4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by FireLance

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

Glorious! Have some XP!

I don't actually agree... well, I prefer pretending to be wizards than elves anyday... and I think 4e still has flaws with its combat... but it's a great comment that may actually be true for some people.

Cheers!

[Branduil]

Originally Posted by FireLance

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

Heh... is this the opposite of damning with faint praise? "Blessing with soft criticism"?

[Jack99]

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?

Conversion of modules is just as easy (if not easier) than it was before. Sure, you might run into a few issues with space, but NPC conversion? Please, it's 100 times easier, simply because the NPC's/Monsters only obey very few basic rules, and are not slaves to the HD/save/skill system.

[Treebore]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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

I like 4E, its easier to convert to C&C than 3E is. Well, the modules are. So I like 4E modules, especially the Punjar modules by Goodman.

[Ariosto]

Theoretically, easier conversion to C&C should also mean easier conversion to AD&D.

I should clarify that in the pre-3E context, I don't need familiarity with a particular edition. The rules are so similar that the differences between one and another are in my experience no more than the differences in house rules among campaigns using the same set as a basis.

More to the point, the actual data in a module can for the most part be used directly, with no actual "conversion" required.

Going backwards from 3E, I'll usually either swap in stats for kobolds or whatever from the "host" game or convert stats knowing, for instance, how AC works in 3E -- while ignoring the bulk of the "stat block" that is gibberish from a non-3E perspective. At higher levels, it becomes increasingly important to take some account of the 3E complications, and increasingly problematic to do so on a simple algorithmic basis.

I can see how the greater immediate utility of 4E stat blocks could ease the process. However, the simple resort of "swapping in" seems to me less likely to be so often satisfactory given the great variety among monsters of a given basic type. Also, instead of Hit Dice there are Hit Point listings that depart widely from expectations in the older games (but I wonder how well level corresponds).

I have not actually tried any 4E to AD&D conversions, but again my main point is how relatively incomprehensible (or lacking, if going from pre-3E to 3E or 4E) a write-up for one is on a basis of familiarity only with the other.

Actual play in another edition introduces the host of differences that are the biggest selling point of new rule-books in the first place.

[Plane Sailing]

I've just looked at three pages of thinly veiled edition wars and some pretty snarky comments all round. Not very good going.

Either the thread gets back on track or it gets closed.

Thanks

[Cadfan]

Even "on track" isn't the nicest place, since its kind of a flamewar for or against Heinsoo.

How about this:

It is the right and the duty and the job of a game designer to do things that this forum calls badwrongfunning people.

Any game designer that tried to make a game that was fun while simultaneously never communicating what he or she felt was NOT fun would, by definition, be a quisling and a failure.

And because every geek community is an echo of every other one, if you go into other genres and read fan discussion of design diaries, you see the same things you see in this thread. Designers of popular games identifying what they felt were flaws in previous games of their own design or in genres they wrote. Fans freaking out, and insisting that the items identified as flaws are actually good- they LIKE it if fighting games have at least one character that's too weak to use, because that gives them the pleasure of not picking it! They LIKE it if a game that's theoretically pure strategy has a high APM tax expressed through click rate, because strategy games should be won through manual dexterity and physical endurance. Etc. And yet the designers ignore them, and change these features, and more often than not produce a better, more popular, more widely acclaimed product.

The only difference is that ENWorld is a forum that merges fans of many different RPGs, while most gaming forums tend to be game specific. So ENWorld has adapted an ethic of non judgment. Which works great when it comes to things like, "should a game detail every aspect of castle construction, or should it streamline it and make it take a few minutes at most, so that casual players can have an awesome castle without spending a lot of game time on the nuts and bolts?" Because both sides have their advantages.

Unfortunately it means we have to take seriously arguments like, "I like it if my character is forced to be mechanically ineffective in comparison to other characters, because RPGs are open ended, and being screwed over by the game system encourages me think outside the box. And my character has to be forced to suck, because I won't do it to myself voluntarily." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck."

The benign turns into the controversial.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Even "on track" isn't the nicest place, since its kind of a flamewar for or against Heinsoo.

How about this:

It is the right and the duty and the job of a game designer to do things that this forum calls badwrongfunning people.

Any game designer that tried to make a game that was fun while simultaneously never communicating what he or she felt was NOT fun would, by definition, be a quisling and a failure.

And because every geek community is an echo of every other one, if you go into other genres and read fan discussion of design diaries, you see the same things you see in this thread. Designers of popular games identifying what they felt were flaws in previous games of their own design or in genres they wrote. Fans freaking out, and insisting that the items identified as flaws are actually good- they LIKE it if fighting games have at least one character that's too weak to use, because that gives them the pleasure of not picking it! They LIKE it if a game that's theoretically pure strategy has a high APM tax expressed through click rate, because strategy games should be won through manual dexterity and physical endurance. Etc. And yet the designers ignore them, and change these features, and more often than not produce a better, more popular, more widely acclaimed product.

The only difference is that ENWorld is a forum that merges fans of many different RPGs, while most gaming forums tend to be game specific. So ENWorld has adapted an ethic of non judgment. Which works great when it comes to things like, "should a game detail every aspect of castle construction, or should it streamline it and make it take a few minutes at most, so that casual players can have an awesome castle without spending a lot of game time on the nuts and bolts?" Because both sides have their advantages.

Unfortunately it means we have to take seriously arguments like, "I like it if my character is forced to be mechanically ineffective in comparison to other characters, because RPGs are open ended, and being screwed over by the game system encourages me think outside the box. And my character has to be forced to suck, because I won't do it to myself voluntarily." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck."

The benign turns into the controversial.

That's an interesting view, and I tend to you think you might be right.

Mustrum "Wonder how 3D Shooter forums would like my preference for round-based shooters?" Ridcully

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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

Someone should have predicted this on page one...



PS

[Kamikaze Midget]

It is the right and the duty and the job of a game designer to do things that this forum calls badwrongfunning people.

Any game designer that tried to make a game that was fun while simultaneously never communicating what he or she felt was NOT fun would, by definition, be a quisling and a failure.

Not really. A game is designed to meet certain goals -- "fun" isn't really a good goal. It's nebulous and subjective and entirely marketing language; there's nothing concrete about "fun." You can't design a game to be "fun." You have to puzzle out what exact things people might really want out of the game. Those exact things you can talk about, without condemning other ways of playing.

It's easy to talk about individual goals without saying "doing it differently isn't any fun." You can say "We wanted to give the wizard something magical to do every round, because D&D is a game that magic plays an important part in" without saying "New people don't ever have fun in games where wizards run out of spells." The first is discussing the goals of the design, the second is BadWrongFun. I'm sure WotC KNOWS this. The designers all play other games that D&D can't hope to really do. Presumably, they have some fun doing so. 4e is not the only way to have fun playing a game, but it does (try to) meet certain goals.

This isn't a flamewar against Heinsoo, it's an argument against "I know what's best for you and your game" condescension. Instead of telling me if I'm having fun or not, how about you tell me what ends you tried to accomplish with your design, and I'll tell you whether or not I want that in a game?

Unfortunately it means we have to take seriously arguments like, "I like it if my character is forced to be mechanically ineffective in comparison to other characters, because RPGs are open ended, and being screwed over by the game system encourages me think outside the box. And my character has to be forced to suck, because I won't do it to myself voluntarily." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck."

Of course, that's not what anyone said.

Presumably, WotC is designing their game for a wide audience -- at least as wide as ENWorld, possibly as wide as "anyone who thinks dragons are cool." Why should they take a position of judgment against what one group of D&D players finds or might find fun?

They can talk about how their goals differ -- even WHY they differ, if you want -- but to argue that they are somehow inherently superior is goofy. And when someone says something as dumb as "No one has fun playing a wizard that runs out of spells," they entirely deserve to be called on their BS.

If that person were to say "We wanted wizards to always be able to do something magical, because magic has been important to D&D," then the fans could argue if magic had been important for them or not, but they wouldn't be able to say that the design was wrong. They might say that it didn't accomplish what they wanted, however, and that's a fairly useful conversation, because then we can discuss why that change might have been made, and how to change the dissenter's game to give them what they did want.

"You didn't have fun that way, anyway" is just shutting down conversation, as if there can be no argument, as if "Fun" is a trump card that wins all arguments and can silence all opposition.

"Oh, well, I guess if it's FUN, it has to be OK!'

That does not fly.

[Mournblade94]

~ I've made a general warning. Drop the arguments, or you'll get suspended - PS ~

[Ariosto]

Kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords!

[Mournblade94]

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...

Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.

Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords!

HAH that was GOOD! So true.

That was one of my favourite series ever.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by MerricB

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.

Right. But the class was built as a mystic class. you were not mystic until 8th level or 7th in 3rd edition (I am mostly arguing pro 3rd edition here) but entering the class you knew there was a mystic component to it. If anyone can take the ritual casting feat than it is not unique to the ranger.

Originally Posted by MerricB

Yes. The Wizard is nerfed. Good.

I don't see this as good, and I didn't always play the wizard, I favoured the ranger. I could of dealt with a power down, but I think the balance actually shifted more to the martial classes.

Originally Posted by MerricB

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.

I can deal with a fighter not being as good at ranged combat. The leader role however, I saw more as a player role than a character role. i often took on this 'leader' role, even as the wizard.

if I had a heater shield and broadsword fighter I still could not convert them well. There is difference between honest conversion, and redefining. From 1st or 2nd edition to 3rd edition there was some redefining, just not as much as from any of these to 4e.

Originally Posted by MerricB

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

I would have to agree with this statement, and the rogue did not change much as well.

Originally Posted by MerricB

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.

I did not like alot of the expansion books, so most of what I argue is with core in mind. Pretty much I limited my campaigns to core, Forgotten Realms, and complete (class X) guides. Incarnates, Monster characters, and Book of Nine swords I did not allow.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.

Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.

You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.

Still, that 11/12 gives up:
* 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill).
* x4 instead of x5 backstab
* 1 potential hp/level (thief 1-6, thief/mage 2-5)
* Weaker save vs. Para/Pois/Death (10 vs. 11)
* Lower Thac0 (15 vs. 13)
* Ability to wear mundane armor (which was a wash, since not wearing armor raised certain thief skills and didn't stop you from using magical methods of AC improvement like spells of items).

But gains
* 4 first, 4 second, 4 third, 3 fourth, and 3 fifth-level spells per day
* Access to wide variety of skill-boosting magic (invisibility, knock, spider climb), defensive magic (shield, armor, stoneskin) and offensive (magic missile, sleep, fireball) to boost, aid or augment skills.
* No penalty when using wizard scrolls (vs. 15% for a thief)
* Improved Saves vs. R/S/W (7 vs 8), Breath (11 vs. 13) and Spell (8 vs. 9).

Stays the same
* Petrify/Poly Save: (9)
* Thief Followers

Worth the Trade? Good. I'm glad we agree. There was no point to Single Class Thieves if multi-class options existed, and you don't need to be a min/maxer to know that 18 spells a day =/= 15% to all thief skills and an extra one dice on backstab.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

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.

Fair enough. I only really started to pay attention to boards when 3rd edition was cancelled for 4e.

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

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.

My experience is the opposite, even from the younger gamers in the group. The 4e is starting to bore them, and many of them are trying new systems. Specifically SAGA and M&M.

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

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 do not mean to say that adventures cannot be complex. I can make a complex adventure out of Marvel Superheroes TSR system.

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

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.

There is probably no politically correct way to address this:

On the simulationist end it is not elegant. What you said above is how I honestly feel. To attract new gamers NOW however, things have to come very quick and very easy. If it so happens that method works for you that is fine.

Other editions were just as fun as this one, I just find these new definitions of fun from WOTC as off the mark. How could a product that was NOT fun have lasted from 1974-2008?

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

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.

I see the classes, the tier levels, and the monsters as the same. I do not think there is ultimately that much difference between a rogue and a ranger. Ranger is more direct, but the rogue is sneakier. Tactics are different but output is still the same.

A fighter and a paladin... well good the fluff is different but they still rely on the aggro mechanic.

I am saying that 4e is a drastic enough change to make many people that were fine with 3rd edition and its easy mechanics, to see it as a different game altogether. In this area, the gamers I talk to seem to agree.

[TerraDave]

Darnmod warning...I had some good snark...(KM a better DM then JoT, really?...you can still get your ass hammered by kobolds in 4E, try it some time..ok, ok, I'll stop)

Anyways...I have met Rob once, great guy, and this interview is totally him. I love the opening quote: "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules." And I agree with pretty much everything, though I did find some of the dropped alternatives intriguing. I am still not convinced that they couldn't have pooled powers a little more or allowed some sharing across classes. But that is a detail.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.

Still, that 11/12 gives up:
* 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill).
* x4 instead of x5 backstab
* 1 potential hp/level (thief 1-6, thief/mage 2-5)
* Weaker save vs. Para/Pois/Death (10 vs. 11)
* Lower Thac0 (15 vs. 13)
* Ability to wear mundane armor (which was a wash, since not wearing armor raised certain thief skills and didn't stop you from using magical methods of AC improvement like spells of items).

But gains
* 4 first, 4 second, 4 third, 3 fourth, and 3 fifth-level spells per day
* Access to wide variety of skill-boosting magic (invisibility, knock, spider climb), defensive magic (shield, armor, stoneskin) and offensive (magic missile, sleep, fireball) to boost, aid or augment skills.
* No penalty when using wizard scrolls (vs. 15% for a thief)
* Improved Saves vs. R/S/W (7 vs 8), Breath (11 vs. 13) and Spell (8 vs. 9).

Stays the same
* Petrify/Poly Save: (9)
* Thief Followers

Worth the Trade? Good. I'm glad we agree. There was no point to Single Class Thieves if multi-class options existed, and you don't need to be a min/maxer to know that 18 spells a day =/= 15% to all thief skills and an extra one dice on backstab.

Thanks for the post, but I never even argued for or against this. I said I never kept racial level caps in first edition D&D and someone decided to extrapolate this too, me thinking there was no benefit to multiclassing. The thief comment was made by someone misunderstanding what I was saying. Apparently though the post I addressed that in was deleted.

[tomBitonti]

Originally Posted by ariosto

kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick in the dungeons of the slave lords!

rofl

EDIT: I think that was a classic dungeon. A question: How well does that dungeon convert to 3.5E? To 4E? Also: How would you map skill challenges onto this dungeon?