4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Mephistopheles]

I'm playing in a few 4E games at the moment and despite being strongly inclined against the idea of a new edition when it was announced I've found a lot to like in this new edition. I don't think I like 4E better than previous editions but nor do I think it's worse; it's a different game with a set of good features and problems all of its own.

The biggest problem that I have with it after a few months of play is that combat just takes so long to resolve. Long combats were what ground my 3E game to a halt as we got to the middle levels and above. In 4E combat length is a problem from the beginning. I'll grant that players aren't usually waiting as long between turns as they used to in 3E but the game as a whole seems to crawl along as combats just grind things to a halt; I enjoy the combat but at the same time I feel frustrated that the bigger picture is moving so slowly.

For all of the references Mr Heinsoo makes in the interview to problems caused in 3E by casters relative to non-casters at higher levels I do wish that their tendency to make combats take far too long to resolve was one of them.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Branduil

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.

I'm not saying that it cannot be criticised or improved upon though - what I'm saying is that assertions that it is a poor basis for a game to have low level wizards with only a spell or two are not borne out by the evidence.

Cheers

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

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.

The complete lack of this was one of my biggest complaints about 3e, and it was never really resolved. OD&D and 1e had enough information to whet the mind and get people thinking. It led to higher level characters engaging in different sorts of adventures which seemed to really expand the scope of the game to us.

Since 3e and now 4e lack anything about this, anything about social advancement, there will probably be a generation of D&D players who will never have the excitement of the social advancement side of a campaign (unless they are very lucky with their DM). I imagine that the majority of people will just run games around the information which is provided - as someone has already said, moving from collecting rat tails to collecting demon rat tails

I understand that some people don't want that, and they would prefer an escalating series of combats. I don't have a problem with that, but I think it is a shame that a whole traditional slice of D&D and FRPing has been excised from the rules.

Ah well.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Maybe it is a 2009er mindset, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. ON the contrary, it is right _now_.

Todays players all have a different background than the 70s players have.
OD&D was more than just Wizards with Vancian Spellcasting and a few slots. It was an entire new genre of games, with a lot of new stuff that was simply amazing.

But today, OD&D is just one of many games (and RPG)s. What worked then doesn't necessarily work as well now. We already have OD&D, and we also have Shadowrun and D&D 3E and Midgard and Warhammer and Savage Worlds. People have different assumptions and different experiences.

My first game was Shadowrun. When I read D&D 3E or The Dark Eyes magic rules, I was surprised - spell slots instead of drain? Not casting spells all the time? The Dark Eye? It takes _days_ to recover your mana? WHen would you ever cast spells?! Just one game I did play changed my expectations from how a game - or magic in a game - works.

OD&D players came from a Wargaming background, at least at first. I guess it was obvious for them that the artillery class (wizard) would have limited number of shots.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

OD&D players came from a Wargaming background, at least at first. I guess it was obvious for them that the artillery class (wizard) would have limited number of shots.

Although we came from a wargaming background, I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots because most of us were familiar with Gandalf, Wizard of Earthsea and pretty much every other literary source apart from Vance

I don't know anyone who treated OD&D as an extension of wargaming - although that was what we played before D&D, this Role-Playing thingy was entirely different - an opportunity to be in our own version of a story. Heady stuff!

Cheers

[DaveMage]

Originally Posted by Scribble

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.

I could see that. I could also see a limit to particular class levels. For example, 20 levels of Fighter could be the most you could take. You can still advance, but it now must be in another class, as you have become the epitome of the fighter. (And this would actually dovetail nicely with what you are proposing.)

But whatever way it's done, I just don't think an end point to character progression in D&D is a good thing.

[Mournblade94]

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.

"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.

The changes to 4e were a function of the squeaky wheels getting the grease. I was excited about 4e at the start. Then I realized... there was no improvement only dilution.

1st level has always been fun, I have no idea why Rob Heinsoo felt it was not.

Fortunately there are designers just as competent as WOTC working at PAIZO (or more so perhaps) that there is hope for a truer successor to D&D that $E has been.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

The changes to 4e were a function of the squeaky wheels getting the grease. I was excited about 4e at the start. Then I realized... there was no improvement only dilution.

1st level has always been fun, I have no idea why Rob Heinsoo felt it was not.

I suspect that Rob felt this way for two reasons:
- He didn't like it. I can see that, because I did not like it either, nor the rest of my group.Starting at 1st level was always dreaded.
- WotC saw enough complaints - directly or indirectly - and enough people not bothering to start playing at 1st level.

Fortunately there are designers just as competent as WOTC working at PAIZO (or more so perhaps)

Maybe. I reserve some doubts due to past experience with the game design elements contained in the various adventure path.

Although we came from a wargaming background, I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots because most of us were familiar with Gandalf, Wizard of Earthsea and pretty much every other literary source apart from Vance

So you liked OD&D despite the frustrations? Do you think they were necessary to make you appreciate the game more?

[delericho]

Originally Posted by Branduil

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

Funny, I agree with most of what he has to say, and I really don't like large parts of 4e.

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by gribble

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!

Where as our group (4E) looks around the table and says "if we push on it could be a TPK..."

And then we push on.

PS

[ehren37]

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.

And you're still better off as a mage/thief (only 1 level behind thanks to AD&D's design!). Because anything you can do, the mage can do better.

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.

Less than the fighter/mage, or cleric/mage or whatever. 1st edition adventures were dripping with wands,

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.

Magic item dependency is a good thing now?

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!

In our group, no one played the fighter, or a single class. It was blatently apparent they sucked compared to a MC'd spellcaster, given how poorly the rules were designed. You'd be a level behind, in exchange for a massive powerup. Why be a fighter, when you could be a fighter/cleric, tossing around what amounted to save or die effects at 3rd level (hold person)?

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!

You werent limited at all. You were a level behind (if 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!

No, what many old school geeks really want is someone else to suck. Someone to play the fighter or thief, while they be the wizard or cleric. Otherwise they wouldnt piss and moan about balance. Why else would it matter if the fighter was just as useful as the wizard? God knows he'll still be comparatively useless out of combat compared to the guy who can teleport, scry, read minds, contact other planes, and in general, break any adventure given a day to load up the appropriate list of ever expanding superpowers.

[ehren37]

Originally Posted by gribble

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 actually like the concept of healing surges, if not the execution. In 3rd edition, Wands of cure light wounds are so cheap that out of combat healing may as well be free past 5th level or so. If the players arent killed or ability drained/damaged, they may as well be healed to full and save everyone the trouble of rolling dice and tracking charges while the characters spend a minute poking each other with sticks.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

So you liked OD&D despite the frustrations? Do you think they were necessary to make you appreciate the game more?

Liked it despite the frustrations? Absolutely. They were irrelevant to my appreciation of the game though - and I think that is the point I was trying to make. It was just the way that D&D 'was', and it neither improved nor harmed it.



(nb RuneQuest 2 was our favoured game of choice, once it came out we pretty much abandoned D&D completely for it, with some additional time spent enjoying bushido)

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

1st level has always been fun, I have no idea why Rob Heinsoo felt it was not.

Probably because it hasn't been fun for an overwhelming majority of players?

For me (and my circle of roleplaying friends) it's been fun exactly ONCE.
After having started at level 1 once, we always started on higher levels after that. Sometimes as low as level 2, often higher. Note, that this wasn't just because the characters are pathetically weak at level 1 but also because there were no interesting monsters to fight at these low levels.

Imho, it was a correct decision to make the changes to level 1 characters in 4E. I'm just a bit disappointed they didn't include a section on level 0 characters in the 4E DMG for those few individuals out there who continue to enjoy playing farmers and their like.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by ehren37

In our group, no one played the fighter, or a single class. It was blatently apparent they sucked compared to a MC'd spellcaster, given how poorly the rules were designed. You'd be a level behind, in exchange for a massive powerup. Why be a fighter, when you could be a fighter/cleric, tossing around what amounted to save or die effects at 3rd level (hold person)?

If your group consists of minmaxers I can see this. Otherwise I have never seen this problem.

Originally Posted by ehren37

No, what many old school geeks really want is someone else to suck. Someone to play the fighter or thief, while they be the wizard or cleric. Otherwise they wouldnt piss and moan about balance. Why else would it matter if the fighter was just as useful as the wizard? God knows he'll still be comparatively useless out of combat compared to the guy who can teleport, scry, read minds, contact other planes, and in general, break any adventure given a day to load up the appropriate list of ever expanding superpowers.

Your insight is astounding. CLearly you are someone that has played with many groups of so called old schoolers to understand their secret.

Why would someone want to play the fighter? Because they did in fact NOT 'suck'. Most of my cahracters have been a fighting class mostly ranger. This nonsense of the fighters being the weakest class comes from people that did not understand the balance factour of the wizard was his spells per day. If you allowed rest periods like the 4e does, the wizard is never power downed. But a wizard USED to require strategy. You had to pick your spells carefully, and use them carefully or you would... uh oh! Run out of spells!

The fighter very often carried the party through these times. But you would have to assume an actual 8 hour day instead of 10 minute days. I never worried about that as a fighter.

[ehren37]

Originally Posted by 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.

D&D has NEVER been low magic. Unless you ban spellcaster classes from the players, they use magic more than they poop. Player wizards make any game a "high magic" game IMO. D&D magic is almost always a safe, known commodity. Aside from a few spellls, there's little chance of magic backfiring as I would expect in a low magic world. Its always been a poor system for this type of 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.

That stuff should really be in a supplement, IMO. Not everyone wants their game to become Axis and Allies at 10th level, and it shouldnt be the default assumption. I actually picked up MMS for this reason, but the player that is interested int hat sort of thing handles it between sessions, because the other 4 are bored to tears with that sort of thing.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Jhaelen

Probably because it hasn't been fun for an overwhelming majority of players?

For me (and my circle of roleplaying friends) it's been fun exactly ONCE.
After having started at level 1 once, we always started on higher levels after that. Sometimes as low as level 2, often higher. Note, that this wasn't just because the characters are pathetically weak at level 1 but also because there were no interesting monsters to fight at these low levels.

Imho, it was a correct decision to make the changes to level 1 characters in 4E. I'm just a bit disappointed they didn't include a section on level 0 characters in the 4E DMG for those few individuals out there who continue to enjoy playing farmers and their like.

I think we just need more 1st level foes - and I don't mean more Kobolds or more Goblins, but different type of creatures.

[ehren37]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

If your group consists of minmaxers I can see this. Otherwise I have never seen this problem.

Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords.

Your insight is astounding. CLearly you are someone that has played with many groups of so called old schoolers to understand their secret.

Why would someone want to play the fighter? Because they did in fact NOT 'suck'. Most of my cahracters have been a fighting class mostly ranger. This nonsense of the fighters being the weakest class comes from people that did not understand the balance factour of the wizard was his spells per day.

And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.

Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

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.

My experience has been more along the lines of Plane Sailing's. The caster players in my groups generally make a different calculation.

If they hammer away with a couple of rounds of fireballs, they've done significant damage even if the creature is making its saves (barring evasion, but then they switch to rays if that's the case) which makes it easier to mop up by the fighters, rogues, druids, and monks. By comparison, if the save or die spells fail, the monster is typically at full or near full strength and the spell slots cast were wasted.

The way they set their expectations, they put a higher penalty on failing to have a significant effect for the resources expended, particularly when multiple layers of defense are involved (SR, saves) than the benefit of an immediate takedown.

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I'm not saying that it cannot be criticised or improved upon though - what I'm saying is that assertions that it is a poor basis for a game to have low level wizards with only a spell or two are not borne out by the evidence.

I think those assertions have backing, even from yourself -

I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots

This was certainly my experience. As a player I'd argue against starting at 1st level because of wizards and as a DM, I've had players wanting to play wizards outright refuse to start at 1st level. People have complained about the weakness of low level wizards for decades and many have found it frustrating, as you say. So I'm not sure how you acknowledge on the one hand that this was a frustrating problem and then say it wasn't a problem because that's the way it was for years. I certainly think that a trained up wizard having to badly wield a crossbow is a problem.