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

[Minigiant]

The last few years here have shown me that that honesty was exactly the problem.

4e sat down an explained that this was a game and a story and showed all the levers and moving parts and how they worked in terms of game mechanics and narrative. It recognized that classes were packaged mechanics to achieve a character concept rather than a discreet setting element. It leveraged a single mechanics base to grant all characters abilities.

But there are a lot of people who vehemently do not want to see D&D treated as a game or as a communal story that runs on a narrative. They don't want classes that let you know how they work, or for all characters to get abilities.

And they fought hard to make that stop. For years. For over a decade. They're still fighting, likely because PF2 and a few elements from later day 5e show that those philosophies could still come back.

It wasn't just the honesty.
The honesty told people that what they want... could never give them something else they wanted... Without something that they didn't want.

"You want powerful spellcasters who have access to dozens or even hundreds of magic spells that they can cast many times a day"
"Yes"
"So what limitation are you willing to accept"


THEN... then you get people who scream against the concept of limitations. Or you get people who can't agree to which a limitation they're willing to accept.

This is why you have so many Nerf The Wizard threads.

Everybody knows you have to nerf the wizard. No one can agree on how to nerf the wizard. So when 4e or PF2e or 13a or whatever sits down and nerves the wizard a huge chunk of the community lost their minds.

Agreeing on the problem but disagreeing on a solution is a base aspect of humankind

 

[Nilbog]

I actually appreciated this. At the time, True20 was my game of choice. The True20 Companion was a book that pulled back the curtain and taught you about the balancing act behind the scenes. It made a lot of the game transparent so that you could tinker at your leisure. So when 4e came around and showed the game as a game, it was exactly what I wanted.

Moreover, what I find interesting is that with Shadow of the Weird Wizard, Rob Schwalb was debating how to present spells and abilities in the game. He offered the choice to playtesters, which basically amounted to 5e style laden with flavor text or the straightforward 4e style, except he didn't say that it was 4e or 5e style The playtesters overwhelmingly chose the 4e style, most of whom had no experience whatsoever with 4e. Once they did, Schwalb came straight out saying that he was scared to do the second option (i.e., 4e style) because of the vitriol directed towards 4e.


View attachment 364647

Which was a fantastic book, but sadly came too late on 4e's life cycle. If it was released as part of the original core set,.I think it would've made a massive difference

 

[Zardnaar]

Again: Not happening. As stated, my heart would not be in it. I would be doing a hollow pantomime for selfish, and frankly petty, reasons. I refuse to inflict that kind of experience on anyone.

Well thats how we play OSR games. Step one recruit 5E group.
Step two get them addicted/lital to your DM abilities.. Step 3 get them pkay8ng sonething else.

Step 4 one of thrm asks to DM next 5E. Either they're playimg something you want or your playing.

It took 4 years to train up one of my players. Core group of 3 add a player r twofor OSR, 2E, 5E, Star Wars Saga Edition or Star Wars D6.

 

[TiQuinn]

They don't want classes that let you know how they work, or for all characters to get abilities.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say anything like this.

 

[Oofta]

The "4E made it obvious it was a game" misses the mark IMHO. The issue was that it was designed similar to a card based board game that borrowed ideas heavily from MMOS. It had very clearly defined roles, actions (in combat and out of combat with skill challenges), limitations and controls on the DM for everything. The lore, the visuals, were all layered on top of the game that had one true way of being played.

Compare that to every other version of D&D. D&D grew out of games that simulated war. We have a wizard not because they're a controller but because wizards were a merger of iconic to fantasy tradition and war game artillery. Fighting men were just that, the standard front line fighters in the battle and so on. Everything had to be oversimplified and gamified. Various fantasy archetypes merged or created. But the starting point were those fantasy archetypes.

It was game rules and structure first vs crude fantasy world simulator where people played the protagonists of a novel or movie. Or at least that's how I see it.

 

[Scott Christian]

For my group (I did most of the DMing), we enjoyed 4e overall, and that included the setting. But it doesn't hold a candle to 5e. The computer game aspect of it turned off a lot of players, and that includes people who would have been fine with the lore changes. The text, the adventure set-ups, and the amount of math at higher levels, were the culprits (imho). I think Mr. Heinsoo is deluding himself a bit. (Although, if I were in his position, I would definitely do the same.)

 

[Alzrius]

The problems of 3.5e players had with late 3 5e were now and common. Most fans did have these problems and used house rules to fix them.

4e showed the drawback of hyperfocusing on the flaws of the previous edition.

What always makes me shake my head about this is that it showcases the lack of institutional memory at WotC.

3E had gone out of its way to try and "fix" the (perceived) "flaws" of AD&D 2E with regard to wizards, and it was easy to see why. By the end of the 2E era, it was clear that no one liked all of the control mechanisms which limited how powerful they were. Only being able to learn a limited number of spells per spell level, casting times that lasted multiple "segments" and could be disrupted if someone so much as dumped a bucket of water on the caster, needing hours or even days to memorize your full complement of spells, etc.

So 3E did away with all of those, and the fanbase (including, I suspect, many of the people who'd railed against how crippled they thought wizards were) turned right around and began to bemoan "linear fighters, quadratic wizards."

So of course, the answer to this wasn't to try and make wizards less powerful (because how could the fans have been wrong), but to turn fighters into wizards now! So 4E put fighters powers and wizard spells on an even keel, and surprise, it was hated.

For all that 5E isn't my jam, I'll give it credit for being the first time in the game's history when it walked back the power of classes, particularly spellcasters, compared to its predecessor.

 

[TiQuinn]

3E had gone out of its way to try and "fix" the (perceived) "flaws" of AD&D 2E with regard to wizards, and it was easy to see why. By the end of the 2E era, it was clear that no one liked all of the control mechanisms which limited how powerful they were. Only being able to learn a limited number of spells per spell level, casting times that lasted multiple "segments" and could be disrupted if someone so much as dumped a bucket of water on the caster, needing hours or even days to memorize your full complement of spells, etc.

The thing with 2e is since because it was supposed to be backwards compatible (often to a fault) and largely just a re-organization of the rules, it meant you had a nearly 20 year run of that ruleset. I know I was ready to move on by the end of it all, too.

 

[Retreater]

This whole "but D&D was always a wargame" misses the point that by the time 4e released, the game was 30+ years removed from those roots. Your average player didn't know a thing about Chainmail and couldn't tell you who Gary Gygax was.
After the "Hickman Revolution" the game was focused more on stories, campaign arcs, character customization.
Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics (2e) and 3.x had their share of combat crunch, but nothing like we saw in 4e.

 

[Undrave]

Or maybe people just hated that the game had balance between classes as a design goal...

So of course, the answer to this wasn't to try and make wizards less powerful (because how could the fans have been wrong), but to turn fighters into wizards now! So 4E put fighters powers and wizard spells on an even keel, and surprise, it was hated.

I mean, they also made the Wizard weaker. Heinsoo even said he had to fight his own team who wanted the Wizard to be the strongest class...