D&D General New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E

[Chalice]

I disagree entirely with the quoted claim.

4e’s system was its biggest turnoff by a mile for the vast majority of those who took issue with that edition at all (which, yes, was many) - like, in most cases, the only significant turnoff.

Such a radical overhaul on nearly every level, but also in ways that were very much on the nose - again, for many DMs and players anyway.

It no longer looked like D&D, or indeed, played like it either. And that is what did the damage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It no longer looked like D&D, or indeed, played like it either. And that is what did the damage.

[citation needed]

You can play it exactly the same way you'd play 3e or 5e.

You can play 4e TOTM. There are people on this very board who have proudly done so and enjoyed it. Just because you aren't using the (very well-made) grid rules doesn't mean WotC's crack team of assassins will come to eliminate you for doing so.

 

[pemerton]

So it should also help other spells, not only Suggestion.

Why? It's very common, in the fiction of D&D, for a magician to be able to use magic to do <this thing> but not <this other thing> - eg to be able to evoke a ball of destructive fire, but not a cone of fire similar to a dragon's breath.

Which was over-simplified like this because any open use of spell was anathema to 4ed design.

Apparently you played a completely different game from me. My rulebooks didn't have any remark saying that the "open" use of spells is anathema, and actually had various rules saying the opposite: the rules on p 42 and the rules for skill challenges in the DMG and DMG2.

Suggestion itself is usable in as "open" a fashion as the Diplomacy skill. I have no idea why you say that it is "oversimplified" compared to the versions found in other editions of D&D.

 

[Oofta]

[citation needed]

You can play it exactly the same way you'd play 3e or 5e.

You can play 4e TOTM. There are people on this very board who have proudly done so and enjoyed it. Just because you aren't using the (very well-made) grid rules doesn't mean WotC's crack team of assassins will come to eliminate you for doing so.

No. Just no. Using a grid or not is also not significant.

Standard caveat: doesn't make 4E a bad game to acknowledge that from a rules perspective they redid 90% of what had been done in previous editions.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I disagree entirely with the quoted claim.

4e’s system was its biggest turnoff by a mile for the vast majority of those who took issue with that edition at all (which, yes, was many) - like, in most cases, the only significant turnoff.

Such a radical overhaul on nearly every level, but also in ways that were very much on the nose - again, for many DMs and players anyway.

It no longer looked like D&D, or indeed, played like it either. And that is what did the damage.

I don’t think it was a poor product. I don’t think it was a poorly designed product. I don’t think people that like it are misguided.

I only know this: it did not feel right. I bought a ton of it. I started with a slipcase and started collecting from there. I played some but it did not excite our group.

It landed differently than any other edition and we dropped it. Granted, a lot of us were having kids etc. and were more distracted.

I bought the essentials books too. I was a little confused about them.

But ultimately I felt we could not do what we wanted. Enter 5e.

My local FLGS bought my 4e collection and I got some 5e adventure in trade.

I like music that not everyone loves. It sure does not sell tickets like Taylor Swift but I am sure it has sold “well” enough. I just would not see the point in avoiding the truth of it. Much said here and much energy expended trying to torture all available information into another reality.

 

[Belen]

I disagree entirely with the quoted claim.

4e’s system was its biggest turnoff by a mile for the vast majority of those who took issue with that edition at all (which, yes, was many) - like, in most cases, the only significant turnoff.

Such a radical overhaul on nearly every level, but also in ways that were very much on the nose - again, for many DMs and players anyway.

It no longer looked like D&D, or indeed, played like it either. And that is what did the damage.

This.

It was a very different experience for a lot of groups because 4e did not simulate the range of playstyles that previous editions and 5e can handle.

4e chose the play style for D&D. It said, this is the default experience for D&D and it sought to make that experience the best version of that style and I think it was successful for those groups who used that style.

It catered to one group of players above all others.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think so. I don't think the specific character of 4e, aside from it being rather different from previous editions, mattered much at all. I mean, 70% of its detractors are clueless about the game, so that tells you a lot.

Mod Note:
Like or dislike a game as you wish. Insult people and there will be a problem.

You are done in this discussion.

 

[Minigiant]

It was a very different experience for a lot of groups because 4e did not simulate the range of playstyles that previous editions and 5e can handle.

4e chose the play style for D&D. It said, this is the default experience for D&D and it sought to make that experience the best version of that style and I think it was successful for those groups who used that style.

It catered to one group of players above all others

Kinda.

4e hyperfocused each class and each skill into a playstyle. 4e actually provided more distinctive playstyles than every edition before it

Just not in the PHB.

 

[Neonchameleon]

3e's skill system is a hot mess. There's no limit to the list of skills, so who knows what core basic 'everyone can do this' competency will suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke because someone decides to name a skill for that? WORSE, you can only advance if you have some skill points to burn on whatever it is, otherwise you simply sink into incompetence over time. Many skills ambiguously overlap other skills, making things even worse, because we now have to guess which one the GM will decide applies in any specific case.

Everything you write here was true ... about the 2E skill/"non weapon proficiencies" system. The only way the 3.x skill system was extensible was craft, profession, perform, and knowledge skills - and it (being a reaction to 2e) over-specified things rather than was ambiguous. You've your editions mixed up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really funny to see these two posts back to back!

They are both true. There is a vast amount of both 4e fluff and mechanics in 5e - but it's deliberately been painted and renamed to disguise it.

To me the clearest example is the cosmology. AD&D and much of 3.x had the Great Wheel, with the (Prime and other) Material at the centre, surrounded by the Infinite Elemental "Inner" Planes and then the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel of which there were a set number (and because it was more fun Mechanus replaced Nirvana).

4e's World Axis has the Material at the centre, flanked by the Feywild and Shadowfell. Then the Elemental (and Paraelemental) planes as a part of the Elemental Chaos, traditionally depicted as "below". Traditionally depected as "above" was the Astral Sea containing a plethora of realms like Mechanus and the Seven Heavens.

The 5e Great Wheel looks on first glance as if it has the basic shape of the Great Wheel. But it has (like 4e) the Material flanked by the Shadowfell and Feywild. And then the Elemental (and Paraelemental) planes are floating in the Elemental Chaos, as in 4e. And then outside that comes the Astral Sea with prominent planes picked to represent the alignments. 5e cosmology is 4e cosmology using the same map projection as the Great Wheel.