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

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...
I think that's a pretty big part of why 4E ran into troubled waters: it wasn't that everyone who bounced off of it had the same issues with the same things, but there were so many things thst people would often bounce off of, that combined made it highly probsvle any given player would.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think that's a pretty big part of why 4E ran into troubled waters: it wasn't that everyone who bounced off of it had the same issues with the same things, but there were so many things thst people would often bounce off of, that combined made it highly probsvle any given player would.
and misery loves company.
 

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.
Could be, I mean it is beyond any shadow of a doubt true that people who were playing 3.x would have simply never even heard of, let alone cared one lick about, 4e if it had been published by "Giant Fantasy Brain Books" and was called "Heroic Adventures" or something. It would have sold the obligatory 3-5 thousand copies and gone right out of print, like 97% of all other heartbreakers. That's just the reality, TTRPG is a tiny industry which basically has room for one dominant product, which has ALWAYS been D&D, it got there first, and it is unlikely to ever be replaced in that spot, despite some people wishing the contrary. So, what pleased me immensely was being able to have a slightly different take on D&D that could actually be high enough profile that I could count on having players. Even today at least people know what it is and it's actually quite easy to find people to play with. None of that would be true for some off-brand version, nor would it have gotten 20+ supplements, etc.

And, honestly, 'legacy' TO ME is not much of a word. I have my Holme's Basic book, my LBBs and supplements, my 1e and 2e books, I can play those anytime I want. I don't need every new D&D game to slavishly stick to the letter of whatever was decreed in 1974 on the back of a napkin. So the entire argument that it is some 'betrayal' or something (note @Imaro's statements) is ludicrous in my mind. WotC owes nothing to older editions, they stand on their own. Heck nowadays they'll even sell you PDFs of large parts of the TSR back catalog!
 

Could be, I mean it is beyond any shadow of a doubt true that people who were playing 3.x would have simply never even heard of, let alone cared one lick about, 4e if it had been published by "Giant Fantasy Brain Books" and was called "Heroic Adventures" or something. It would have sold the obligatory 3-5 thousand copies and gone right out of print, like 97% of all other heartbreakers. That's just the reality, TTRPG is a tiny industry which basically has room for one dominant product, which has ALWAYS been D&D, it got there first, and it is unlikely to ever be replaced in that spot, despite some people wishing the contrary. So, what pleased me immensely was being able to have a slightly different take on D&D that could actually be high enough profile that I could count on having players. Even today at least people know what it is and it's actually quite easy to find people to play with. None of that would be true for some off-brand version, nor would it have gotten 20+ supplements, etc.

And, honestly, 'legacy' TO ME is not much of a word. I have my Holme's Basic book, my LBBs and supplements, my 1e and 2e books, I can play those anytime I want. I don't need every new D&D game to slavishly stick to the letter of whatever was decreed in 1974 on the back of a napkin. So the entire argument that it is some 'betrayal' or something (note @Imaro's statements) is ludicrous in my mind. WotC owes nothing to older editions, they stand on their own. Heck nowadays they'll even sell you PDFs of large parts of the TSR back catalog!
I think the D&D market has two general camps. The casual player who doesn’t need an onslaught of supplements and complexity, and the hard core that does. 3E and 4E tried to cater to the latter, 5E did not.

Folks may wonder where the fans of complexity and supplement go and I think the answer is pathfinder going forward. Not everybody is going to like that.
 

I think the D&D market has two general camps. The casual player who doesn’t need an onslaught of supplements and complexity, and the hard core that does. 3E and 4E tried to cater to the latter, 5E did not.

Folks may wonder where the fans of complexity and supplement go and I think the answer is pathfinder going forward. Not everybody is going to like that.
Yeah, PF2e I don't know a TON about in detail, but what I do know didn't excite me THAT much. 4e has a unique combination of simplicity that reveals layers of complex play beneath that really appeals to a lot of us. I'm NOT BTW a 'fan of complexity' at all. In fact I prefer games with simple rules. Dungeon World is a great game, the actual rules are incredibly simple and you can learn them all in 30 minutes. 4e is not quite THAT simple, but it sheared away a lot of cruft and did that 'simply complex' thing pretty well.
 

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...
Where did I say talking about 4e irritated me? I'm fine talking about it though what I'm saying seems to have struck a nerve with you for some reason

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... :unsure:

Yes because problems in development would in no way affect gameplay... and thus whether people did or did not enjoy certain aspects... would they?:unsure:

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."
Only if what you don't like or feel are problems in the game align with what they feel are the problems... thats not discussion that's falling in line and agreeing.
 


Yeah, PF2e I don't know a TON about in detail, but what I do know didn't excite me THAT much. 4e has a unique combination of simplicity that reveals layers of complex play beneath that really appeals to a lot of us. I'm NOT BTW a 'fan of complexity' at all. In fact I prefer games with simple rules. Dungeon World is a great game, the actual rules are incredibly simple and you can learn them all in 30 minutes. 4e is not quite THAT simple, but it sheared away a lot of cruft and did that 'simply complex' thing pretty well.
I think it does a lot of what 4E does but isn’t a copy. Though it also has epic level play without bounded accuracy, an over abundance of classes, monthly adventures, and is ever expanding. Essentially an alternative to 5E in every category.
 

I think the D&D market has two general camps. The casual player who doesn’t need an onslaught of supplements and complexity, and the hard core that does. 3E and 4E tried to cater to the latter, 5E did not.

Folks may wonder where the fans of complexity and supplement go and I think the answer is pathfinder going forward. Not everybody is going to like that.

Maybe. Probably. I mean, it seems like there's a rather decent market for "D&D but with more" right now as it feels like some people kind of age out of trying to make 5E what they want it to be.

Yeah, PF2e I don't know a TON about in detail, but what I do know didn't excite me THAT much. 4e has a unique combination of simplicity that reveals layers of complex play beneath that really appeals to a lot of us. I'm NOT BTW a 'fan of complexity' at all. In fact I prefer games with simple rules. Dungeon World is a great game, the actual rules are incredibly simple and you can learn them all in 30 minutes. 4e is not quite THAT simple, but it sheared away a lot of cruft and did that 'simply complex' thing pretty well.

PF2 is very much sits between 3E, 4E, and 5E when it comes to mechanics and such. It doesn't directly copy 4E as much as it takes a lot of its lessons to heart and puts their own spin on them. I don't think it'll be a real substitute for what 4E was and how wild some of the powers were, at least until you get to later levels (which would probably be my biggest critique: there are some really awesome powers, but they should really move up the feat leveling schedule by like 5 levels). I really love it, but I don't think it's fully in the vein of 4E like Lancer or 13th Age aspire to be.

Where did I say talking about 4e irritated me? I'm fine talking about it though what I'm saying seems to have struck a nerve with you for some reason

Dude, my quote of you was you whining about 4E people having a "victim complex" or something. You might want to check yourself a bit there, because we're only a few steps away from a real "I'm not mad, please don't tell people I'm mad" situation.

Yes because problems in development would in no way affect gameplay... and thus whether people did or did not enjoy certain aspects... would they?:unsure:

I mean, that's as much a leap as saying "Mike Mearls did some shady stuff, so I'm going to talk about how many problems 5E has". Just because we can create a thread between them doesn't suddenly mean that it's what the topic is about. It's almost like people who want to s*** on 4E find ways of turning the topic into the same old fights over and over and over...

Only if what you don't like or feel are problems in the game align with what they feel are the problems... thats not discussion that's falling in line and agreeing.

That's largely because people are trying to put in their own personal preferences as flaws of the game, rather than simply recognizing them as such. People talking about things are "nonsensical" while refusing to engage with the logic the system works under is exactly that sort of thing. It'd be the same if I were to try and say "5E sucks because it doesn't do big numbers", since 5E was trying to avoid that, and people would be right say that I'm simply putting my personal preference in there and not engaging with the actual stated design goals of the game.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Top