4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Ariosto]

It's more the lack of healing surges that seems to put a hard cap on effectiveness.

That's what (by a naive approximation) I thought. A guy was bellyaching about another foray, and I figured he had effectively 100+ (or something like that) HP left. Old-school, I'm glad to have 7.

But what really matters is access to surges. When you've used your second wind, don't have a potion, and the clerics are down ... it can get pretty dicey!

For a single encounter, anyway.

In 4E, the diamond-bitted chainsaw or high explosive round that doesn't kill me can't hurt me for longer than an extended rest.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by gribble

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!

Definitely. Depletion of healing surges is the #1 trigger for a party resting.

There's a very interesting balance, however, between expending daily powers in combat and gaining new ones through milestones & magic items; after the second encounter the PCs gain an action point and can use their 2nd daily power from a magic item. If they have magic items with cool dailies, this starts to become very significant.

Cheers!

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

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.

Considering that, what then? We shouldn't make any changes ever or offer them as optional rules since there will always be people who are fine with the system as is? Or is it fine to make changes as long as the essence of D&D is intact?

But that leads to another problem. Assuming that the people involved do care about preserving the essence of D&D across new editions, we would probably see ourselves as changing it for the better and either making necessary sacrifices for it, or making changes that didn't affect the heart and soul of D&D. After all, D&D probably means different things to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be disagreeing on the power balance issue, among other things.

[Ariosto]

kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's The Hobbit, and Dennis L. McKiernan's The Lord of the Rings? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?

No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such an objection, so I can correct it!

On to other windmills.

Poor Rob. Where's the "Interview With Mike Mearls" thread?

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's The Hobbit, and Dennis L. McKiernan's The Lord of the Rings? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?

No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such, so I can correct it!

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a rewrite or remake of a story to new editions but D&D has always been like this. Every iteration has had changes, so effectively you've had The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings written by anyone from R.A.Salvatore to J.K.Rowling (your choice of authors may vary depending on how you view the editions, of course!)

As for keeping Tolkien out of print, it's too bad but they own the material. They are a company first and a cultural entity second, so I can't fault them for doing what they feel is right for them commercially. At best, I can only question and voice my opinion as to whether their decision was wise.

Can't talk much about optional rules, I'm afraid. I buy RPGs but for D&D, I only own bits of the Boxed series (up to Companion, loved all of it) and 3rd (ugh.) I've not had the (dis?)pleasure of encountering OD&D but I didn't like 1st and 2nd edition personally, and 4th was to me about as bad as 3rd taste-wise, and worse layout/content-wise. So, I don't know D&D as well as some, or maybe even most of the people on this board.

[3catcircus]

As has been stated earlier, I think there is a certain chutzpah to Mr. Heinsoo's statements regarding wrongbadfun in earlier editions of the game.

I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.

Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."

Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.

Additionally, what else that has been missing from the rules is a quick-n-easy method for allowing players to do non-combat things.

Frankly, the idea that 4e fixes the sweet spot that existed in 3e is a fallacy based upon the fact that players (and DMs) don't really have a decent toolkit in 3.x to allow them to go from being one of the grunts in the trenches to becoming generals of armies and eventually political movers and shakers. There are smatterings of help in the DMG2 and Power of Faerun, but you'll also have to adopt rules from something like MMS:WE.

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

[kibbitz]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."

Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.

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

Frankly, the idea that 4e fixes the sweet spot that existed in 3e is a fallacy based upon the fact that players (and DMs) don't really have a decent toolkit in 3.x to allow them to go from being one of the grunts in the trenches to becoming generals of armies and eventually political movers and shakers. There are smatterings of help in the DMG2 and Power of Faerun, but you'll also have to adopt rules from something like MMS:WE.

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

Never used those. My visions of my epic hero is more of a legendary doer of deeds, not a leader of men, so I don't agree that I should be doing all those things such as acquiring landholdings and attracting vassals. I do agree that more concrete rules could be present, at the very least for expanding your horizons as a player and/or DM if you're inclined.

[darjr]

As a practical suggestion, healing can be augmented with a paladins 'lay on hands' and something like the healing weapon or bracers of respite or the battleforged shield. There are examples of healing in 4e that do not require the benefactor to spend a surge.

[Kamikaze Midget]

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

D&D in some ways it seems, most obviously in 4e, has been boiled down to one thing:

Fantasy combat.

As if the only truly fun part of any D&D game from the red box on up was when you got to kill things with swords.

It's kind of gradually wound up crossing a line from being an important, fun, great part of the game, to being the whole (or 95%) of the game.

There's a middle ground I think we passed somewhere between 2e and 3e. I've never had a huge desire to be a "leader of men," but that whole heroic arc has been set aside in favor of more fantasy combat. I think fantasy combat is great and I want my 20th level characters to still do it, but I don't really want that to be all my character does from level 1-20. It's kind related to of one of the famous complaints about MMORPG's: you go from killing rats in the sewers for Rat Tails to killing interdimensional demon-rats for demon-rat tails. The game doesn't change.

That's something that D&D has certainly lost over the years (2e didn't have much, and 3e didn't have anything really solid, and 4e doesn't go back there).

[Ariosto]

What the Kamikaze said.

Apparently, being a real mover and shaker is "not fun."

More, Sir?

Whaddaya want? A bonus to hit?

Ha ha har ha huck (choleric cough)

Shaddup an eatcher damage bonus, if ya kin ketch it!

But please, Sir! All I want is enough.

Checkers ain't enuff fer ye, eh? DUPLICITOUS DAZE! SLY SLIDE!

Shout at me like that again, Sir, and I might incidentally discommode your codpiece.

[MichaelSomething]

Originally Posted by Roman

I am not sure it will generate so much debate simply because I didn't see anything particularly new about 4E's design philosophy in the article.

Originally Posted by Odhanan

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.

Yet here we are on page Six! I agree with both of you that debate on this subject is not the most productive thing to talk about. Yet this keeps happening anyway. Hopefully, some people learned something from all of this.

[Thasmodious]

I don't agree at all that D&D is only about combat nor do I agree that "old school" D&D had "good rules" to cover other things. You want to talk "like a videogame" - when you hit x level (not when you earn it through gameplay), you get a stronghold based on class, y number of followers, generating z amount of gp... It was entirely mechanistic. I see this argument all the time from the "old school" who claim that, simultanesouly, D&D rules were about so much more than just combat and trash the notion of things like a craft system, social skills, skill challenges and other mechanics that serve to frame RP endeavors. The two positions are entirely at odds. The stronghold rules were an afterthought, not some complete, immersive, rich post-adventuring game system. There weren't any rules for what you could do with those followers, no mass combat rules, no court intrigue rules.

And I happen to think that was great. I don't want rules for that stuff. I need tools to handle players approaching challengese within that type of play (social mechanics, etc) but the rest is put into place by the DM. That is still true today. Yes, the rules themselves are about conflict resolution, and combat takes up most of that. No, that doesn't mean the game itself is just about combat. It's no more true that PCs couldn't negotiate with kings in 1e than it is true that PCs can't have a stronghold and followers in 4e.

[Spatula]

I remember my 1e elven illusionist / thief had a thieves' guild when he hit the proper level in thief. Why? Because the PHB said so! We never used our strongholds or followers, it was just another goody to add to the long list of goodies.

There should be good support for kingdom-running activities. I would love to see some of that. It's not for everyone though - some people just want to have fun killing bigger & badder monsters. And some DMs don't have the ability to make a poltical game entertaining, and D&D (any edition, save perhaps BEMCI which I'm less familiar with) hasn't been helping those DMs out. The (A)D&D rules are concerned with exploration and combat, not politics.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

And I happen to think that was great. I don't want rules for that stuff. I need tools to handle players approaching challengese within that type of play (social mechanics, etc) but the rest is put into place by the DM. That is still true today. Yes, the rules themselves are about conflict resolution, and combat takes up most of that. No, that doesn't mean the game itself is just about combat. It's no more true that PCs couldn't negotiate with kings in 1e than it is true that PCs can't have a stronghold and followers in 4e.

Well said!

One of my 4e groups is currently in the process of buying a home base in Greyhawk and a couple of hirelings (a butler and a maid). They're negotiating with a friend's grandfather, a powerful merchant-prince, and where that leads I have no idea.

The players having imagination is a wonderful thing.

To a very large extent, all of this lies under the purview of the individual DMs and players much more than any rulebook. The rules need to facilitate this more than they interfere. In 3e, I found they interfered too much. Your fighter couldn't be trained in the Diplomacy skill, and this was dreadful when you wanted him to become a ruler. Why does he need to cross-class again? The fact that 4e gets out of the way and permits this to occur easily is something I really enjoy about it.

Want to do something magical and non-combat that isn't in the rulebook? Invent a ritual for it. Something non-magical? It's most likely covered by a skill.

The exceptions to that - Profession and Craft - were so hideously broken in 3e that you see why they no longer exist. (We're back to the handwaving we did in AD&D).

Cheers!

[kibbitz]

Good to hear that it's working out better for you, MerricB! However, I think the presence of such rules is a good thing in the sense if only for exposure for players and DMs to other options. Or alternatively, we could just have sections in both the PHB and DMG explaining how to deal with this without specific rules for it? Would that be best? Should I fork this?

[Cadfan]

I have to be honest, I do kind of hope that we get solid rules for operating an entire kingdom.

I also hope they're in an expansion book. I'd HATE for them to be core. Any decent treatment of them is going to need so much space that fitting them into the core rules would be impossible without neutering them. Plus... they're kind of plot elements, not mechanical elements. I mean, they have mechanical aspects, yes... but I can't help but think that operating a kingdom belongs in the optional expansion books instead of in the core rules, simply based on how often people operate kingdoms. Maybe DMG2 or 3, or a book written specifically for this purpose. Ideally the specific book.

What I'd specifically like to see would be:

1. Premade castles for those who don't want to make their own.

2. Detailed rules on making your own if you do. I mean old school, detail every last window. Don't try to sell me some dumb combat system tacked on to it, though. I'm looking at you, Rules Cyclopedia.

3. DM ADVICE! LOTS OF IT!

3a. Specifically, ways to handle the inevitable disparities in attention that crop up when one PC is Pharoah, and the other is his best friend the ratcatcher's apprentice he met when he ranaway as a child. I'm well aware that this is a solvable issue, please don't preach to me about that, that's why I'm asking for professionally written advice on the subject.

3b. Also DM advice on ways to let the PCs get away from their obligations from time to time, and adventure a bit.

3c. Advice on using skill challenges to handle things like wars. Large scale skill challenges. As in, negotiate a military alliance with the Duke before the orcs arrive, one success. Complete construction of the upgraded fortifications on time, one success. Prevent the assassination of the captain of the guard, one success. Fail to ambush the orc's siege weaponry while it was being transported by sea, one failure. Sneak a strike force into the orc camp to BURN the siege weaponry, cancel that failure. You get the idea.

What I'm not looking for, and actively hope not to find:

1. Rules that connect plot elements like being a prince or leading an army with PC level. If your 12 year old level 1 PC is Pharoah and in command of a million soldiers and the greatest fleet the land has ever known, then that's that. Don't try to tell me that I have to be level X before I can have a court magician. That's a plot matter.

2. Rules that prevent me from handwaving micromanagement issues. I suppose there's someone out there who wants to analyze crop growth and weather patterns and road capacity, and if those rules are to exist anywhere this would be the book for it, but please, PLEASE I want those to be ignorable by the rest of us. I should be able to let a relatively casual, inexperienced player be a princess and in charge of an estate or even an entire realm, without sending her to princess-school first.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

See, that's something I don't like. I don't like the idea that at some point, character advancement by level simply ends.

I agree with you and I dissagree with you at the same time dave!

I like the fact that there is a definite end to the core game.

What I WANT to see is an add on game in a similar vein to the immortals stuff. It kind of feels... weird to me to just keep on keepin on for epic levels. It seems like there would have to come a point where your character is just so dang powerful that the regular world just seems... pointless. Things like athletics? Who really cares when your breath weapon is more powerful then a neutron bomb?

The game in my opinion at that point needs to change focus. It needs to "feel" different. It can't just feel like the same thing with ever bigger numbers.

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.

Interesting... I've found the system so easy to modify. A low magic campaign seems as easy as dropping the arcane power source, dropping magic items (except for artifacts in my opinion) adding a couple of bonuses at key levels... and that's it.

You can even drop the divine power source, and have a low magic, no priestly beings type campaign. All healing would be martial in nature.

Maybe even pop on an expanded wound system using the disease track if you want to get really gritty.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I have to be honest, I do kind of hope that we get solid rules for operating an entire kingdom.

I also hope they're in an expansion book.

And again with how easy I feel it is to modify 4e without harming the "core" of the game... It just seems like things like this are just begging for 3pp to make some cash! :P

You've already outlined a basic system. Run it all mainly on the skill challenge system.. Maybe even utilize the ritual/feat combo system a bit.

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Scribble

You've already outlined a basic system. Run it all mainly on the skill challenge system.. Maybe even utilize the ritual/feat combo system a bit.

Heh, I could probably write the book myself, except that I've got no interest in trying to write a book that would be accepted by the sorts of people who want charts of historically realistic data on castle construction. I'm better at tweaking rules mechanics to do unexpected things, crafting a "look and feel" of a game or plotline, and advising DMs on interacting with players, than I am at historically relevant detail. More 4e DMG and Feng Shui RPG than GURPS.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Branduil

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.

Yes sir.

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.

If your players stop because they are out of dailies, its not a problem with the system, but with your players. Teach them that it's not always possible and that they can have plenty of fun without them. Or did you let them rest after every single combat in 3.x as well?

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 can only say that my experience differs a lot. Last time they were in combat, it was the 6th encounter that day - Sure, it was close but if your paragon players are running out of surges that fast, maybe they need to re-evaluate their tactics or something. All I can say is that not everyone has that problem at paragon level.

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.

For what it is worth, my players did the same right when we started to play. If you make certain they are not allowed to rest, several things could happen. 1) They learn to better manage their dailies. 2) They become better at using their encounter powers. 3) They realize it doesn't have to be grindy without dailies. 4) They die

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!

And this is a problem why? Very few monsters do this. It just makes draining creatures different.

[Cadfan]

For what its worth, my players struggle to use up their daily powers. Everyone except the Ranger has at least one daily that lasts the whole encounter, and many players have more than one. There's just no point in stacking them all, even where we're allowed.