4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by Mudstrum Ridcully

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.

So, like with a lot of aspects of the game, it's safe to say that some people found it fun, and others did not ("blah blah blah I want to blow stuff up with fire!"). Assuming that it was fun lead to the powers system that we see -- everyone is Vancian, and every class as a huge wall of powers that have overwhelmingly similar mechanics with slight (but important) variations. That is not fun for everyone.

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.

That's fair enough, but I don't think it's safe to assume that anyone (especially new players unfamiliar with RPGs) really want to go through the experience of sorting through elventy-million options just so that they can kick butt. Character creation (and power selection) is one of the HUGE barriers to entry that D&D has: the options and rules are overwhelming. For D&D to be an accessible game, character creation needs to boil down to "two choices and go" or something like that.

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?)

2 encounters is a good session. Part of this is the slowness of combat, of course, but a lot of it is the rules telling the party that they should rest: "We're out of big guns, time to heal them up!" Which means that healing surges never even become an issue for my party.

There's basically two directions I could see being fun to take:

#1: Embrace the "long combat" idea fully and only have 2 encounters, but increase the healing surge attrition so that it feels really like they are being drained of resources.

#2: Emrbace the attrition idea fully and speed up combats so that they can knock through it in 5 minutes and move on to the rest of the plot. If they HAVE to rest to recover before a big combat, they'll feel the burn.

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.

That's pretty fair, but in a low-magic game, there should probably be other ways of making your character unique aside from magic. D&D isn't going to be low magic, and that's fine, but it's not fair to assume that low-magic games aren't fun for new players because wizards can't do magic.

[Remathilis]

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.

So have I. Thief/rogue has been my fav since 2nd edition (when I began).

Originally Posted by Treebore

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.

The broad assumption is that you have a game/DM who would allow such options to exist. I've played in games where DMs allowed my PCs political power, and I've played in games where the DM has not (not setting appropriate, emphasis on travel in the campaign, doesn't want the hassle od doing politics, just wants dungeons, etc).

Secondly, I fail to see how its a balancing point. A thief gets his guild, a cleric his church, a wizard his tower, a fighter his stronghold. Whoopie. How does that affect the fact that my PC lags behind spellcasters when they also get followers?

Originally Posted by Treebore

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.

And if he didn't have those belts & girdles, what then? Or a magic sword and magic armor? Or an 18/% strength (the difference between a 17 and an 18/% is staggering, I never saw a fighter without an 18/%). A wizard could create his own armor (stoneskin, mage armor, shield) and weapons (name your evocation/transumation/conjuration/necromancy effect).

Originally Posted by Treebore

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!

No. I want a PC whose role isn't trampled by the spellcaster. I want a game where the thief IS the de-facto scout/sneak, and NO other class could match it. D&D isn't that game; a 3rd level wizard with invisibility far outperforms a thief in sneaking. Knock is far better than open lock. If you REALLY wanted to be a good thief, just be a wizard and load up on those types of spells (and add a few attack spells to boot).

Originally Posted by Treebore

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!

I agree, those PCs who want "I can do everything!" characters play wizards! They can do everything; fight (tensers transformation), heal (synistodweomer), scout (imp. invisibility) talk (charm, friends) etc.

Originally Posted by Treebore

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.

Practically a god? Who would have PC envy when you have got one member of your party who borders on divinity and another whose claim to fame is "I can read languages with 95% accuracy!"

I too want a fighter that hits and does damage. I also don't want the mage to take the next round to reduce the foe to 0 hp because of one save or die, making my round to engage the creature a 1 round distraction.

Originally Posted by Treebore

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 I roll or you roll. The difference? Oh, and a fighter still has a better AC and HP than a wizard in 4e.

Originally Posted by Treebore

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.

Hey, take what you want. But don't make mages more powerful without giving something to the non-casters. You run C&C, how bout upping the rogue's HD to d8 and giving him the cleric's BtH? Or giving him sneak-attack dice that scale with level? Or making Knock a bonus to dex-checks to open locks rather than auto-open?

Originally Posted by Treebore

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.

More power to you man.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

That's fair enough, but I don't think it's safe to assume that anyone (especially new players unfamiliar with RPGs) really want to go through the experience of sorting through elventy-million options just so that they can kick butt. Character creation (and power selection) is one of the HUGE barriers to entry that D&D has: the options and rules are overwhelming. For D&D to be an accessible game, character creation needs to boil down to "two choices and go" or something like that.

Behold what Wotsee hath wrought: remaking D&D in the image of Magic: The Gathering.

TSR's D&D** (especially the Original and Basic sets) offered a limited menu of game-mechanical choices ... which thereby left the rest of character definition wide open. The notion that a greater burden of rules increases flexibility and range of options is just the opposite of the actual fact. It does increase paperwork and number crunching, though!

I have yet to sit down and try "building" a 4E character. Some more experienced fellows have been glad to do that for me (just one example of the very friendly attitude I've encountered in my experience with 4E players via RPGA). If memory serves, the advice I've gotten is that it should take about 40 minutes.

3E seemed to me less like D&D than like Hero System, so I guess 4E is analogous to a Champions Lite.

FWIW: I prefer to DM Original (like wearing long-worn denim jeans) and play 1st ed. AD&D. I could easily swap those positions, or take either with any of the other TSR editions. I have (and probably will) never DM 3E, though, and have found it more labor than love to referee 4E. I found my enjoyment of playing the latter greatly increased when I disabused myself of the notion that it was supposed to be D&D. YMMV, of course.

** 2E with all the supplemental "fixings" was something else, but there was always the "Players Option" of sticking with the PHB -- and the DM's option of leaving out Non Weapon Proficiencies and the like. As a rule, it's easier to complicate a simple and modular game than to simplify a complex and systematically integrated one.

[Branduil]

I realize it's always been a popular term, but I didn't understand how many people actually meant "sacred cow" in a literal way. I think the idea that WotC has a duty to hew to some divine, bovine mandate is absurd. The older editions of the game will not cease to exist.

I think, as a newer player to the game, I have a different perspective of the game. I didn't have the experience to understand that Fighters should suck compared to Clerics and Wizards, as a matter of course. It did not make sense to me that spellcasters should use an entirely different system from everything else, that is not even very interesting thematically.

So yes, when I heard about what 4th edition was trying to do, I was excited that it seemed to match what I always wanted D&D to be. I guess that makes me a heretic to the divine bovinity, but to be honest, I don't have the kind of respect for those old bags of beef that others have. And it's fine if you do. As I said, the old editions will never go away, and it's good that others can still find enjoyment in them. We all have a version of D&D we can enjoy, so I see no reason to knock others for enjoying a different edition.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Behold what Wotsee hath wrought: remaking D&D in the image of Magic: The Gathering.

TSR's D&D** (especially the Original and Basic sets) offered a limited menu of game-mechanical choices ... which thereby left the rest of character definition wide open. The notion that a greater burden of rules increases flexibility and range of options is just the opposite of the actual fact. It does increase paperwork and number crunching, though!

One of the things I think I like best about 4e is that at its heart the core of the game feels (to me) like it returns to the olden days of an easy/quick to use system.

There are a lot of expanded parts that add onto the core, but the core itself remains quick and easy. (With the expanded parts really only effecting those that use them when they use them.)

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

3E seemed to me less like D&D than like Hero System, so I guess 4E is analogous to a Champions Lite.

You obviously got it wrong. Haven't you heard. 4e is the new WoW.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Branduil

I think, as a newer player to the game, I have a different perspective of the game.

That seems to me a pretty reasonable assumption.

One man's sacred cow is another man's spidergoat nuggets.

[Branduil]

I'm not sure I even want to know what Spidergoat nuggets are.

[Runestar]

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.

Which explains the new rust monster. Now, everyone will be looking for one to feed their old equipment to, seeing as to how it gives you 100% residium for them.

But it still seems kinda goofy to me.

[Ariosto]

I don't get the WoW analogy -- but then, I've never seen anyone play WoW on a 300 baud dial-up.

Really, I'm not enough into video games to make good use of the comparison. I'm better versed in board games. There may be other fruitful analogies with Advanced Squad Leader (e.g., "design for effect" and "exception-based rules") -- but what's significant to me is that comparing it with D&D is the old "apples and oranges."

I never encountered the view that one could enjoy either D&D or Squad Leader (or King Maker, or Star Guard ... etc.), being forced to choose one and forever disavow and anathematize the other.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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!"

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.
2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any single character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by gribble

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.
2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any single character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.

I haven't noticed it with the dailies, well I DID, but my group got over that one after a bit. Dailies stopped seeming so important. They DO, however, still seem to cower away after they've used up their last healing surges. Sometimes they'll press on a little longer, but any damage with no healing surges left sends them into instant rest mode.

The number of encounters varies for me because the difficulty of the encounters varies for them as well.

[Ariosto]

Gribble & Scribble: I've got some mainly 3E/4E players in my OD&D game, and was not too surprised to find them acting as if sleep were the only spell in their grimoires. Seeing that actually got me thinking about a funky "free casting" variant based on what was once (when I was but a hatchling "grognard") an actual reading of the original rules.

Anyway, what was surprising, based on what I had read (but not seen) of 4E strategies, was that they did not call it a day after using those spells!

In fact, the biggest problem I've seen arising from application of a 4E education to a 0E environment is that (like cats up trees) the players don't seem to have a reverse gear. The DMs in a local home-brewed 4E campaign routinely come at least thrillingly close to TPKs just by counting on that.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

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).

A couple of things come to mind here - firstly that in 3.5e Cone of Cold and Disintegrate (Fort save for 5d6?) were laughably poor in terms of causing damage compared to equivalent level rogues or fighters. Harm was still a damage king, but that's cleric for you.

In many ways even in early editions, at high level a party needed all the members to survive. Certainly more so in 3rd edition. So where is the difference with 4th edition roles? A party can still function when missing one of the roles (especially controller seems dispensible at the moment), but doesn't function as well by any means.

(BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!

Cheers

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

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.

This is a very 2009 mindset though, and seems informed more by recent history.

Considering that 1e was the heydey of D&D, highly successful, enjoyed by tens of thousands (if not more), who are you to say that it didn't make sense, or was in some way un-fun?

I don't think there is much disputing the fact that 1e remained the most popular of all RPGs by quite a long shot.

Cheers

[Ariosto]

Re combat power: A lot depends on the fights you get into. In RPGA, unfortunately, that's basically just Hobson's choice.

A tag-team of "strikers" can really open up a can of whupass in the right situation!

Under less conducive conditions? Not so much.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

(BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!

You didn't have the right (wrong?) players.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

(BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!

I did. In 2e, I saw it enough to recall a lot of first-round kills (to be fair though, mundane poison was nearly as deadly, as was near-deaths like paralysis or petrification) to recall hording in save-boosting items (even if they didn't stack with your magical armor). In 3.0 I saw them A LOT because of the disparity of Save DCs to Weak-save progression. Thanks to the nerfing of Spell Focus/Greater, Fox Cunning, and other Int-boosters (or wis, or cha), It was less prevalent, but not enough to forget not seeing them.

Remember, if you cast fireball 2 rounds in a row and one round the creature saves and next it fails, you've taken two rounds to deal 75% of your potential damage (or less, if the target has evasion/improved) which may/may not kill the foe. If you do the same with Finger of Death, you took two rounds to kill the creature. Period.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Gribble & Scribble: I've got some mainly 3E/4E players in my OD&D game, and was not too surprised to find them acting as if sleep were the only spell in their grimoires.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like the players use 1 or 2 dailies and then decide to call it a day, but more that after 2-3 encounters most dailies are gone. While a 4e character is perfectly feasible without dailies, we've found that the daily powers are the most fun (aka, result in the least grindy combat), and a lot of the pressure to push on comes not from character effectiveness concerns as much as "not fun to push on" concerns.

In 3e, when it was just the wizard and/or cleric, the non-spellcasters in the party would tend to shout them down, call them names and generally convince everyone to "push on" for one more encounter.

In 4e, the players look around the table, say "we *could* push on, but it'll probably be a long and grindy combat" and collectively decide they should stop for the night.

It's more the lack of healing surges that seems to put a hard cap on effectiveness. I remember after one particularly harrowing fight against wights we decided to stop for the day after the 2nd encounter. Most of us still had a daily or two left, but 2 of us were out of healing surges so the group decided it'd be suicide to push on!

[Branduil]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

This is a very 2009 mindset though, and seems informed more by recent history.

Considering that 1e was the heydey of D&D, highly successful, enjoyed by tens of thousands (if not more), who are you to say that it didn't make sense, or was in some way un-fun?

I don't think there is much disputing the fact that 1e remained the most popular of all RPGs by quite a long shot.

Cheers

That's specious reasoning. Something being immensely popular does not mean aspects of it cannot be criticized or improved upon.

I think it's safe to say that while D&D has always been popular for lots and lots of reasons, balance between classes, across all levels, has never been a particularly strong selling point.