeline seems not to match up so at first glance this seems an odd conclusion.

WoW in late 2004 does not really account for any underperformance of 3e stuff from 2000-2004.

I don't have the numbers and charts in front of me to say whether 3e started off matching AD&D but then 2004 was the start of a huge drop off that killed a huge continuing tail end of sales that had been the AD&D norm.

Could be, but not obvious without numbers showing that.

One big point for the AD&D 1.5 and 1 million copies sold each edition from the numbers presented here is also that it is a period from 1978(?)-2000, compared to the six year period of 3e sales data, which might be a little more than a million if the initial 3.0 period doubles the 3.0 sales as suggested.

I think the key quote is the Hasbro execs were of the opinion that WoW was eating their lunch.

There is a tendency for some executives to become focused on certain issues, whether it's a buzzword ("synergy," "leverage our core competencies,") or an en vogue strategy, (well, the pivot to video didn't work as we hoped, so let's look into generative AI! gotta sell more widgets...).

I don't know that the Hasbro executives were correct- they could have simply seen that World of Warcraft (which is D&Dish) was a massively successful MMORPG that was generating recurrent subscription revenue, and said ... "Hey, we want that!"
 

Pedantic

Legend
That timeline seems not to match up so at first glance this seems an odd conclusion.

WoW in late 2004 does not really account for any underperformance of 3e stuff from 2000-2004.

I don't have the numbers and charts in front of me to say whether 3e started off matching AD&D but then 2004 was the start of a huge drop off that killed a huge continuing tail end of sales that had been the AD&D norm.

Could be, but not obvious without numbers showing that.
I'd love to see a more detailed take on this with some more sources, because I agree that the dates don't line up...but I'm willing to believe that come 2004-2008 executive perception at WotC of the game might have leaned in to that narrative regardless of how unlikely it was.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think the key quote is the Hasbro execs were of the opinion that WoW was eating their lunch.

There is a tendency for some executives to become focused on certain issues, whether it's a buzzword ("synergy," "leverage our core competencies,") or an en vogue strategy, (well, the pivot to video didn't work as we hoped, so let's look into generative AI! gotta sell more widgets...).

I don't know that the Hasbro executives were correct- they could have simply seen that World of Warcraft (which is D&Dish) was a massively successful MMORPG that was generating recurrent subscription revenue, and said ... "Hey, we want that!"
Also WOW was the revenue model 4e set out to imitate with its subscription based character builder.

Of which the business strategy to make that model work is to keep printing player options.

I’m thinking there’s potentially a bit of separation between their monetization strategy and their game design strategy in relation to their WOWness.
 
Last edited:


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
@Alzrius i do gotta add that I think the comments about Ben does your article a disservice. And are not in my opinion and experience correct.
If you're referring to my second paragraph, I put that there because I'd made those points in some recent threads regarding Riggs' book, and I thought it'd be conspicuous if I brought up his seminar without taking my previous statements into account.

That said, I don't think it's controversial to say that works of history where the historians openly present their opinions about the people they're covering create the appearance of partisanship. Riggs' book is a definitely a valuable read, and is absolutely the best coverage to date of the Lorraine Williams years of TSR's history. And of course, he's a gifted writer with a talent for creating entertaining reading, as well as presenting a lot of valuable research (though I wish he'd stop having certain things appear only in his Twitter feed (or X feed, or whatever it's called now); seriously, Ben, put those charts in the book!).

But every time Riggs refers to Gary Gygax as "Saint Gary," it weakens his credibility as a historian. I know a lot of people like to say that "objectivity" doesn't exist, since everything is filtered through the lens of perception, but that doesn't mean that it's not valuable to at least try to check our own biases (at least when writing a history book), rather than openly indulging in them.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Can you describe how that mechanic works?
It’s been a while since I looked at it, but fighters could pick various talents (a class specific modular choice kinda like a feat), and some those triggered on odd or even rolls (odd or even determined by dice roll only, not modifiers). A few of them were even more specific, like only rolls that hit that were also even.
 


Remove ads

Top