4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[RefinedBean]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

Yes, because talking about the problems of an edition you worked on equals saying it sucks.

Talking about the problems of an edition still supported by a thriving OGL and such established companies as Paizo isn't saying it sucks, but it's close.

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

Not that I have a problem with 4E, at all. But inefficient and counter-productive marketing?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

I don't see any problem with that. When you have something new that you honestly think fixes problems you've seen in a game, why not point out that you've fixed it?

I think that a lot of people just thought there was no reason at all to have a 4e and they didn't see any problems at all. So when WOTC started pointing out all the problems they've seen and the reasons they felt they needed a 4e, there were a large number of people who responded with "None of that was broken! Stop insulting our game!"

The real problem with the marketing of 4e was that the problems they were attempting to fix didn't affect every game. Those who were experiencing the problems said "That sounds awesome!". Those who weren't only saw insults to things that worked perfectly fine.

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

I'm not sure how you market a new edition of something without pointing out the differences. For instance, I'm excited about the fact that the sweet spot has been extended to all 30 levels. It is one of the reasons I like 4e. How do you explain that it is one of the features of 4e without talking about its differences from 3e?

Especially without explaining that there were levels that weren't "sweet" in 3e.

[RefinedBean]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

I'm not sure how you market a new edition of something without pointing out the differences. For instance, I'm excited about the fact that the sweet spot has been extended to all 30 levels. It is one of the reasons I like 4e. How do you explain that it is one of the features of 4e without talking about its differences from 3e?

Especially without explaining that there were levels that weren't "sweet" in 3e.

Hey, I'm with you, I love 4E as well. I just feel it's a strong enough system that it could have been explained and marketed with little reference to the prior edition.

For instance, why even mention that the "sweet spot" has been extended to all 30 levels? People are going to find this out on their own, and be happy about it. However, it completely alienates the fairly sizeable group of gamers who have had a consistently "sweet" experience with 3E from level 1-20 and beyond, simply by promoting it as a change.

The interviews with the designers where they talked about the problems with 3E, the playful digs at fan reaction during some of the animated shorts, and initial problems with the GSL all managed to do one thing: Keep 3E on the minds of fans while 4E was being released.

This isn't to say they shouldn't have talked about 3E at all; just that they should have been addressed it directly less, maybe, and certainly not pointed out its flaws as much.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

This isn't to say they shouldn't have talked about 3E at all; just that they should have been addressed it directly less, maybe, and certainly not pointed out its flaws as much.

I just think if you are marketing a new edition you need to address the question: "Why should we buy this when we already have 3.5e? What makes this an improvement?"

And the problem with 4e is that it is designed in such a way that there is nothing you can point at without at least insinuating that it was a problem before. This happened way more than any direct insults at 3.5e.

"We now have simple to run monsters."
-"What do you mean? We already have simple to run monsters! Are you telling me I'm doing it wrong?"

"The game flows very smoothly without getting in the way of gameplay."
-"So 3.5e gets in the way of gameplay? Why did anyone ever play it if it was so bad?"

"You get something cool to do at every level of play."
-"I always felt like I had something cool to do in 3.5e. You are saying that it was boring because I didn't get anything cool? That's not true."

The thing about hyping new features is that your audience has to agree they are improvements. If a large number of people doesn't feel they ARE improvements than anything you say about it, even if it is all positive, will appear to be negative to them.

[Keefe the Thief]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

Talking about the problems of an edition still supported by a thriving OGL and such established companies as Paizo isn't saying it sucks, but it's close.

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

Not that I have a problem with 4E, at all. But inefficient and counter-productive marketing?

And there i was and thought that solving problems is pretty much the point of a new edition. Which is kind of hard to market if you don´t say "this is a problem we think we solved." And people think of that as an attack? I mean, making fun of the grappling rules (for instance) is basically part of the 3e core rules - i kow it was mandatory at my table. I wasn´t suprised that the Wotc designers agreed with us.

Oh well, wrong thread.

[MerricB]

Rob's designing a new version of Three Dragon Ante? Cool!

Cheers!

[Cadfan]

ZOMG! He's saying that three dragon ante sucks! How dare he alienate his customer base in this manner?

[Ariosto]

One thing right after another identified as a "flaw" was something I recognized as among the "features" 3E retained from previous editions. Even among folks who appreciate as "evolutionary" the pretty sweeping changes in WotC's first redesign, there are some who consider 4E "revolutionary" and not in a good way.

By the same token, there are some people to whom 4E is at last a game they can enjoy. Many things the designers saw as problems are also seen that way by a good few players of "really old" editions. They might not be in the market anyway, because they simply modify the old rules themselves. On the other hand, some of them might find 4E so far removed that they approach it not as a replacement for their D&D but as a separate game interesting in its own right.

The OGL means that 3E can continue its evolution, even in new commercial forms, despite Wizards' change of course. The existence of Pathfinder, for instance, suggests that dedicated players are not "locked in" to a 4E upgrade.

There's a different demographic being pursued. Presumably, WotC believes it's a more lucrative one. My guess is that was marketed in a targeted way. A message sure to turn off one segment was calculated to attract a more valuable one. "D&D for people who don't like D&D?" Maybe.

The obvious hope is that they'll like this D&D!

[Kamikaze Midget]

Just some observations:

Observe!

Originally Posted by Rob Heinsoo

First level characters in 3E could die the first time they took a hit. Worse yet, a first level 3E wizard or cleric could use up their spells in the first encounter and have nothing else to do. That might make sense if you're simulating a specific type of fantasy world where magic gets used up quickly, but it doesn't make any sense for new players who want to have fun playing the game.

I'm not a fan of how this presumes that a game where magic gets used up quickly isn't fun for new players. I mean, I'll admit that D&D wants you to be casting spells, and I'm overall a huge fan of making sure that mages can do something magical every round, but I'd also defend the other way as a good, entertaining, fun (even for newbs) playstyle. D&D doesn't want to be that kind of game, which is fair enough, but that's not about what new players would enjoy, it's about what the WotC Designers enjoy (and what I enjoy. ). I'd also point out that 3e, with the wands and the scrolls (scrolls for VERY cheap) largely removed this problem that existed in 2e and 1e, even if it was kind of a patch. The problem never really existed for my 3e spellcasters (though it existed for my 2e spellcasters).

Also, I will say that while I've got no problem with more robust first level characters, I do miss the "zero to hero" track that earlier editions had. I can't start off on a moisture farm on Tatooine knowing more about desert farming than intergalactic warfare and wind up as a Jedi Master -- I can't be Samwise the Gardener (or even Frodo the Average Hobbit) and wind up as Samwise the Brave (or the Ringbearer). I can't be an "average anybody mook" in 4e, that's not a role that I'm allowed to play, and I miss it, and the mythic journey that goes along with taking a being like that and turning them into the Hero of the Realm.

The robust first level is partially to blame for why I can't do that.

4e was meant to be played, unless, of course, you're a big fan of "expensive magick" or Campbell's Hero's Journey, in which case, 4e thinks you're not having fun anyway.

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

Games that are vulnerable to one-roll accidents aren't the best games, though they might fit certain narrative styles of gritty sudden-death adventuring.

Again, while I agree with the overall goal of a more survivable first few levels, I think Rob's confusing his own idea of what the "best" is with the fact that the "best games" are different for different people. Also, no "grim & gritty" ruleset I've seen really likes the idea of everything hinging on one roll. Binary design, by and large, is something you want to avoid, no matter what kind of feel you're going for with your game (which was a problem with me way back when Eberron was released with the binary Warforged).

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

Up at 11th level, the spellcasting characters started getting 6th level spells, spells with enough power to truly alter the way the game was played. A big problem with games that included 6th level spells was that most DMs stopped being able to truly predict what their PC groups were capable of, as cunning (or maybe just brute force) magic use could short-circuit most high-level 3E encounters that seemed like they were balanced.

I like how he thinks this is a problem.

Historically, the reason for these is pretty clear: DMs shouldn't be able to predict everything that the PC's can do, and if the PC's can shortcut encounters, it's good for them, and good for the DM, who learns to think a few steps ahead.

In the more competitive days of 1e, these spells weren't just useful, they were necessary. In 3e, the advice was sitting right there: you work them into your game, not around them, and not in ignorance of them.

Because the game wasn't about the encounter. It was about goals, challenges, and obstacles, about tools and problem solving.

Now, I do think it's also a good idea to reduce the scope of many of the PC's short-circuiting capabilities, so I still agree with the end goal, here. But, again, I think it's wrong to characterize these spells as something bad because they got PC's around encounters -- that's their purpose, and that SHOULD be OK.

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

We want all D&D characters to have the option of feeling heroic, to keep fighting and adventuring until they are truly too beat up to continue, and not to stop as soon as they have used up their only cool powers.

Consider the goal FAILED. My group stops on Action Points and Dailies. Two encounters, the day is over. Though I suppose part of that is a practical consideration: "It's already 5:30, if we get in another fight, I'll be here 'till 8:00 at least!"

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

I hated the fact that once you started playing level 11+ in 3E, the non-spellcasting character classes didn't matter as much as the spellcasters. There was fun to be had as a fighter, or as a monk (mostly through roleplaying), but the truth was that adventures usually depended on the abilities of the wizard and cleric—where a missing wizard or cleric got some high-level 3E games I was in rescheduled.

LOL WUT?

I mean, again, the modification of the game to neuter the "I can solve any problem" wizard or cleric is a good idea, IMO, but what kind of boner DM makes bottlenecks like that?! Who are you playing under, Rob, and how can I teach them how to be a better DM? Heck, the advice was right there in the 3e DMG: Don't make one answer the ONLY answer. I can't....believe...this level of narm. Such a big disconnect for me.

The fact was that in the 3E world, wizards were the most powerful characters, heirs to a fantasy tradition from Dying Earth, Lord of the Rings, and Forgotten Realms in which the earth-shakingly powerful characters were usually wizards.

For certain definitions of the word "power," I think you're right. Wizards had a (traditionally) crazy level of flexibility, which allowed them to accomplish a lot. It didn't hurt that most DMs ignored spellbook costs, either. But there are two things here: Fighters weren't slackers when the high-level goblins came a'callin' (which is still what 4e is mostly balanced around), and Rituals are still allowing Wizards and Clerics a crazy amount of flexibility that everyone else pays extra for. It's a better even playing field in 4e, which is OK, but then you loose some of the noncombat customization (as many "noncombat role" threads have pointed out) that was capable through the avenue of other problem-solving skills.

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

The first Player's Handbook teetered back and forth between design drafts and development drafts, and sometimes the wizard had been deliberately bumped up to be slightly better than all the other classes. I wasn't comfortable with that, and the final version of the wizard is, if anything, possibly on the slightly weak side

Bravo!

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

Given how much fun 3E's spellcasting characters had choosing spells

LOL WUT?

Choosing spells was always an effort in predicting what the DM would do, and was a lousy way to build to any archetype except "toolbox."

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

I wanted a game in which playing a high-level fighter could offer interesting choices for power selection and round-by-round choices in combat.

3e fighters had enough feats to do this.

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

I was succeeding purely as a consequence of correctly guessing which magic items I should pick up before the adventure. Oil of slipperiness and a flight ring? Pure gold. Sigurd's fighter abilities? Irrelevant.

See my note above with regards to "choosing spells." This was a problem for everyone, not just Sigurd the Fighter.

Originally Posted by Heinsoo

We want to reward players who think that playing a bard or a monk will be fun, not hand them a subtly poisoned time-delay capsule that will eventually wake them up to the realization that they're the weakest member of the party.

Huzzah!

Powers Every Level: Early on we somehow fixated on giving characters a power at every level, not realizing that this led to way too many powers in the game and didn't leave room for feats. We figured that out eventually.

I still think there are too many powers. I want a deck of 7 cards I can hold, not a stack of 20!

lso in the 'didn't-feel-like-D&D' category, we spent a lot of time experimenting with systems in which all powers were limited use at-will powers that had recharge mechanics. I blame myself for thinking something like this could work. In truth the system didn't start feeling right until Mike Mearls and Rich Baker came up with the at-will/encounter/day split that put power attrition back into the game.

We need more attrition, Coasties.

All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.

This intrigues me because the same-ness of the Powers system is one of its big failings. I look forward to seeing what they come up with (Bo9S-style?)

Biggest thing is that I think Heinsoo over-judges some playstyles as BADWRONGFUN, and misaprehends how important spellcasters were based on some DMs who designed bottlenecks (and who, perhaps, had a view of spellcasters of important to begin with), but I think most of the goals the
4e team pursued were good ones.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

The thing about hyping new features is that your audience has to agree they are improvements. If a large number of people doesn't feel they ARE improvements than anything you say about it, even if it is all positive, will appear to be negative to them.

That is exactly it (for myself anyway). There are some changes that I think are improvements. However, most of the changes are, imo, changes that made the game worse (or at least worse than could be done with the core 3e books, Unearthed Arcana, and a few third party supplements (including the implementation of similiar ideas)).

[Odhanan]

Originally Posted by MichaelSomething

That article is quite a read and it seems like it explains the design decisions of 4th Edition. I expect this topic to become very long as people debate to attack/defend the ideas in the article.

There's no need to. What's done is done. 4E is here to stay. We all can make decisions for ourselves, I believe - no need to argue about it.

Personally, reading through the article, I understand why 4E is not for me just like others understand why they like it so much.

Different POV. Fine with me.

[Cadfan]

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Just some observations:

...

Biggest thing is that I think Heinsoo over-judges some playstyles as BADWRONGFUN, and misaprehends how important spellcasters were based on some DMs who designed bottlenecks (and who, perhaps, had a view of spellcasters of important to begin with), but I think most of the goals the
4e team pursued were good ones.

I agree with your comments and your detailed observations - it reminds me of some of the issues I had with 3.5e changes writ large (changes which seemed to me to reflect personal preferences of designers without necessarily relating to working out the maths or thinking about how people in general might play: 2 for 1 power attack comes to mind).

I really don't understand the idea that wizards were the most powerful class in 3e, as the druid and cleric knocked them into a cocked hat at every point during the level progression. Psion too.

In addition, when I was playing in a 14th level game the wizard was poinking a few spells down, doing 35hp here, and a couple of dozen there - while the fighters were doing mighty full attacks, hitting three times and doing an average of 100 damage (more on a crit). In 3e the fighting classes were king of damage by a long way, and had magic items to shore up their tactical and strategic choices at the high levels (which has always been a feature of D&D as much as a bug).

Cheers

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

No, it's really not.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

Doesn't mean he is right and/or that people can't disagree with him.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

Again, doesn't mean they're right and that others can't disagree.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

Good for you. I mean it, you got a game you like, others didn't.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

How about...Different from your own opinions and should still be considered just as valid?

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Biggest thing is that I think Heinsoo over-judges some playstyles as BADWRONGFUN, and misapprehends how important spellcasters were based on some DMs who designed bottlenecks (and who, perhaps, had a view of spellcasters of important to begin with), but I think most of the goals the 4e team pursued were good ones.

Keep in mind the 4e team had to design an edition of D&D that worked well for those "creative DMs" who can flow, adapt and run with whatever flight of whimsy their PCs toss at them AND support the highly structured RPGA-style tournament play. The former style can be supported by any edition of D&D from White Box on, but the latter has needed constant refinement.

I don't think he's saying one style is better than the other, more of "both styles need support; sandboxers need very little, but scripted scenario players need a lot. So we wrote 4e with scripting in mind since sandboxers won't care either way"

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

Originally Posted by Rob Heinsoo

That might make sense if you're simulating a specific type of fantasy world where magic gets used up quickly, but it doesn't make any sense for new players who want to have fun playing the game.

Re-stating it: "If you're a new player who wants to have fun playing the game, it doesn't make any sense to have magic get used up quickly."

That is totally BS, and I think he knows it.

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

He's in game design. His job is to realize design goals, which are (or at least really should be) less subjective than "be fun for a lot of people." It's for the higher-ups, the directors, the managers, the people with access to numbers and data, to give him goals that, in their view, will be fun for a lot of people.

They can be wrong, and even if they're right, it may not be in the game's best interest to exclude the ends of the bell curve. That's kind of a separate conversation, but it's worth pointing out that "what is fun for the majority of people" does not equal "what Rob Heinsoo thinks is fun." Which comments like the one above, and a few others in the article, indicate that Rob Heinsoo might not fully be designing with those ideas in mind. Perhaps he (and the rest of WotC) should be?

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

I don't know what this "same thing" is that you're talking about. Assume that low-magic games are bad for new players? I'm very positive that there are at least a few game designers out there who don't do that. Tell people that if they play different than what the designer designed for that they're not having as much fun? Somehow I don't think even Rob meant to really imply that (even if it came across like that in a few places that he really doesn't think, say, subverting an encounter can be fun).

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

"It?" Did a better job at assuming low-magic games are bad for new players? Yes, 4e is certainly designed with that in mind. 3e did that, too, you'll remember, with copious amounts of cheap scrolls that spellcasters could make right off the bat (it was even a class ability for wizards!). Is that a good thought to have in mind when designing an edition of D&D? I think the question is worth asking: should D&D be broad enough to support low-magic games? 4e certainly thinks that D&D can be in some respects (magic items now can easily become just inherent bonuses), but not in others (wizards never have to fire a crossbow).

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

The argument is more "Heinsoo wrongfully assumes he knows what fun is." Obviously (and it should be obvious to him and everyone else, too) he doesn't. Not only is fun found in many things that Heinsoo assumes aren't fun, but also some things he assumes ARE fun, aren't.

It's pretty arrogant of even a very well-informed designer to come down to the lowly fans with a message of what fun REALLY is and why people weren't having it before he came along with his miracle game.

The designers might be better served by supporting the fun people are already having, even if that's bad, wrong fun. Even if it's low-magic, gritty, and involving powerful wizards. I hear Ars Magica is pretty fun.

[Kamikaze Midget]

Keep in mind the 4e team had to design an edition of D&D that worked well for those "creative DMs" who can flow, adapt and run with whatever flight of whimsy their PCs toss at them AND support the highly structured RPGA-style tournament play. The former style can be supported by any edition of D&D from White Box on, but the latter has needed constant refinement.

My experience as an improv-heavy DM says otherwise.

I don't think he's saying one style is better than the other, more of "both styles need support; sandboxers need very little, but scripted scenario players need a lot. So we wrote 4e with scripting in mind since sandboxers won't care either way"

Well, a lot of the "this isn't really fun" stuff is directed at low-magic, gritty, wizard-controlled games, not "sandbox" or "scenario."

[RefinedBean]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

The thing about hyping new features is that your audience has to agree they are improvements. If a large number of people doesn't feel they ARE improvements than anything you say about it, even if it is all positive, will appear to be negative to them.

Yeah, exactly. Really, WotC's marketing of 4E was pretty much in dire straits from the beginning, since it was basically in competition with itself.

Ultimately, it's a problem stemming from terms such as "improvements." With almost 8 years of support and history behind it, 3E is still a favorite game for many, and WotC shot itself in the foot by marketing many of the changes in 4E as "improvements."

They could have easily marketed as another take on D&D, and focused on the best parts of 3E and how they wanted to take parts of that system and offer something different. Not BETTER, but different.

Of course, I'm a die-hard 4E fan, so I'm making the assumption that the system/edition could sell itself quite well. I'm not privy to the marketing research that WotC had, so maybe they made the best of a bad situation.

Man, I haven't had a marketing discussion in a while. Brings back undergrad memories.

[Leatherhead]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

I just think if you are marketing a new edition you need to address the question: "Why should we buy this when we already have 3.5e? What makes this an improvement?"

And the problem with 4e is that it is designed in such a way that there is nothing you can point at without at least insinuating that it was a problem before. This happened way more than any direct insults at 3.5e.

I have to agree with this. This is the main reason why there are such things as edition wars. And that one "Ze game will remain Ze same" spot didn't help much, it just came off as saying "I grapple the troll, lol. The 3.x rules are silly."

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I really don't understand the idea that wizards were the most powerful class in 3e, as the druid and cleric knocked them into a cocked hat at every point during the level progression. Psion too.

It's not that they were the most powerful class, it is that they were ones that got the bad rap for it. Clerics and druids were overpowered because people hate playing heal-bots, and somehow or another the designers wanted to make the classes attractive. This made them "acceptably overpowered" in the eyes of many. As for psions, that was an issue of apples VS oranges, where oranges were far less common and happened to have a highly vocal group trying to prove they weren't overpowered with a slander campaign aimed at apples.

Thinking aback on it, that pro-psionic(anti-caster) campaign is probably the reason everyone singles out wizards.

[Teemu]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

In addition, when I was playing in a 14th level game the wizard was poinking a few spells down, doing 35hp here, and a couple of dozen there - while the fighters were doing mighty full attacks, hitting three times and doing an average of 100 damage (more on a crit). In 3e the fighting classes were king of damage by a long way, and had magic items to shore up their tactical and strategic choices at the high levels (which has always been a feature of D&D as much as a bug).

I think high level 3e wizards are at their strongest when focusing on save or die/suck spells. I've understood that dealing hp damage is suboptimal past a certain level.