D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[nutluck]

Sure. The question is whether in a game like D&D - in which combat is expected to play a significant role in the typical campaign (how many adventure paths have you see that are entirely social?) - should it have to be a choice? Or should characters be able to shine in both melee and noncombat - just in different ways?

I see it slightly different. No it should not have to be a choice to be only good at combat or only good at social stuff. One should be able to be good at both, but I also think the option to really shine at one and only be so so in the other should be a option too.

Also I would like to thank you Hellcow for taking the time to post on the topic. Even though I have often taken the opposite side and debated with you, I appreciate you doing it. Also i am happy you enjoy 4e and hope turns out to be everything your looking for in a game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I was originally going to say, this is only true if you define "out of combat" as "diplomacy." But that's not even true. Without going into a long, long, long list, all of the rogue skills and at least half of all MU/cleric spells are out-of-combat crunch, which rather disproves your thesis.

True. However, the parts that weren't all that crunch heavy DID put people on a more even playing field. It was likely just as easy for everyone to climb a cliff in 1st Ed because there wasn't any crunch saying "Fighters are better at climbing". Everyone was just as good at diplomacy since there was no real crunch for being better at it than "Charisma means people like you."

It's actually the crunch that was there than only caused exception to the rules. Everyone was as good at climbing(or at least close to the same) except for the wizard who could cast one spell and fly. Everyone could be equally good at searching, but only the rogue could find traps.

 

[JohnSnow]

Uh, the marketing campaign started last year...

WotC was also in charge of the 3e marketing, which was much different.

It was also eight years ago!

A lot has changed about the marketplace since 3e was released. The internet, which was a decent marketing tool THEN is now the key tool. Wizards website is totally different than it was back then, and on, and on, and on.

I think WotC is concerned that if they release too much info too soon that there won't be any substantial buzz about the game when it finally is available in stores. You want to time your maximum buzz for when the product is actually available to purchase. How do you do that? You arrange things so that it takes over the airwaves literally the week it goes on sale. That's why movies hit their big trailer push a week or so before they release, not 6 months before. You might think people would remember, but studies show that most marketing loses its place in your mental "space" after a week or so.

So I think we'll see more teasers, and more info, leading right up until the day 4E hits the shelves. And some surprises will even be held almost until the actual release. Because that will generate the kind of "buzz" that drives sales.

But this is my take, and is, in the end, just the perspective of one marketing professional.

 

[Hamburger Mary]

I also think the option to really shine at one and only be so so in the other should be a option too.

I think it's a question of design philosophy and attempting to ensure an optimal game experience for the majority of players.

Essentially, 3E allows the player who wants to create a character who is suboptimal in one field of play the ability to do so. As shown in the CharOp boards, through things like prestige classes and multiclassing it also allows advanced players to create characters who are ridiculously effective in a particular arena.

From my experience, 4E is flattening both of these. It's making it harder to intentionally make a character who is weak in combat - but that also makes it more difficult to accidentally make a character who's weak in combat. Assuming that a core goal of this design is to make the game more accessible to new players, I think that's a sensible decision. Making a fighter is simple, straightforward, and unless I do something that's OBVIOUSLY an odd choice - for example, deciding to fight with a dagger and not wear any armor - my character will be effective. I have choices that make me different from other fighters, both in and out of combat - but I'll have something to offer in both areas.

Meanwhile, the power and paragon system makes it easy to make my character different from other fighters - but in comparison to 3E, it should be more difficult to stack together things that weren't intended to be combined to create the crazy charOp scenarios you can find out there - which again prove to be a problem for the inexperienced player who sits down at the table and finds that his simple character is useless next to the guy with the +28 Diplomacy at second level and the guy inflicting 1,000 points of damage.

Yes, it robs the advanced player of the chance to make that character who can do 1,000 points of damage - but given that most of these crazy CharOp scenarios are accidents as opposed to the designers' original intent, I can't feel too bad about that. I think it's good that characters are balanced... all the more so because 4E places greater weight on noncombat encounters than 3E does, actually treating them as being as significant as fighting a battle or disarming a trap, as opposed to just a throw away "And if PCs do something cool out of combat, consider a story award."

The rules won't let you make every possible character, because that was never the promise of D&D; it's the promise of a flexible, classless system like GURPS. How would you make Dalan? As an NPC, because he's not intended to be a PC. Even in 3E, he'd presumably be an expert - an NPC class. Sure, you could always choose to play an expert as a PC. But you can absolutely do that in 4E: Make a rogue and then throw away all of the class abilities and powers. Pow, you've got an expert class.

From my experience - and as you can see in Hellcow's description of his party - it's possible to make a wide range of interesting characters. The system is designed to make it challenging to make UNBALANCED characters - either unbalanced in your favor or against you. But in doing that, it prevents people from making crappy characters by accident, and I think that's an important goal. Advanced players who WANT a challenge can always take my Expert approach - "I'm a rogue with no powers". But you can't have the player who thinks he's made something cool discover that actually he's all but useless in a fight or doesn't have anything to do for half of the game.

 

[Bishmon]

It was also eight years ago!

A lot has changed about the marketplace since 3e was released. The internet, which was a decent marketing tool THEN is now the key tool. Wizards website is totally different than it was back then, and on, and on, and on.

I think WotC is concerned that if they release too much info too soon that there won't be any substantial buzz about the game when it finally is available in stores. You want to time your maximum buzz for when the product is actually available to purchase. How do you do that? You arrange things so that it takes over the airwaves literally the week it goes on sale. That's why movies hit their big trailer push a week or so before they release, not 6 months before. You might think people would remember, but studies show that most marketing loses its place in your mental "space" after a week or so.

So I think we'll see more teasers, and more info, leading right up until the day 4E hits the shelves. And some surprises will even be held almost until the actual release. Because that will generate the kind of "buzz" that drives sales.

But this is my take, and is, in the end, just the perspective of one marketing professional.

But building and timing the buzz is necessary marketing to the mass market crowd, not the hardcore crowd.

The largest entertainment product launch in recent memory would have to be Halo 3. It was absolutely huge, and the marketing push in the month before the game was released was ridiculous. Memorable commercials, a dozen different product tie-ins, various launch events with celebrities, etc. But the developers of the game actually let their hardcore fans play the game six months before that. And not just a one-off tutorial level which would be the equivalent of the first-level delve experience, where you've kinda got an idea how the game plays, but there's just too much of the unknown to know what to expect.

Instead, they let people play a substantial chunk of the multiplayer portion of the game for a month. Those people then knew with near certainty what the game was like. And they loved it. And they helped build the buzz for the actual product launch with strong word-of-mouth, which was smart because a lot of those people were people who played multiplayer shooters a lot, so they were constantly talking with other people who played multiplayer shooters a lot who might not have been as automatically sold on Halo.

That's why I don't understand what WotC is doing. They could be building buzz among the hardcore crowd right now and let them disseminate seeds of buzz to their game-playing friends who might not be as hardcore, which will only strengthen WotC's big marketing push leading up to release with the more mass market crowd.

Instead, they're leaving their hardcore crowd in the dark about some major changes to the game, changes some people didn't even think were needed, and are letting a large part of their hardcore crowd go around speculating to their game-playing friends about how bad 4E is looking or how it doesn't seem like it's anything to get excited about. It's poor fan-service, and it's counter-productive marketing.

 

[Lizard]

True. However, the parts that weren't all that crunch heavy DID put people on a more even playing field. It was likely just as easy for everyone to climb a cliff in 1st Ed because there wasn't any crunch saying "Fighters are better at climbing". .

Actually, there was crunch saying "Only thieves can climb". Everyone else was SOL.

 

[nutluck]

snip

Oh I know WHY they are doing it and I get it. i think 4e will be a big success. I just disagree with how far they are taken away those type of options which is one of the things that points to 4e not being the game for me.

Of course i completely agree DnD was never a real flexible system. 3e was the most flexible one so far, with 4e I was hoping to see them going more in that direction but with a better set up. Maybe something like several talent tree options for each class. Then they could choose to focus on one or spread their picks out to be more well rounded. But they went the other way, which is fine. They want to attract new gamers, i get that and 4e has a chance of doing that. But as a old gamer I dislike the restrictions and like more flexible options to let me build things how I want.

3e had it's flaws granted, but it seems more suited to what I am looking for. Of course other game systems fit it even better. But then I am one of those weird gamers that plays a wide varity of games and very well may end up buying 4e anyways. But likely I will play it like a do say something like Buffy or Army of Darkness, something fun to do for a short term campaign aka a as i call them beer a pretzel game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

non-combat builds does not make them useless in combat. And while DnD might emphasize dungeons, mosters and exploration that is far from the only style that can or should be played with it. Many styles can work it is only a matter of what the group enjoys. So what you see as a problem I see as a strength as it caters to more people.

Not ALL non-combat builds make them useless in combat. However, say you take the concept of a dexterous fighter who wields a rapier. He doesn't know how to use it well, however. He has the concept of a noble who carries around a rapier because its custom to do so. Plus, he isn't very diplomatic or able to cast spells or very sneaky or rogue like so fighter was the best class fit. He keeps his con low because he's a pampered noble who isn't very tough. He spends all his feats on skill focus(knowledge(nobility)) and negotiator and such.

Now, any game where there is a high focus on diplomacy and out of combat stuff, his is at a mechanical disadvantage to someone playing a bard with the same concept, since the bard has those things as class skills. Anything he can do the bard or rogue can likely do better. No point in him being around other than having an interesting personality.

Meanwhile, any game that has a high focus on combat now has a fighter who has no strength modifier who can only do 1d6 points of damage per hit. Which is a useless fighter at first level, nevermind 10th or 20th. He is complete dead weight.

So, now you have a character whose only purpose is for the player to make witty remarks and act like a noble. Which you can do even if you are an 18 strength fighter with a greatsword.

The same thing happens with the pacifist cleric. Works great out of combat, since most of out of combat doesn't use rules. During combat, his hold person won't do anything when confronted with the tarrasque attacking the city. It won't stop the rampaging purple worm.

And when a party member dies due to poison the fact that the cleric was role playing his character by not facilitating combat by casting Heroes Feast won't be of much comfort.

Once more disagree, it limits what a player might want to play and it limits certain game types that might not be heavy combat focused. Which yes most DnD games are but they don't have to be.

It doesn't limit what people play that much. You can still play the above noble. However, you have to write into his background that he actually spent time training in his rapier and built up his strength in order to be good at it. He'll be just as good at the out of combat stuff as before. However, he'll now be capable of surviving in a dungeon crawl when it happens.

You can play a pacifist cleric in the same way you did before. It will just likely require you ignore more of your abilities than before and be just as useless in combat situations.

Frankly, since every D&D game I've ever played in ended up having at least two combats every 4 hours we played, I always considered it absolute madness to make a character who would drop dead at the first sign of an enemy with a CR higher than its own level.

 

[Spatula]

It's making it harder to intentionally make a character who is weak in combat - but that also makes it more difficult to accidentally make a character who's weak in combat. Assuming that a core goal of this design is to make the game more accessible to new players, I think that's a sensible decision.

Yes, definitely. One of the common pitfalls of having lots of options is that they obscure which choices are "right" or "wrong." It remains to be seen, and probably won't be seen until the real min/maxers are able to play the game for a while, whether 4e really doesn't reward over-specialization and doesn't have sub-optimal character choices. I have very little faith in designers in this regard.

 

[Spatula]

You want to time your maximum buzz for when the product is actually available to purchase. How do you do that? You arrange things so that it takes over the airwaves literally the week it goes on sale. That's why movies hit their big trailer push a week or so before they release, not 6 months before. You might think people would remember, but studies show that most marketing loses its place in your mental "space" after a week or so.

A shame they scheduled the DDXP for when they did, then, eh?