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

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's unfortunate, but in my experience I have seen 4e proponents that give the strong impression that it's not possible to dislike 4e if you understand how it works, and that's just not true.

Well, I think everyone has their biases and you're probably more sensitive to mine, and vice-versa, than we are to our own. I mean that's generally how things work, right? OTOH I've played 1000's of hours of ACTUAL OS play, Trad D&D play, what I would consider probably Neo-Trad D&D play, and narrativist/story now D&D play. I can be sure my opinions were at least formed on the basis of deep familiarity with them all. So I admit, when I talk to people who skimmed the 4e books for an hour and maybe played once, etc. I don't feel like that makes them as qualified to comment, perhaps? It doesn't make them wrong, nor foolish, etc. It just means I am likely to take less note of them than of people with the most rounded experience. At least in my circle all of those people appreciate 4e a good bit, though I don't think all of them are necessarily die hard fans of the game or want to play it more at this point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I think everyone has their biases and you're probably more sensitive to mine, and vice-versa, than we are to our own. I mean that's generally how things work, right? OTOH I've played 1000's of hours of ACTUAL OS play, Trad D&D play, what I would consider probably Neo-Trad D&D play, and narrativist/story now D&D play. I can be sure my opinions were at least formed on the basis of deep familiarity with them all. So I admit, when I talk to people who skimmed the 4e books for an hour and maybe played once, etc. I don't feel like that makes them as qualified to comment, perhaps? It doesn't make them wrong, nor foolish, etc. It just means I am likely to take less note of them than of people with the most rounded experience. At least in my circle all of those people appreciate 4e a good bit, though I don't think all of them are necessarily die hard fans of the game or want to play it more at this point.

It is all relative. Most of the people I've gamed with, past and present, have played enough 4e to have a decent handle on it (it was the current D&D for several years after all), and none of them really cared for it. They all either went back to older editions or moved on to 5e as soon as it was available. I think a lot of folks are more accepting of different playstyles in RPGs when those RPGs aren't called D&D, with everything that legacy entails. That's basically how I feel.

 

[Mistwell]

Only because it's not yet in the final product, set in stone, from what I've heard.

The first debate was about a playtest idea from the beta test of 2014 I think?

 

[Hussar]

That's unfortunate, but in my experience I have seen 4e proponents that give the strong impression that it's not possible to dislike 4e if you understand how it works, and that's just not true.

I’d argue there’s a bit more nuance than that.

A: I don’t like 4e because of X.

B: can you explain why you don’t like it?

A: I don’t like it because of A, B and C.

B: well that kinda explains it. Those things aren’t really part of X. You’ve added that on your own as well as misinterpreting this bit. If you instead do this, then all your problems go away.

A: You insufferable jerk! How dare you suggest that I’m doing anything wrong. You are badwrongfunning me and you hate gaming!!!! Raugggghhhh!

Is typically how the conversation goes.

 

[Mistwell]

That's unfortunate, but in my experience I have seen 4e proponents that give the strong impression that it's not possible to dislike 4e if you understand how it works, and that's just not true.

Yeah I have seen those claims too. We have a couple here, but they don't harass people these days.

 

[Aldarc]

The first debate was about a playtest idea from the beta test of 2014 I think?

That's before there was a 5e that was set in stone. That's also in close proximity to the Edition Wars, so it was probably fresh on people's minds. Most 5e players nowadays have little to no knowledge/experience of the D&D Next playtests or even the Edition Wars.

 

[Imaro]

That is not what people are objecting to, and I think you know that. It went FAR beyond just the merits of the feature as a prospective part of 5e.

But even just in terms of 5e, who are you to care what additions to 5e other people have to use in their games? Even just taken at that level it is inherently a fairly uncharitable position, at best. You don't have to play one, allow one in games you GM, nor even play in games where it is allowed at all if you don't wish. It wouldn't even have been a core part of 5e, which is already out there and set in stone, you all won THAT little vicious battle LONG AGO.

If you're speaking to me personally neither DoaM or Warlords have been in my issues with 4e... SC's, combat length, over abundance of powers, necessities in order to play the tactical combat of 4e, DC treadmill and a few others are the problems I had with the game...

My point is that playing the victim over 4e is getting a little tired at this point especially since the books as well as Dragon and Dungeon are all available now. 4e fans have enough material available to play for years (certainly more than 5e fans have at this point) but thats still not good enough... Its like if one doesn't agree that they like everything in 4e and it's the greatest D&D evah!!! There's a group on here who paints you as victmizing/edition warring/whatever... even in threads about 4e's problems... here they come to defend the game from any type of disparagement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is another one I've definitely seen on reddit. Not sure what it is about crunchy tactics games, but I read a lot of replies along the lines of "actually you think this because you're bad at the game / haven't played the game" when voicing dissatisfaction with PF2, 4e, or Lancer.

I won't speak for Lancer or 4e, but I've certainly seen people say things about PF2e that were sufficiently counterfactual that assuming they haven't played the game is the charitable assumption. ("Bad at the game" on the other hand is just playing the same form of the dozens as "Git gud" is in the video game sphere).

 

[Justice and Rule]

My point is that playing the victim over 4e is getting a little tired at this point especially since the books as well as Dragon and Dungeon are all available now. 4e fans have enough material available to play for years (certainly more than 5e fans have at this point) but thats still not good enough... Its like if one doesn't agree that they like everything in 4e and it's the greatest D&D evah!!!

I mean, then you can just not go into the Older D&D forum and not post in these threads. This isn't like someone invading a PF2 Release topic saying how they should have never moved on. Instead, this is in a forum dedicated to talking about older D&D editions, surprisingly enough, talking about Older D&D Editions. If talking about 4E irritates you as such, then don't. I'm not a fan of 5E anymore, so typically I don't involve myself in those topics unless Wizards has done something notably boneheaded that I want to comment on. It's not that hard to do, and yet somehow people always seem to find their ways to 4E topics...

There's a group on here who paints you as victmizing/edition warring/whatever... even in threads about 4e's problems...

I mean, here's the thing: this thread isn't actually about its problems with gameplay, perceived or otherwise. If we look back at the first post, it's talking about the problems in the development process of 4E. And yet, 300+ pages later, it has somehow turned into a discussion about what people don't like about 4E. Weird how that seems to happen...

here they come to defend the game from any type of disparagement.

But have they? I feel like 4E people are way more open to talking about the problems with the game, especially things like the problems with monster math and such that hurt the early releases. 4E people seem to only get irked when people bring the classic arguments of "This doesn't fit my playstyle, thus it is fundamentally flawed and also not D&D."

 

[Red Castle]

I'm sure that person is at least being honest about their feelings, although they could have been more clear about it being their opinion. 4e doesn't feel like D&D to them.

Maybe you missed the first post where I talk about it. The problem is not that he hate 4e or that he thinks it doesn’t feel like DnD, this I don’t care. It’s that it was unrelated to the question of the OP. The OP said that he was looking for video to learn about 4e, not what people thought about it. But somehow, everytime someone speak about 4e, there is a couple of person who feel the need to say how much they hated it. A couple weeks ago, I shared a table I thought was funny from the 4e Draconomicon about kobold reaction if they get a PC down… well what do you know, someone felt the need to say that absolutely nothing coming from 4e is worth it… right… very constructive…

It’s this urge that some people feel to say how much they hated 4e when it’s not even related to the topic… it gets tiresome. I don’t think I saw it often here, that’s why I take the time to discuss things here, I feel like it’s a respectful place, plus there is a good moderation, but man, in other DnD place, it can gets ugly… even 15 years later… and I don’t see that much hate towards other edition. Sure, here and there it will happen, but never at the scale of the hate that some people have toward 4e… I don’t know, like I said, it’s pretty sad actually…