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

[zakael19]

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't tend to "math out" appropriately. Here's what I mean.
Orc brute might be level 1, orc artillery might be level 2, orc minion might be 4th level. That orc shaman might be 7th level. So you're designing an encounter for a 1st level party, which in my case might have 4, 5, or 6 players depending on who is able to show up.
If you put in 50 XP over what the baseline for an appropriate encounter is, everyone can tell, like princess and the pea. Don't ask me how. It's ended up being the difference between "a thrilling encounter" and "being completely overwhelmed fleeing for our lives."


The online tools that let you +/- enemies are gone. What I have access to now is functional, but not fully featured.
Main difference is that I had players who thought about the game outside the sessions and tried to synergize instead of being individual superheroes.


Madness at Gardmore Abbey - which is widely regarded as the best adventure for 4e.

The math on a monster card makes it trivial to adjust those levels!!!! It’s so simple! Take a l1 orc, add the appropriate given modifiers, and now it’s level 4! Why are you hurting yourself like this?

Players often do not want to engage at this level. A DM may be lucky to have 1 person in the group that operates at this level.

Yes, and it sucks in 5e too - that system just allows for more optimized carry players in my experience. Plus the encounters tend towards smaller damage chunks (to the point where when a CR appropriate caster or big bruiser gets some attacks through I’ve had players get horrified at chunks of HP vanishes).

 

[Belen]

And that, my friend, tells you that you have players whose play style is not really aligned for 4ed. As i said, you have problem with players, not the system.

It also perfectly shows why 4e was so divisive. It was the rules. The rules catered to a much smaller subset of the player base and was really, really good for those players. These are the same type of people who join elite raiding guilds.

 

[zakael19]

It also perfectly shows why 4e was so divisive. It was the rules. The rules catered to a much smaller subset of the player base and was really, really good for those players. These are the same type of people who join elite raiding guilds.

Naw, that’s way overstated - and I think that at the time there were probably way less “casual” players given what I remember of 3.5? I’d rather never touch a computer again then get into high level raiding and find 4e totally comprehensible - but then again I’m a DM, and we’re almost always more likely to engage with rules (especially in 5e where you’re expected to be the voice of god).

4e absolutely needed a midlife QOL pass to reduce the complexity around feats and modifiers (a Tasha’s basically - which it turned out was just a preview of D&D future). It got Essentials & buried instead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It also perfectly shows why 4e was so divisive. It was the rules. The rules catered to a much smaller subset of the player base and was really, really good for those players. These are the same type of people who join elite raiding guilds.

The constant references to MMOs certainly make this sound in good faith.

 

[Belen]

Naw, that’s way overstated - and I think that at the time there were probably way less “casual” players given what I remember of 3.5? I’d rather never touch a computer again then get into high level raiding and find 4e totally comprehensible - but then again I’m a DM, and we’re almost always more likely to engage with rules (especially in 5e where you’re expected to be the voice of god).

4e absolutely needed a midlife QOL pass to reduce the complexity around feats and modifiers (a Tasha’s basically - which it turned out was just a preview of D&D future). It got Essentials & buried instead.

I would still have preferred a Saga Edition of 3.5 rather than 4e.

Still, as a DM, I burned out of systems like 3.5/PF/4e. They were too crunchy and I spent way too much time having to be a strategic resource for the players. I had to know all the rules and cover for the people that could not bother to learn.

This still happens in 5e but the burden is greatly reduced.

 

[Belen]

The constant references to MMOs certainly make this sound in good faith.

This is because the language regarding MMOs translates well and it was very clear that 4e was influenced by the genre.

 

[Chaltab]

This is because the language regarding MMOs translates well and it was very clear that 4e was influenced by the genre.

I despise MMOs and their design and strongly disagree. It's just RPG stuff. Fourth edition is less like an MMO than it's like your Ogre Battles or Final Fantasy Tactics: you have front line attackers, you have healers, you have people that work as crowd control.

 

[Undrave]

4e was amazing. It did what it was designed to do amazingly well. Problem is, outside of that, it didn't do that well. It was designed around one specific play style. If it was your preferred play style, it was great. If it wasn't, then it was mixed bag. FE if you liked ToTM non tactical combat, 4e was horrible. But if you liked grid based miniature team oriented tactical combat, then 4e was excellent.

Aside form ToTM, which was still possible, what else was 4e not supporting?

 

[Cadence]

RE: D&D, Board Games, 4e, and MMO's back in 2012

RPG Codez: "On the subject of exact rules, did Wizards take inspiration from computer or board games for the rules in the previous editions? If so, could you name some that were especially important? Do you see these more exact rules as something that could help the game make the transition to video-games and board games and other environments where there is no GM to make a ruling? If so, does the new edition's focus on modularity make it harder to make a boardgame or videogame based on it?"

Mike Mearls: "As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

What we’ve learned since then is that the specific RPG rules aren’t very useful for making other games. Instead, the world lore, feel of the game, distinct features of each class, race, and monster, and so on are much, much more important. If you look at our current boardgames, they don’t use the same exact rules as the RPG but they evoke a similar feel. That’s really the key to us. We want to be able to have a clear, easily understood definition of what a wizard or paladin is. We can then transfer that definition into other games. As long as the feel and key story beats are there, the specific rules are secondary."

from:

RPG Codex Interview: Mike Mearls on Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Next :: rpg codex > doesn't scale to your level

RPG Codex > putting the 'role' back in role-playing. A highly prestigious gaming magazine with news and views on the latest and not so latest RPGs.

rpgcodex.net

(followed by a question on modularity and one on balance)

 

[zakael19]

“I wasn’t involved and didn’t have much to do with it and demolished its core strengths with my version, but I think…”