TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Highlights of our accidental dinner with Mike and Rob:
Sat down, realized “hey that Mike Mearls and Rob Heinsoo” and then my friend (who didn’t know who they are) starts asking them questions about this binder they have…which I think was actually the talking points. Like I said, they where very generous with their time…
Mike’s favorite feature of 4E: The healing system. Apparently they did a lot of iterations (this was sort of the theme of the conversation). Including reserve points from JoTs Omega World. Mike really liked the final result (more HP, healing surges…), seeing it as simpler then other alternatives. He like how it separated the tactical part (your HP) from the strategic part (your surges) in a straight forward way. I am not so sure its that simple…but in play we did start to really get the hang of it after a few hours.
All the 4Es. They talked a lot about this. All the many versions before getting the right one. Including a lot of things that didn’t feel right, like full healing between combats. (Don’t heal me, lets just get the battle over, and that will heal me). They said it was probably last spring when they got the game to the point where it became a fun thing to do, and not just something they where working on trying to fix.
Novelty of per encounter powers: Mearls noted that while not 100% original (some storyteller games had per scene abilities), we agreed that in the D&D context, they really where. And this was point where they really started to pull away from older versions of the game. We also talked about how straight forward it is (versus say, “resetting your psionic focus”).
Wizard powers that didn’t make the final cut:
The d4 damage autohit magic missile. Why: it became a crutch. Even with measly damage, people still (over) rellied on it, even when they really shouldn’t.
The exploding wizard: burst damage with the wizard at the center. Problem: wizard suicide bombers. They would run into combat, do the burst, and then being in combat, die soon after. A wizard jumping into a pit of dangerous vermin seemed to be the last straw.
Game Play vs. Simulation: Rob came right and said that people who are into detailed simulation may like the game less then people focused on how it actually plays. His hope/belief was that the audience would like this change in focus.
Optimal and suboptimal builds in 3E: Mearls “people who really liked to build characters in Champions are the people who really liked to build characters in 3rd edition”. Heinso speaking to JoT: “Its great how you included so many character building options in 3rd edition. And how many of them sucked”. Message: there is still room for optimization, but corner cases and “bad builds” have a smaller role in 4E.
Their flavour and ours: In response to a comment of mine on how they may have been pushing the world stuff (versus the crunch) a little bit too much, Rob came right back and said “Of course, D&D is played by smart and imaginative people who can and want to make up their own worlds.”
I may think of more latter.
Sat down, realized “hey that Mike Mearls and Rob Heinsoo” and then my friend (who didn’t know who they are) starts asking them questions about this binder they have…which I think was actually the talking points. Like I said, they where very generous with their time…
Mike’s favorite feature of 4E: The healing system. Apparently they did a lot of iterations (this was sort of the theme of the conversation). Including reserve points from JoTs Omega World. Mike really liked the final result (more HP, healing surges…), seeing it as simpler then other alternatives. He like how it separated the tactical part (your HP) from the strategic part (your surges) in a straight forward way. I am not so sure its that simple…but in play we did start to really get the hang of it after a few hours.
All the 4Es. They talked a lot about this. All the many versions before getting the right one. Including a lot of things that didn’t feel right, like full healing between combats. (Don’t heal me, lets just get the battle over, and that will heal me). They said it was probably last spring when they got the game to the point where it became a fun thing to do, and not just something they where working on trying to fix.
Novelty of per encounter powers: Mearls noted that while not 100% original (some storyteller games had per scene abilities), we agreed that in the D&D context, they really where. And this was point where they really started to pull away from older versions of the game. We also talked about how straight forward it is (versus say, “resetting your psionic focus”).
Wizard powers that didn’t make the final cut:
The d4 damage autohit magic missile. Why: it became a crutch. Even with measly damage, people still (over) rellied on it, even when they really shouldn’t.
The exploding wizard: burst damage with the wizard at the center. Problem: wizard suicide bombers. They would run into combat, do the burst, and then being in combat, die soon after. A wizard jumping into a pit of dangerous vermin seemed to be the last straw.
Game Play vs. Simulation: Rob came right and said that people who are into detailed simulation may like the game less then people focused on how it actually plays. His hope/belief was that the audience would like this change in focus.
Optimal and suboptimal builds in 3E: Mearls “people who really liked to build characters in Champions are the people who really liked to build characters in 3rd edition”. Heinso speaking to JoT: “Its great how you included so many character building options in 3rd edition. And how many of them sucked”. Message: there is still room for optimization, but corner cases and “bad builds” have a smaller role in 4E.
Their flavour and ours: In response to a comment of mine on how they may have been pushing the world stuff (versus the crunch) a little bit too much, Rob came right back and said “Of course, D&D is played by smart and imaginative people who can and want to make up their own worlds.”
I may think of more latter.
