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

[Red Castle]

People are still riled.
The rile has not abated.
Such riling has never been known, in any kingdom.
It was, “The Rilinging”.

Yep, it's been 15 years and yet... just from a post someone made a week ago in a DnD group on Facebook. The guy said that he wanted to learn about 4e and was looking for recommendation about good french video to watch because he can't find some. Here's some of the answers he got (translated from french):

-''You won't find a lot of players for this edition. This explain that'' to which someone answered that 4e actually sold well, better than pathfinder. He got this answer: ''Pathfinder sold well because it's good, 4e sold because there was DnD written on it. LoL''

-''4e has never been popular. Good luck in your search''

-''Don't lose your time with 4e. It was bad from A to Z'' Someone told him that there is always at least something good to take away, to which he simply replied: ''I played it, it's bad end of story''

Then there is the usual backhand compliments:

-''A lot of good ideas in a game that should not have been called DnD''

-''Not the best, but it brought World of Warcraft fans (in theory)''

And it's the same story everytime someone dare mentioning 4e. It's been 15 years, some people need to let go... it's kind of sad actually...

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I rather prefer stout .. but wtf is oyster milk???
TomB

 

[payn]

I think what is personally frustrating for many of us is that (right or wrong) the market performance of a game released 15 years ago where numerous poor business decisions were made is used as a referendum on design concepts that matter to us without regard to execution and presentation. It's a call to suck it up because we are not worthy of having a game that suits our preferences. Sit down. Shut up. Be happy with what you are given. There is no room in this big tent for you unless you give up on the things you want.

I know there is little sympathy for 3E/OSR fans because they had Pathfinder etc.., but at the time of 4E launch "suck it up because we are not worthy of having a game that suits our preferences. Sit down. Shut up. Be happy with what you are given" was used against them. I fully understand that 4E was on its back foot from the moment it launched, so folks had to fight hard to defend it. Though, a lot of those defenders were very arrogant and elitist about it. Many still are to this day.

Things like tight system math with robust encounter and monster/NPC building, mechanically compelling martial classes, meaningful and binding non-combat features and rules for stuff that is not magic, high level martial classes that feel suitably high level, class design built with synergy and coordination in mind, setting design built with conflict in mind and other features we consider important are treated as if they are already settled matters that are not dependent on execution, presentation and a fluid market that is fundamentally not the market of 2008.

Devil is in the details on these general ideals. How it is accomplished is much more difficult. There can always be too much 4E in D&D and never enough at the same time for the fan base. Designers have to grapple with that chestnut a newly forged sacred cow thanks to the E wars.

It’s not that people are saying, “4th edition rules were not to my taste, for these reasons, and so I avoid that edition.” It’s not that people are saying, “4th edition was unsuccessful for these reasons.”

Funny thing is now, folks are saying 5E sucks, but just got "real lucky with its success for these reasons." This is the edition war now where validity and worth are measured only in success. Another new sacred cow?

In my opinion whatever people think of 4E isn't interesting. Feel free to hate it or love it as much as you like. My chief concern is how 4E is always used as an argument in certain discussions as a reason for why we cannot use method X or Y to solve a particular problem, because X or Y is vaguely similar to something in 4E and since 4E is bad (apparently) doing X or Y is also bad.

Some of that is covered above. If you let up on 4E for a second, you invite it back into the tent. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying.
Though, I want to take a moment and discuss e war terminology trap that folks fall into. The words "problem" and "solution" are very loaded. In this thread or one adjacent we had some one post, "you people wanted this problem solved, but then had the audacity to reject the solution". 4E fans and non-fans alike are not a monolith. Problems in D&D are often one of perspective. Not every problem is universal, and not every solution is the best/only answer. If you "fix" something you could be breaking something else. Folks often want their pet peeves addressed and don't care about the results for anyone else. Which is why I try to understand others perspectives and only speak for myself on these edition topics.

I dont envy the designers at all. You have to gauge the desire for things to be changed and the impact on all of those decisions. You also have to present in a way that is not 4E at all, but also totally 4E. Dammed if you do dammed if you dont.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Some of that is covered above. If you let up on 4E for a second, you invite it back into the tent. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying.
Though, I want to take a moment and discuss e war terminology trap that folks fall into. The words "problem" and "solution" are very loaded. In this thread or one adjacent we had some one post, "you people wanted this problem solved, but then had the audacity to reject the solution". 4E fans and non-fans alike are not a monolith. Problems in D&D are often one of perspective. Not every problem is universal, and not every solution is the best/only answer. If you "fix" something you could be breaking something else. Folks often want their pet peeves addressed and don't care about the results for anyone else. Which is why I try to understand others perspectives and only speak for myself on these edition topics.

My argument holds even discarding the use of the words problem and solution. Even doing something like saying that perhaps D&D 5E should have more balanced classes opens up the common counterattack: "4E was balanced and it was bad, so we don't want balance here"

 

[payn]

My argument holds even discarding the use of the words problem and solution. Even doing something like saying that perhaps D&D 5E should have more balanced classes opens up the common counterattack: "4E was balanced and it was bad, so we don't want balance here"

Perhaps rethink your approach to the topic? If you say I want 4E balance in 5E you've already loaded the topic. If you take the time to describe what you mean, and somebody tries to take it to 4E, then diffuse it. I find if you aim for the middle and leave editions out of it, you get a pretty good discussion. Many opening OPs, on both for 4E and against it, open with incendiary statements that poison the well from the get go.

 

[Autumnal]

To be fair, I don’t consider any movie after Star Wars (a.k.a. “Episode IV: A New Hope”) as canon.

Darth Vader is NOT Luke’s father.

folds arms and scowls

I’m with you. It wasn’t in Leigh Brackett’s early drafts of Empire and it was an unwise addition.

 

[cavalier973]

I’m with you. It wasn’t in Leigh Brackett’s early drafts of Empire and it was an unwise addition.

Not to derail this excellent thread too much, but the Emperor was not a Sith Lord, or even a Force user. Tarkin made it clear that Darth Vader was the only Force user left.

 

[payn]

Not to derail this excellent thread too much, but the Emperor was not a Sith Lord, or even a Force user. Tarkin made it clear that Darth Vader was the only Force user left.

Ohhhh a good one of the nitpick thread.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Perhaps rethink your approach to the topic? If you say I want 4E balance in 5E you've already loaded the topic. If you take the time to describe what you mean, and somebody tries to take it to 4E, then diffuse it. I find if you aim for the middle and leave editions out of it, you get a pretty good discussion. Many opening OPs, on both for 4E and against it, open with incendiary statements that poison the well from the get go.

You can typically find these comments I'm referring to pop up in every balance discussion. Nobody has been talking about 4E they've just been saying, like, 5E is kinda imbalanced (feel free to disagree with this statement) can we do something about that, and then out of nowhere this guy comes in saying, well uh can't do balance because 4E did balance and 4E was bad so can't do it no.

Whether or not 5E is imbalanced or not isn't even the point. People are simply using 4E as an argument for why balance itself is bad.

 

[payn]

You can typically find these comments I'm referring to pop up in every balance discussion. Nobody has been talking about 4E they've just been saying, like, 5E is kinda imbalanced (feel free to disagree with this statement) can we do something about that, and then out of nowhere this guy comes in saying, well uh can't do balance because 4E did balance and 4E was bad so can't do it no.

Whether or not 5E is imbalanced or not isn't even the point. People are simply using 4E as an argument for why balance itself is bad.

Well, I see two types in this. The first is the type that dont want no 4E in their D&D. They are just going to rinse and repeat their comment. After an exchange or two you can realize there wont be any nuance in that discussion and you should disengage. The second type, is that person who may or may not have the problem and is concerned about the solution. Remember last time they were told to just shut up and accept it, kind of like 4E fans feel now. This is the type that will have a nuanced discussion. Foster the latter, ignore the former.