4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Ariosto]

oops

[Branduil]

I don't think there's any need to play this passive-aggressive game. Please, tell us how you really feel about 4e.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

The conversion issue provides a fairly objective measure of difference. I can take a module written for any major pre-3E version of D&D and use it with any other -- with few (if any) substantive changes. Introduction of a "foreign" player-character may entail a bit more work, but conversion is largely just a matter of noting race, class, level and ability scores, then applying game factors derived from those in the rules set at hand.

Conversion between AD&D and 3E can be a bit tricky, especially as levels get higher; I find it easier to go from 3E to AD&D than vice-versa. How about conversion between 3E and 4E? As I recall, the advice from Wizards was strongly to start with all new 1st-level characters rather attempt to convert a campaign from 3E to 4E.

The acid test: How about conversion between AD&D and 4E?

Maybe you have a different standard than I have. That's fine! It's not up to either of us how Hasbro uses the Dungeons & Dragons trademark. By that (even more objective, if arbitrary) standard, 4E is certainly D&D; so is the movie featuring Jeremy Irons.

I agree with this completely. I have a campaign where I have carried characters through 3 editions of D&D. When 4e was released it was virtually impossible to convert characters.

4e is as different from earlier D&D as any of the competitors. If I am going to use a different rules system than D&D I am going to go to a tried and true one like warhammer. 4e is pretty much D&D in name alone. To some it is true D&D sure, but when compared to the D&D game before it, 4e is radically different.

Again the squeaky wheels got the grease.

[Ariosto]

It's a fun board game, but not what I look for in a role-playing game. By the measure of what D&D means to me, it can only be terribly disappointing -- so I do not judge it by that standard!

"4DVENTURE" is sort of a nifty name, except that it sounds like a compact sedan.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Again the squeaky wheels got the grease.

Or you can say that the issues that a majority of people saw as concerns, either through reading 6-8 years of message boards, or surveys, got the grease.

Generally, squeaky wheels are in the minority. I very much doubt that the number crunchers at WOTC and Hasbro would make changes that would only support a minority of the people.

Originally Posted by Ariosto

It's a fun board game, but not what I look for in a role-playing game. By the measure of what D&D means to me, it can only be terribly disappointing -- so I do not judge it by that standard!

Please... 4e is just as much D&D and just as role-play intensive as 1E or 3E. Its all in the way the people around the table, players and DM, like their roleplaying. It may be a nice boardgame for you, but to someone like me, they added some great tactical elements to my RPG and now I have the best of both worlds.

[Branduil]

I don't really see how 4e inhibits role-playing any more than any previous edition.

[Treebore]

I played 3E for about 5 years, and thought I liked it better than previous editions of D&D. Then I went back to an old school type of play, IE very simple core rules, and added in a skill system and my version of feats, and I haven't been this happy playing RPG's since I started.

I tried 4E for two months, almost making 4th level, and it didn't come close to being as fun for me as my old school playing has been, so I am not interested in 4E.

There are plenty of fans of 4E, it just so happens I am not one of them.

I am NOT saying the system sucks, or anything like that, I am just saying it fails to give me the fun I experience with what I do play. Which is the same reason I don't play GURPS, Rolemaster, HARP, Savage Worlds, True 20, etc... They are not bad systems, they just don't give me the same degree of fun that I get out of my favorite game. Yes, I have played each of them, and will again if I have the time and like the people playing. Its why I am playing Warhammer in fact. I don't like the rules, but I like the people and have enough fun for it to be worth my time playing.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I agree with this completely. I have a campaign where I have carried characters through 3 editions of D&D. When 4e was released it was virtually impossible to convert characters.

I'm curious: what characters couldn't you convert?

If 3e is distinguished by anything (and it has many points of distinguishment), it is by the vast array of options it has. If you try to convert a 3e character to an AD&D character, you're going to find it extremely difficult except in a few limited instances.

4e doesn't have those options (yet), so it's no surprise that the Incarnate has no direct comparison in 4e. For the Wizard, there's a bunch of stuff in Arcane Power which will make conversion easier, but as the designers were trying to change the Wizard to make it less of the "I can do everything!" class, it's no surprise that the 3e Wizard will have options that the 4e Wizard will never have. Even so, I can convert my AD&D magic-user to a 4e Wizard and feel that I'm in the same ballpark. It helps that my signature spells were fireball and lightning bolt!

4e is as different from earlier D&D as any of the competitors.

Hmm. That's a very big - and inaccurate - generalisation. Would you really say that 4e is as different from 3e as, say, the White Wolf storyteller games are from 3e?

4e keeps the core of what every edition of D&D has used: Your level determines your attack bonus. You then roll a d20, which is then compared to a defensive score (AC), that inflicts damage in hit points. You fight at full effectiveness until your hit points run out, and then you fall unconscious or die.

The other part of "core D&D" is the concept of class/levels: you have a class which you gain levels in, and higher levels give you greater power.

Everything else is window dressing. Every edition has had different takes on what you add to those core concepts. Look at the vast number of 3e classes that try very different things: Incarnate, Binder, Warblade, Psion. Are they all D&D? Surely so - but they have very different takes on how things work.

I've been playing a bunch of 4e without using miniatures or a board; it works pretty much as well as 1e did so, which is to say, there are times when you need to trust the DM's view of where everyone is and what people can do. Roleplaying? A lot of that, and we have tools to aid it mechanically if we want to use them.

Cheers!

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Or you can say that the issues that a majority of people saw as concerns, either through reading 6-8 years of message boards, or surveys, got the grease.

Generally, squeaky wheels are in the minority. I very much doubt that the number crunchers at WOTC and Hasbro would make changes that would only support a minority of the people.

I certainly do not have that faith in WOTC. The number crunchers at WOTC took a risk at changing the game to be more suitable for casual gamers, with mechanics and tactics similar to the video game. Only on the internet do I find people that think 4e was an improvement over 3rd edition D&D. I talk to alot of gamers.

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Please... 4e is just as much D&D and just as role-play intensive as 1E or 3E. Its all in the way the people around the table, players and DM, like their roleplaying. It may be a nice boardgame for you, but to someone like me, they added some great tactical elements to my RPG and now I have the best of both worlds.

Just like character roles have always existed (just not so obviously labeled as City of Heroes or WoW roles) that same tactical element has always been in D&D. I certainly used it. 4e simplified things to make it simply unattractive. Roots of WOTC are in CCG's and they managed to merge that concept mixed with D&D miniatures to make a simplified version of D&D.

SO that I do not multipost, a quote was made as too what characters I cannot convert to 4e.

The answer is simply none of them. No characters convert well.

Rangers are no longer mystical, they are martial.
The wizard is nerfed, and the spells would not convert well
The fighter is pigeon holed into his defender role (Really? Only Defender? Since when?)

The cleric and rogue I might be able to convert, but it would not convert well. The spirit of the classes has changed.

I have had no problem converting characters from previous editions between each other. With tweaking it can be done.

4e conversion is closer to homogenization.

[ehren37]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I have had straight class fighters use only daggers. In fact this is an EXTREMELY common fighter type. I have encountered it often. One time granted it was a fighter mage bladesinger. The 3rd edition I am running now, currently has a straight class fighter who has all specializations in the throwing daggers. I am sure a min maxer would label him 'Stupid".

Most sane people would as well. Sort of like the fireman who doesnt wear protective gear because he's tough. I've long ago tired of "edgy" characters who rely on using weak options as crutches.

No hardly everyone min/maxes. I would not even say MOST players min/max. The character concept has always been more important. I have seen many occasions when the min maxer of the group would complain about someone's character choice. There is playing for min.max, and then there is the character concept.

And then there's playing a well designed character well. You know, like what you do after you get bored of the guy who fights with d3 weapons and the mage who only memorizes the worst possible spells to get attention.

There are plenty of tournament style modules that did not allow for this. When the cleric and wizard were done, and the rest of the party was good, we would often push on. You cannot say that once the cleric or wizard is done it is over.

Tournament modules also kept score, and were hardly indicitive of normal play. As to going on when the party was out of spells, I frankly do not believe you. When you're out of healing, you rest, unless something absoloutely prevents you from tossing a rope trick, spiking a dungeon door or retreating. You can say your party ran around naked, with 2 HP and nothing but a pointy stick to attack with all you want. I can also call hogwash. Out of spells meant you quit, unless your DM is going out of his way to play with kidskin gloves.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Rangers are no longer mystical, they are martial.

Interesting. In AD&D, Rangers were martial (only) until 8th level when they started getting a small number of druid and magic-user spells. I would keep this spirit by having a ranger take the Ritual Caster feat.

The wizard is nerfed, and the spells would not convert well

Yes. The Wizard is nerfed. Good.

The fighter is pigeon holed into his defender role (Really? Only Defender? Since when?)

Fighter is a defender with parts of striker if they go 2-handed weapon and take the "lots of damage" exploits. They've never, ever been a leader or controller. The only area where I think they're weaker is as ranged combatants; most "fighter-archer" characters I would convert as straight rangers without difficulty.

The cleric and rogue I might be able to convert, but it would not convert well. The spirit of the classes has changed.

Yes, the cleric is actually well-thought out rather than being Mr Healer.

The Rogue... I fail to see how they've changed much since 3e. Sneaky and able to deal with traps? Check. Able to sneak attack? Check. Looks very much like a 3e rogue to me.

4e conversion is closer to homogenization.

There's a little truth in that as the number of options for certain characters have been reduced... although it becomes a lot less true once the expansion books are taken into account.

[ehren37]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I have been Dming since 1982, so I am behind you. I never remember a single player feeling less effective because of their CLASS. Maybe abilities, magic items, on occasion WIzard specialty class, but never due to class. Oh yeah... It happened with one of my friends Billy Stacy for the 1st edition MONK. Other than that, I have not experienced the compaint.



I never let humans multiclass in the 1st edition, but I completely did away with level restriction. I thought that attempt at balance was ridiculous. With that said, I DM'd plenty of straight class fighters, and plenty of Fighter/Cleric/MagicUsers. It depended on what the player wanted. Most players had a concept in mind before they rolled up the characters (not saying that yours did not.)

I have never as a fighter felt less effective. In fact I was often the party leader.

So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?

Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I certainly do not have that faith in WOTC. The number crunchers at WOTC took a risk at changing the game to be more suitable for casual gamers, with mechanics and tactics similar to the video game. Only on the internet do I find people that think 4e was an improvement over 3rd edition D&D. I talk to alot of gamers.

Then your experience is much different than mine. Most of the gamers I know aren't internet gamers or forum readers. Most are just guys and girls that play D&D and don't have the same level of fandom as a user that spends their time on D&D related boards.

And most of them like 4e D&D. Sure, I know some that prefer older editions, but I would hardly say they are the majority.

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Just like character roles have always existed (just not so obviously labeled as City of Heroes or WoW roles) that same tactical element has always been in D&D. I certainly used it. 4e simplified things to make it simply unattractive. Roots of WOTC are in CCG's and they managed to merge that concept mixed with D&D miniatures to make a simplified version of D&D.

How do you define "simplified"? I can still run a challenging and satisfying game in 4e, and rules allow for that. Yes, the rules have streamlined some things and for some, well, that isn't what they wanted. I can understand that.

I believe that they made some mechanics more elegant. If by that definition, then yes they have been simplified. If you mean "dumbed down", I respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

4e conversion is closer to homogenization.

Homogenization? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

homogeneity - the quality of being similar or comparable in kind or nature;
homogeneity - the quality of being of uniform throughout in composition or structure

The 4e classes are far from similar to each other. Even same roles within the same power source feel different. Just ask a 4e Rogue player and a 4e Ranger player.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by ehren37

So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?

Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...

Well, that 15th level thief's multiclass equivalent is going to be more like a 11/11 thief/wizard (going by the 2e XP tables). He's got a x4 on his backstab instead of x5 of the single class, his thief skills are typically about 15-20 points lower, and has no armor options if he wants to be able to cast his spells. His hit points are lower. His saves are marginally better but that has more to do with thief saves being abysmal all through 1e/2e.
He's got a lot of potent choices but, like all multiclass characters, they're all filtered through a single character's actions.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by kibbitz

Your example is a tad confusing, since you seem to be talking about power selection rather than magic items, which is no different from casters picking out spells from their spell list. For the magic items being in the PHB, it makes me see it more as *improved* equipment now but I don't see how different it is in terms of access. The DM still controls access, about all you could say is that having in the PHB creates a sense of entitlement where the players could ask for specific equipment to fit their character concept. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you play.

It wasn't intended as indicating that I was attempting to tie magic items and powers together. I was stating that those are two of the issues I have w/ 4e. Magic items in the PHB lends a sense of entitlement to the players, that much is true - even if unintentional. The difference is that in previous editions, players didn't even get to (unless they owned the DMG or the DM let them) read about the magic items - it was up to the DM or a module writer's whimsy as to what (if any magic items) they had access to.

Originally Posted by ehren37

D&D has NEVER been low magic. Unless you ban spellcaster classes from the players, they use magic more than they poop. Player wizards make any game a "high magic" game IMO. D&D magic is almost always a safe, known commodity. Aside from a few spellls, there's little chance of magic backfiring as I would expect in a low magic world. Its always been a poor system for this type of play.

I dunno what pre-3e game you played in, but the DM had the ability to deny access to any and all magic items. He had the ability to force the players to roll for their spells and you could have found a cool scroll in a dungeon and failed the check to learn or scribe it. There was no implied message about what the DM had to let the players have for their PCs because none of the magic items were in the PHB.

That stuff should really be in a supplement, IMO. Not everyone wants their game to become Axis and Allies at 10th level, and it shouldnt be the default assumption. I actually picked up MMS for this reason, but the player that is interested int hat sort of thing handles it between sessions, because the other 4 are bored to tears with that sort of thing.

If you've never had the opportunity to engage in a political thriller type of adventure, you don't know what you are missing. Sure, MMS:WE is a toolkit, but the PC/NPC interactions should be occurring in-game and, if done right, won't be boring to the other players.

Originally Posted by ehren37

Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords.

And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.

Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...

And the problem with 4e is everything is so balanced, nothing distinguishes a fighter from a wizard. They both have powers that they can use x/day or x/encounter. The fighter does x damage - same as the wizard. The only difference, it seems, is the name of the power being used.

Yes, there were times where we didn't rest. In cases where the DM wanted to create tension or a sense of urgency, wandering monster encounters ensured that there was no chance to rest.

Originally Posted by ehren37

Most sane people would as well. Sort of like the fireman who doesnt wear protective gear because he's tough. I've long ago tired of "edgy" characters who rely on using weak options as crutches.

And then there's playing a well designed character well. You know, like what you do after you get bored of the guy who fights with d3 weapons and the mage who only memorizes the worst possible spells to get attention.

Whose opinion of a well-designed character? I played a rogue-based twin knife wielder (and took some PrC levels). Fit my character concept and did a decent amount of damage - but I wasn't trying for some stupid min-max munchkin. It seems like the only thing you value is a munchkin who does ludicrous amounts of damage or who can't be hit by his opponents. At that point, it becomes no fun for the other players as it becomes evident that the DM has to make an exception by having the baddies roll 20s to hit him or throw a way-overpowered creature into the mix.

Tournament modules also kept score, and were hardly indicitive of normal play. As to going on when the party was out of spells, I frankly do not believe you. When you're out of healing, you rest, unless something absoloutely prevents you from tossing a rope trick, spiking a dungeon door or retreating. You can say your party ran around naked, with 2 HP and nothing but a pointy stick to attack with all you want. I can also call hogwash. Out of spells meant you quit, unless your DM is going out of his way to play with kidskin gloves.

Wrong. Smart, focused players managed to survive without the use of magic - it all gets down to not having the wizard blow his load (of spells) all in the first two minutes (of the scene)...

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

And the problem with 4e is everything is so balanced, nothing distinguishes a fighter from a wizard. They both have powers that they can use x/day or x/encounter. The fighter does x damage - same as the wizard. The only difference, it seems, is the name of the power being used.

I'm sorry; this is just so ludicrously wrong I had to pull it out.

Have you actually read or played 4e? It sure looks like you haven't.

Could you please show me where in the 4e books the fighter can...

...cast a fireball with a 100 ft range that deals damage to everyone in a 35'x35' square.
...create a web with a 100 ft range that immobilizes everyone in a 25'x25' square.

It's like saying "the 1e magic-user can cast magic-missile. Magic missile deals damage. The 1e fighter swings a sword. The sword deals damage. Therefore the magic-user and fighter are the same."

[Leatherhead]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Or you can say that the issues that a majority of people saw as concerns, either through reading 6-8 years of message boards, or surveys, got the grease.

Generally, squeaky wheels are in the minority. I very much doubt that the number crunchers at WOTC and Hasbro would make changes that would only support a minority of the people.

In my experience, people who frequent message boards are the minority.

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Conversion between AD&D and 3E can be a bit tricky, especially as levels get higher; I find it easier to go from 3E to AD&D than vice-versa. How about conversion between 3E and 4E? As I recall, the advice from Wizards was strongly to start with all new 1st-level characters rather attempt to convert a campaign from 3E to 4E.

The big problem with converting from 3e to anything is the huge number of character options in 3e that other editions simply don't have. How many classes are there? How many PrCs? Throw in multiclassing and there's too many possibilities to account for.

There's a certain amount of this trying to go from AD&D to 3e, too. Multiclass characters were basically impossible to convert as-is and had to be morphed into some approximation. A 6/6 F/MU in a mostly 7th level group became... what exactly in 3e? Nothing approaching what the character was in AD&D.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by Branduil

I don't really see how 4e inhibits role-playing any more than any previous edition.

Because 4e has made fighting monsters more fun than pretending to be an elf.

[Keefe the Thief]

Wow, it seems this turned into a "what i dont like about 4e thread." Who could have foreseen that?