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

[SteveC]

I would love to see WOTC design a tutorial the way FU has done, where you match piecemeal mechanics into game action scene by scene. I think you could do that, but I also think you'd start to ask some questions about certain design decisions.

I just took a look at the PF2 Beginner's Box, which is probably the best "tutorial" I've now seen for a trad ruleset. It doesn't do the "bit of sheet -> immediate use" explainer, which I think for most people is the best way to have an abstract rule explainer click.

I'd say these are the best two starter sets out there. You can pickup "Press Start" for free! And the Beginner's Box is the gold standard, especially on Foundry.

 

[Oofta]

I would say that there is no perfect way to balance complexity and accessibility. Take 4E for example. In some ways, it was incredibly accessible because once you understood the AEDU structure it was just a matter of class and powers (more or less). Each power told you what it did. But after a few levels the complexity started to grow a bit and then by a significant amount because of all the fiddly bits you had to pay attention to and track. So on the surface it seemed like a much cleaner approach the 3.5 with it's zillion buffs, rules, feats and so on. Optimization wasn't hard in 4E (or at least not as much of an issue) but it was king in 3.x.

I think they did a decent job with 5E, probably better than most editions with the exception of maybe basic. There are still some sore points, running a druid always seems to be more complicated than it needs to be for example. Meanwhile I think fighters are a lot of fun to play, even if they don't have enough options for some people.

As with all things gaming, what works for some is boring for others. What is simple to some (pre-3E's math with AC and other things comes to mind) is difficult for others. Like art, much of it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Pedantic]

And that is orthogonal to the point. You can explain it however you want or justify it however you want. The fact still remains. The more complex the system, the less accessible it is.

That's not orthogonal! You're flattening the class of "games" to all be the same thing. This is asserting that the depth some games are buying with complexity isn't an essential component of the experience. Accessibility can't be measured without reference to the core experience it's tied to. TTRPGs aren't one thing, and you can't swap out the different experiences they offer interchangeably. It's not "gatekeeping" to claim more design space to deliver a specific experience.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

And that is orthogonal to the point. You can explain it however you want or justify it however you want. The fact still remains. The more complex the system, the less accessible it is.

I am just asking people to put a token effort.

 

[niklinna]

The best example I know is Mage Hand Press's Warmage. Gets a few cantrips, a scaling buff to cantrip damage (which puts the cantrip damage in the same tier as Warlock Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast), but no spells, just some invocations that add riders to the cantrips and some spell-like abilities.

This class looks pretty nifty! A nice marriage of mechanics & flavor. Stil, lots of options to pick from what with all those tricks.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You could label classes with complexity levels so players would theoricitily be able to pick the complexity that's right for them but that would be too videogamingly.

 

[TwoSix]

And, again, that's orthogonal to the point. You can explain why you want a more complex and less accessible game all you want. It's still a less accessible game in the end.

And that's OK. Some people can't ride roller coasters because they have heart conditions or have bad backs or are 4'6". That doesn't make roller coasters somehow mean-spirited for not being inclusive enough.

 

[overgeeked]

You could label classes with complexity levels so players would theoricitily be able to pick the complexity that's right for them but that would be too videogamingly.

If by “video gamey” you mean good design, then yeah.

 

[overgeeked]

And that's OK. Some people can't ride roller coasters because they have heart conditions or have bad backs or are 4'6". That doesn't make roller coasters somehow mean-spirited for not being inclusive enough.

All depends on which side of that accessibility you are. If you’re included, it’s good and makes sense. If you’re excluded, it’s bad and mean spirited and unfair.

 

[Cadence]

All depends on which side of that accessibility you are. If you’re included, it’s good and makes sense. If you’re excluded, it’s bad and mean spirited and unfair.

What do you propose as a game that doesn't exclude anyone? (I mean, if we're going to extremes, let's go).