4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Ariosto]

An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates a concept of "what D&D is" already notably different from what it was originally designed to be.

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well. On what grounds could you complain? Who is in a position to define D&D?

The answer is "the trademark holder," if you have some vested interest in always buying the latest product labeled "D&D."

If instead you just really like 4E as a particular game, then accept that (A) you've got it; and (B) you won't be able to get it brand new by the same brand name after it's replaced by whatever 5E turns out to be.

[Runestar]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

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

For me, it was not so much that they pointed out flaws in 3e, but that until the announcement of 4e, those "flaws" were pretty much being trumpeted as "features". Or at least, the designers simply pretended that nothing was amiss and continued to feed us the same broken (by their definition) material.

Monsters not sufficiently differentiated? Didn't stop them from creating more high-cr npcs with tons of SLAs (in essence, spellcasters who simply look like fiends). Or tacking on save-or-die abilities. Or the other stuff that 4e denounced.

I dunno - it smacks somewhat of hypocrisy for me. You deliberately don't say anything bad about 3e when it was still financially viable, then when it suits your purpose to do so, you start criticizing every flaw you can find with 3e (be it real or perceived) just to make 4e seem superior by comparison.

[Branduil]

I agree with most of what he has to say, which is why I like 4e.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Treebore

Well, it clearly explains why 4E feels so video gamey. Like video games all characters are designed to be balanced/fair with regards to the others.

Personally I am fine with that variance. After all if you can one day be capable of casting Wish/Miracle, you are the most powerful classes in the game. How can a fighter or rogue match that? They can't, and aren't supposed too.

So it will be interesting to see how weakened spellcasters are, and how powered up the fighter types are, to make everyone equal.

I'm going to guess you didn't play the thief in those editions, or the fighter, for that matter.

There is an inherent problem with the "imbalance" method game-design that drives me batty: once you figure out the "trick" the game looks a lot more narrow than those so called "bad options" allow.

Kamikaze Midget I believe coined (or at least helped popularize) the term "accidental suck" which to me means "a trap that looks like a good option/alternative, but instead of adding any sort interesting twist, it just cripples your character to the point he is no longer doing what he's supposed to be good at". A ranger with Iron Will, Toughness and Survivor is a much weaker ranger than the one who took Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Weapon Focus: Longbow. The illusion of choice exists (look at all those feats!) but to the experienced player (and not even an uber-optimizer, just someone who can weed out bad choices from good) the game becomes narrow.

D&D has always had these hidden traps: thieves gain nothing at high level to begin to compensate for powerful magic like Heal, Teleport, or True Seeing. No fighter can deal the massive damage potential of Cone of Cold, Harm or Disintegrate (not to mention the one-hit kills anything of SoD spells). Wizards (and clerics to an extent) having suffered through levels of 1-spell a day, throwing daggers and maces, and "cleric heal me!" filling your actions finally get to cut loose and be powerful spellcasters. Still, the fun comes at someone else's expense; the fighter and thief are marginalized.

Seriously, isn't better to keep the fighter having fun at high levels and the wizard having options at low levels? You know, so that the fighter doesn't dominate the low-level game and the wizards dominates the high-level game?

The same is true of racial choices (really, unless you know you were hitting that level limit or desperately wanted to dual-class or play a paladin, why NOT elf or half-elf?) spell choices (who really picked affect normal fires over burning hands?) even skills (max ranks in Use Rope!) or feats (the aforementioned ranger). Oh, and don't EVEN get started in multi-classing; if your race/class combo allowed it, why NOT multi-class in AD&D?

Is 4e perfect? Well, since it was written by men and not plumbed from the mind of a celestial being, I'd say no. Is it better tat ironing out some of those "accidental suck" elements and making the game choices wider? I say yes.

[Kamikaze Midget]

So, after the terrible Rust Monster Disaster of 2006 (Oh, the humanity!) they swore "never again." Too many 3E games were crashing and burning, endangering not only the players but hapless bystanders. How to prevent such tragedies due to human error? By designing the system to lock operators out of the loop at critical decision points.

It's weird to me that I'm usually halfway between the rock and the hard place on these conversations.

Ol' Rusty needed fixing. In a game that depends on items for balance, a monster that can blast apart your items also blasts apart the balance. The balance is there for a reason -- to keep the PC's having fun with their characters, so no one just wants to seppukku and the game remains something that's as much fun for the item-hound as for the DM.

You can't prevent human error, but you can certainly make a monster ability more limited in scope, so as to facilitate actually using the dang thing without boning the party.

I'm not necessarily a tremendous fan of how 4e does a lot of this adjusting, but I agree that it should have been done. My major issues with Heinsoo's positions are that he seems to believe the game he designed was the only game that could have been designed that would have met all his goals -- the way the 4e team chose was the only way that everyone could've had fun. That really isn't true. People had fun with the old school Rust Monster just fine. If you can figure out why that is, and design to THAT, you have a game that is fun.

I mean, I'm no savant, but any DM who cancels his game because the wizard didn't show up is a DM who was being a dink -- the bottleneck was too tight, or the DM valued the wizard to highly, or whatever. That's not evidence for the wizard being over-powerful, that's evidence for the DMing advice of "never just have one way out of a situation" being not prominently enough emblazoned in the guide, perhaps.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates a concept of "what D&D is" already notably different from what it was originally designed to be.

Balance has always been a concern. The only thing that's changed are the methodologies used (and, I'd argue, their level of success, but that's another story...).

[Ariosto]

"Seriously, isn't better to ..." recognize that "better" and "fun" are matters of opinion?

There are reasons the game was designed as it was, and elements (neglected in 3E and 4E) that contributed to the richness of the original design.

That design's success is the reason 3E and 4E are called "D&D." So many people had (and continue to have) FUN playing those "worse" old games that the name can help sell new ones.

An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates ... was a carefully chosen phrase. There are different things getting balanced in different ways in very different games.

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well.

[Ariosto]

I am perhaps learning to loathe the word "fun."

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Seriously, isn't better to keep the fighter having fun at high levels and the wizard having options at low levels? You know, so that the fighter doesn't dominate the low-level game and the wizards dominates the high-level game?

Treebore's presence already says NO, and I'm sure there's enough like-minded people out there You probably will have seen these refuting statements (or some variation of) used in favour of the imbalanced game before:

1) I/my friend(s) played high level thieves/fighters, we still had fun and didn't feel marginalized.
2) We love playing as weak wizards at low levels, relying on smarts and cunning to evade death.
3) Casters don't dominate the game as much as you claim, they are limited by spell slots/rest/magic resistance, etc.

And seriously, they may not be wrong. I'm sure there's enough people out there who are fine with the imbalances and feel that it adds to their game rather than detracting from it. That's perfectly fine. I do wish that people who like the game this way would stop using the "balanced like a videogame" bit though, since videogames also suffer from the variance of the kind that Treebore likes, barring games featuring PvP :P

[Ariosto]

"And seriously, they may not be wrong."

People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D? Seriously?

From Men & Magic (1974):

Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up.

[Derren]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

I am perhaps learning to loathe the word "fun."

"Fun" is still okay, but I learned to hate the word "cool" very early in the 4E marketing process (probably because for me "cool" means stupid people doing stupid things to earn the respect of other stupid people)

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

Since we´ve had the video game and board game comparisons already, could somebody
- refer to New Coke
and
- say something about Magic the Gathering?
The comments look incomplete without it.

I have something better.
4E is the new star trek film.
And this comic sums up the edition war nicely
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option...5783&Itemid=99

[Treebore]

Originally Posted by kibbitz

Treebore's presence already says NO, and I'm sure there's enough like-minded people out there You probably will have seen these refuting statements (or some variation of) used in favour of the imbalanced game before:

1) I/my friend(s) played high level thieves/fighters, we still had fun and didn't feel marginalized.
2) We love playing as weak wizards at low levels, relying on smarts and cunning to evade death.
3) Casters don't dominate the game as much as you claim, they are limited by spell slots/rest/magic resistance, etc.

And seriously, they may not be wrong. I'm sure there's enough people out there who are fine with the imbalances and feel that it adds to their game rather than detracting from it. That's perfectly fine. I do wish that people who like the game this way would stop using the "balanced like a videogame" bit though, since videogames also suffer from the variance of the kind that Treebore likes, barring games featuring PvP :P

I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.

As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.

Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too. In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.

Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes! Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!

The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!

So yes, my tastes are different. I want to play a character that has a limited role, and slowly gets better and better at fulfilling that role. I want a fighter that hits, hits a lot, and deals out lots of damage when he hits. I want a mage who can become practically a god when he reaches 18th level, but starts out whimpy, and learns humility and to be smart about how he handles challenges thrown his way.

So yes, I don't like 4E because everyone starts out the same and progresses the same. A wizard shouldn't have so many hit points or such a decent AC. I don't want a wizard that has to roll a d20 in order for his spell to work just so the player has something to physically do each round and to save the DM from having to make the saving throws.

So yes, 4E D&D isn't a version of D&D that interests me very much, I am much happier playing what I play. I have stolen an idea or two from 4E, including allowing spell casters to be able to essentially doing a magic arrow attack each round that scales in power with level, and to make non magical healing to be more powerful, but not be as powerful as healing surges are.

I am glad for those who love 4E, its fun discovering a new game. Just for me, I am having more fun staying with what I already play.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Plissken

Joy...more money to burn.

Yes, I like that, too. I mean, so many people worry about their edition not being supported any more or their edition failing and not being supported anymore that there is a definite wish to spend money on your game to get more useful material.

It seems to me that everyone that plays a game for some time will want more material to use. To make his character more exciting. To create a more interesting world. To become a better DM. To try something new (without relearning an entire game).

Anyone that will just be content with a game core rules probably is either very creative, uses other games supplements to support his game, or is just not playing it much. The first case should have little problem "fixing" any real or perceived weaknesses of a class. The second already decided to throw money at his game, he just can't do it directly. And the third will simply not perceive weaknesses and small imbalances as problematic enough to wreck his game.

So, why not add some options that make a character more interesting? 3rd Edition had its 3.5, its Players Handbook II and Sword & Fist or Complete Arcane to improve character classes in various ways. Sometimes, overpowering them, sometimes just adding cool new options.

Shadowrun 3.0 introduced Bioware only in the Man & Machine sourcebook, and initiation was introduced with Magic in the Shadows. Without such stuff, one could say the came was incomplete and possibly even unbalanced. (though to be honest, I would never call SR 3 "balanced", and supplements didn't fix it either)

So finally, I have no objections to 4E "fixing" minor problems in supplements. I am not sure "Weapon Expertise" would belong to this (though I am leaning towards this), but a more interesting At-Will power for the Wizard is fine be me.

---

About 3E sucking. Yes, it sucked. Hard. So hard in fact, that it sucked me in around 2000 and I basically couldn't escape until 2008.

---

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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."

It seems to me that there are just different experiences to be had in games, and in that "Observation" post of yours as well as in Heinsoos interview it seems nobody ever saw the entire picture.

I would say picking spells was part of the fun and challenge. Especially in 3E, you didn't really have to "guess" that much (that's more a problem of earlier editions I guess, though I tend to think 4E might have that one too for Wizards). The "fun" was had in optimzing your spell selection: "Who memorizes Dispel magic?" "Okay, we need a Bulls Strength for the Cleric, the Fighter and the Rogue." "We need 3 Resist Energy Spells at least." "Okay, than we need Fireball, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile". (At higher levels, you might pick more save or death spells.)
Of course all this management also created playability issues - and I don't miss it.

3e fighters had enough feats to do this.

And yet, it always seemed that the best route was to go the "boring" route. Just pick Weapon Focus and all its related follow-ups. Improved Trip was a good choice, I guess, and _maybe_ Improved Grapple if you expected to fight against humanoid (especially spellcasters).
And if you didn't play a Fighter, but any other weapon guy, your options are pathetic.

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?)

I am not surprised that they tried out other ideas. I think there are some "obvious" routes, too. For example, spellcasters could have more dailies and Martial characters more at-wills or encounters. I am not exactly surprised that this turned out to be imbalanced and not working all that well in the end.
I think we already see some of these elements - starting with the Core Rules, in fact.
1) Channel Divinity is an extra power for Clerics.
2) Stances
3) Dailies that can be sustained (and not just "heavy damage" dailies)
Beyond the Core Rules
4) Rages. In a way, "Stance Deluxe"

We need more attrition, Coasties.

Are you certain? Your own game experience suggests that it doesn't work that well for you, if you always end the adventuring day after 2 encounters. (Why, oh why, do you not use that last action point in a third encounter?! )
Or do you want "slower" attrition? (Because you can run through your characters dailies pretty fast?)

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."

I think you re-state it the wrong way. It doesn't make sense for a new player to see that what made his character unique being gone after one fight, while the rest of the party can still do their shtick. Maybe it does make sense from a game world perspective, but it doesn't make sense from a play perspective. And worse, he might think that he should use his Quarterstaff and wade into melee - since everyone knows Wizards wield Staffs, right? - and find out that this is way too dangerous for him and he should stick to Crossbows and suck up that -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

Players always had the option of starting characters at 4th level or retiring them at 14th.

How is a beginning player supposed to know he shouldn't start at level 1 if he doesn't want his character die accidentally? What previous experience in his life would suggest to him that that's the way to go in this game? All the countless video-games that have you start as 1st level character or as a guy that just holds a 9mm Pistol and works his way to 75th level or a Rocked Propelled Grenade. Or his experience as a kid, where he learned to walk before he could run, and where he learned to count to 10 before he learned to count to 100, where he learned to add before he learned to multiply, where he learned to divide before he learned how to derive functions?

Of course, there is a simple way to do this - just write it in the PHB. "1st to 3rd level are not intended for use for beginning players". That would certainly make him consider starting at 4th level.

But then, he had to face the fact that he has to pick 3 feats and 6 powers before he even understood anything about them. Maybe you'd change the advancement scheme and make sure that the 4th level choices are what the now 1st level choices are. But after you have started your game at 4th level and started to learn it there, would you ever go back to play it at 1st level? Maybe. But a lot would probably not, so for those that don't, you did just waste 3 levels of the character advancement.
Where if you design 1st level so that characters start at 4th level, you don't waste anything, and you still start with the kind of satisfying gameplay people want, without removing the concept of character advancement and improvements.
Sure, someone that really needs this 1st level play experience of earlier editions is left out. You didn't spend time on stuff people do not need, but you left out stuff people might like. That's the decision to make, and you can go either route.

Originally Posted by Ariosto

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well.

Maybe. But I don't care about the next edition until it is in the works.

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

"And seriously, they may not be wrong."

People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D? Seriously?

I said that people might not be wrong for supporting any combination of the three statements I mentioned. Did I say People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D?? I reread my post before submitting and I just reread it, I'm not seeing myself say that. Because that would be at odds with my next two lines, about how other people seem to enjoy the imbalances and that it's perfectly fine.

As for the Men & Magic thing, what is the point that you're trying to make? I accept that it's designed that way, but if my friends and I enjoy everything except the difference in power between casters and non-casters, is there some reason why I should stick to that one line and not try to tweak power levels to our taste?

[Ariosto]

Kibbitz: Are you and your friends offering your "tweaked" rules as the official D&D game?

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Treebore

I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.

As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.

Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too. In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.

Good to hear, though the more I read this, and the rest of your post, I keep wondering if you should be quoting Remathilis instead, since my post followed into your comment doesn't seem near as relevant

Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes! Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!

The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!

So yes, my tastes are different. I want to play a character that has a limited role, and slowly gets better and better at fulfilling that role. I want a fighter that hits, hits a lot, and deals out lots of damage when he hits. I want a mage who can become practically a god when he reaches 18th level, but starts out whimpy, and learns humility and to be smart about how he handles challenges thrown his way.

While this may be presumptuous of me, I think a fair number of us, if not most, are fine with the limited role part. The point at which we differ, is how much and how far the role should develop, and the feel of the character at the end point should be appropriate. An example of such a difference would be the feel and state of non-casters vs casters edging to the boundary of being epic. For level 20 casters vs non-casters, some want their non-casters to still be human, just supremely skilled. Me, I want them to be super-human, on the same level as the feats that level 20 casters can performed, limited within their roles.

So yes, I don't like 4E because everyone starts out the same and progresses the same. A wizard shouldn't have so many hit points or such a decent AC. I don't want a wizard that has to roll a d20 in order for his spell to work just so the player has something to physically do each round and to save the DM from having to make the saving throws.

So yes, 4E D&D isn't a version of D&D that interests me very much, I am much happier playing what I play. I have stolen an idea or two from 4E, including allowing spell casters to be able to essentially doing a magic arrow attack each round that scales in power with level, and to make non magical healing to be more powerful, but not be as powerful as healing surges are.

I am glad for those who love 4E, its fun discovering a new game. Just for me, I am having more fun staying with what I already play.

Which is perfectly fine, really! I actually don't like 4e, though for different reasons than yours.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Obergnom

Maybe because I am a physicist or maybe because I am a big fan of Blizzards way of designing games. (Love Starcraft and Diablo 2 for being balanced), but I firmly belive that game design is a complicated craft, requireing solid math skills.
If anything, I think the designers should do better in the math department...

When you are dealing with (establishing) relations among two "parts" or "sides" maths is the most relevant tool.
But multi-player tabletop rpgs are much more complicated than this. I would suggest a more broad scientific apprehension. A bit(basics) of biology, a bit of math, a bit of law-legal science, a bit of sociology all help and have their part IMHO.

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Kibbitz: Are you and your friends offering your "tweaked" rules as the official D&D game?

1. No.
2. If I was in the position to do so, how would it affect this discussion further?
3. Please share what's on your mind instead. It would be much clearer and easier for us to discuss this than for me to guess at exactly what you're getting at from your questions and quotes.

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well.[/i]

So what if it does? My books will continue to exist.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by a poster at Dragonsfoot

Some of them may have never played a human PC before and might not realise that they can't see in the dark...

Silly, I thought. But then ...

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

How is a beginning player supposed to know he shouldn't start at level 1 if he doesn't want his character die accidentally? What previous experience in his life would suggest to him that that's the way to go in this game? All the countless video-games that have you start as 1st level character or as a guy that just holds a 9mm Pistol and works his way to 75th level or a Rocked Propelled Grenade.

I don't think that video games have so reduced IQs over the past 30 years. And except for the occasional seriously role-played Samurai, character deaths in my experience have as a rule been accidental!

If one assumes (as I do not) that beginners must get jacked-up characters, then why not provide that experience in an introductory Basic D&D instead of turning the main game into a truncated version?

I could more easily accept an argument from a wider societal shift to a culture of instant gratification if I saw this phenomenon prevailing across the RPG spectrum, but I do not. D&D appears to be "special" in this way.

you still start with the kind of satisfying gameplay people want.

Some people. Has anyone hard data on sales figures of the 3.0/3.5 PHB versus the Moldvay and Mentzer "red box" Basic sets? I know, 4E is jacked up even relative to 3E -- but it has not been out so long (for a decent sales comparison), and they have a lot in common with each other that's significantly different from the old editions.

We keep coming back to a notion of what's "satisfying" or fun based on the perceptions of a limited faction. And somehow that faction's fun requires eliminating what's fun to everyone else, whereas the vice-versa does not hold true.

Is this perhaps at least partly an RPGA thing? The Association is doing (from what I've seen) a fine job of bringing players to the game. However, the demands of its peculiar approach to play are hardly representative of the needs of home campaigns. I'm pretty sure that participants in those are more numerous, but suspect that the convenience of RPGA as a source of input skews perceptions at WotC. There's that feedback loop again! Make it all 4E all the time, and you don't hear from 3E fans who don't think the emperor's new clothes are so splendid.

Originally Posted by Spatula

So what if it does? My books will continue to exist.

Bingo! That's a more practical attitude than being an "edition warrior" (said the less than utterly practical man).

Originally Posted by kibbitz

If I was in the position to do so, how would it affect this discussion further?

Then I would urge you to consider yourself the keeper of a cultural trust, with fiduciary duty to more than momentary commercial or personal interests. I would do that not out of any expectation of success but simply because it is in my nature.