D&D 4E Merric's thoughts on 4e
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Clearly you failed to actually read the quote or the context of my response.
To put it bluntly, one of the lead designers of 4th Edition wrote off AD&D and 2nd Edition as inferior to Runequest or Talisman. It's a level of arrogance that doesn't inspire confidence in me that the designers will at least respect the history of the game.
Personally, my concerns regarding this type of statement by a lead designer are as valid as your opinion that the game needs a serious revision. If Mr. Heinsoo intends on making D&D more similar to a system he preferred such as Talisman or Runequest, that is fine. He's getting paid to do this.
I find it rather funny that anyone who raises a concern regarding the direction that D&D is headed is dismissed reflexively as a "grognard" or some anachronism. Further, I find it quite entertaining that there are a number of posters throughout Enworld who deem D&D as needing to change to be similar to other games because those posters played those other game systems and found them superior in one way or another.
It's also rather funny that what you view as an "improvement of the game" is somehow superior to past editions. 3.5 certainly was a failure in terms of the balancing of the game across 30 or so levels. This failure wasn't quite as present in past editions in my personal experience. Yet somehow, AD&D and 2nd Edition are dismissed by the lead designer I quoted.
The real irony here is that D&D does appear to be leaning more and more towards the "gamer" out there and less and less towards the traditional D&D player. If that is the market that Hasbro wishes to tap, good luck to them. I however, find the "gamer" crowd much more flitting in their loyalties to a particular system.
As for improvements, let me ask this final question:
What is a solid, fact-based improvement that you can definitively point to at this time? As far as I'm aware, they have not solidified any specific rules as of yet. In fact, we are seeing nothing more than their own internal playtests without the firm mechanical rules explanations. The boards are filled with suppositions as to how the game will change, etc., yet there is no proverbial "proof" in the pudding we're being provided.
I appreciate your candor in completely dismissing my thoughts though. It's certainly refreshing to see such a well reasoned response.
To put it bluntly, one of the lead designers of 4th Edition wrote off AD&D and 2nd Edition as inferior to Runequest or Talisman. It's a level of arrogance that doesn't inspire confidence in me that the designers will at least respect the history of the game.
Personally, my concerns regarding this type of statement by a lead designer are as valid as your opinion that the game needs a serious revision. If Mr. Heinsoo intends on making D&D more similar to a system he preferred such as Talisman or Runequest, that is fine. He's getting paid to do this.
I find it rather funny that anyone who raises a concern regarding the direction that D&D is headed is dismissed reflexively as a "grognard" or some anachronism. Further, I find it quite entertaining that there are a number of posters throughout Enworld who deem D&D as needing to change to be similar to other games because those posters played those other game systems and found them superior in one way or another.
It's also rather funny that what you view as an "improvement of the game" is somehow superior to past editions. 3.5 certainly was a failure in terms of the balancing of the game across 30 or so levels. This failure wasn't quite as present in past editions in my personal experience. Yet somehow, AD&D and 2nd Edition are dismissed by the lead designer I quoted.
The real irony here is that D&D does appear to be leaning more and more towards the "gamer" out there and less and less towards the traditional D&D player. If that is the market that Hasbro wishes to tap, good luck to them. I however, find the "gamer" crowd much more flitting in their loyalties to a particular system.
As for improvements, let me ask this final question:
What is a solid, fact-based improvement that you can definitively point to at this time? As far as I'm aware, they have not solidified any specific rules as of yet. In fact, we are seeing nothing more than their own internal playtests without the firm mechanical rules explanations. The boards are filled with suppositions as to how the game will change, etc., yet there is no proverbial "proof" in the pudding we're being provided.
I appreciate your candor in completely dismissing my thoughts though. It's certainly refreshing to see such a well reasoned response.
buzz
Adventurer
Based on past precedent, IMO, the game has gotten better with each release. Regardless of what a designer might have thought about 2e*, WotC has shown me that they put more effort into improving the play experience than any other RPG publisher. Rather than fear change and wallow in FUD, I'm looking forward to seeing what will be done with 4e.Ty said:
As for dismissing grognards, sometimes it is justified. A lot of people, IMO, are getting their panties in a bind for no good reason. I don't see dismissal being done across the board, though.
* And he's not alone in his opinion.
Ty said:
You can call AD&D 1 and 2 edition many things but not balanced. The AD&Ds were trainwrecks when it came to balance*. I can imagine why a game designer would dismiss those games from a system POV (they still were very good at doing what they set out to do; I think they were the perfect games for CRPGs based on PnP- games).
*Note that this is the system as written, house rules not included.
---
I think it is strange that so many people have so low regard for WotCs ability to do market researches. My guess is that the removal of the gnome and adding of the tiefling is due to market researches of this kind, that they saw that very few people play gnomes but many people play tieflings. Considering that D&D is a multi million dollar enterprise (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) it would be insanity to change things without grounding the changes first.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Ty said:
Rebalancing encounters so that 5 PCs fight 5 monsters, rather than 4 PCs vs 1 monster.
Plenty more where that came from.
I feel honored for the attention you all afford me with your responses.
I'll toss a couple of thoughts back out there in response to my second post:
Buzz,
I intend on performing the "wait and see" approach. I never suggested that revisions were not necessary to D&D. I have enjoyed many of the revised rules. It generally, has gotten better over time. Looking back though over the years though, I'm rather hesitant to say that I got the bang for my buck with the 3.5 edition.
Wulf,
I heard the same thing about CR's and LA's. Frankly, I'm withholding judgment until I see the solid rules; not what they intend for the rules to result in. I don't accept their assertions as truth either. 3.0 and 3.5 were vigorously playtested as well (or so it is claimed).
Med Stud,
AD&D as a base system was fairly balanced as I recall. It was no more unbalanced than any other system. I'm afraid you have misconstrued my statements about the balance of AD&D v. 3.5. I am saying that AD&D was fairly easy to play out to high levels without extreme amounts of work by the DM and Players. In effect though, generally, intelligent people play these games. They will find ways to break the system any which way you go. I gave up on game balance loooooooong ago. No such thing.
As for the market research questions, yeah I do question their abilities. I've seen and participated in their surveys. The resulting actions they take however, don't mesh with their surveys. Besides, if implementation from market research was as easy as you think, GM and Ford would still have a stranglehold on the U.S. auto market.
Hong,
Great. History does include the Gettysburg address. You get a gold star. If history was unimportant to D&D, then why did WotC release the 30 Years of D&D compendium and why is there a "History of the Miniatures" on the frontpages of the D&D website? It's because the nostalgia and history of the game is what keeps bringing back the old folks like me. You know, the one's with the stable careers (cash) breeding the next generation of geeks to inherit the hobby...
I said it once and I'll say it again, I worry about what they are doing. I worry more when I see guys like Heinsoo flippantly disregarding "my" game. That is "my" opinion. It has no more validity than any other opinion, which I recognize.
I also recognize that MerricB originally posted his thoughts on 4th Edition. I'm posting mine. The longer Hasbro has owned WotC, the less confidence I have in the work that is being done on the revision. I'm not actively railing against a revision. I am actively questioning some of the background noise I see.
I'll toss a couple of thoughts back out there in response to my second post:
Buzz,
I intend on performing the "wait and see" approach. I never suggested that revisions were not necessary to D&D. I have enjoyed many of the revised rules. It generally, has gotten better over time. Looking back though over the years though, I'm rather hesitant to say that I got the bang for my buck with the 3.5 edition.
Wulf,
I heard the same thing about CR's and LA's. Frankly, I'm withholding judgment until I see the solid rules; not what they intend for the rules to result in. I don't accept their assertions as truth either. 3.0 and 3.5 were vigorously playtested as well (or so it is claimed).
Med Stud,
AD&D as a base system was fairly balanced as I recall. It was no more unbalanced than any other system. I'm afraid you have misconstrued my statements about the balance of AD&D v. 3.5. I am saying that AD&D was fairly easy to play out to high levels without extreme amounts of work by the DM and Players. In effect though, generally, intelligent people play these games. They will find ways to break the system any which way you go. I gave up on game balance loooooooong ago. No such thing.
As for the market research questions, yeah I do question their abilities. I've seen and participated in their surveys. The resulting actions they take however, don't mesh with their surveys. Besides, if implementation from market research was as easy as you think, GM and Ford would still have a stranglehold on the U.S. auto market.
Hong,
Great. History does include the Gettysburg address. You get a gold star. If history was unimportant to D&D, then why did WotC release the 30 Years of D&D compendium and why is there a "History of the Miniatures" on the frontpages of the D&D website? It's because the nostalgia and history of the game is what keeps bringing back the old folks like me. You know, the one's with the stable careers (cash) breeding the next generation of geeks to inherit the hobby...
I said it once and I'll say it again, I worry about what they are doing. I worry more when I see guys like Heinsoo flippantly disregarding "my" game. That is "my" opinion. It has no more validity than any other opinion, which I recognize.
I also recognize that MerricB originally posted his thoughts on 4th Edition. I'm posting mine. The longer Hasbro has owned WotC, the less confidence I have in the work that is being done on the revision. I'm not actively railing against a revision. I am actively questioning some of the background noise I see.
