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

[Alzrius]

Well it enables creativity in D&D kinda of killed off not D&D.

No, it didn't. Again, exactly the opposite happened: various companies and designers that started out making d20-based products were able to develop not only a reserve of capital, but also name-recognition in the RPG hobby market. This allowed them to establish a strong enough position that they could then branch out and start producing non-D&D content later on.

Just look at Monte Cook. Or Green Ronin. Or Kobold Press. Or numerous other "alumni" from the d20 era. Some of them already had credits to their name, to be sure, but they all benefited immensely from being able to use the OGL to their advantage, eventually breaking away from the familiar-yet-profitable to try things that were more experimental.

The OGL allowed for the entire RPG market to flourish because it let newcomers hitch their metaphorical wagon to the big boys (i.e. WotC) long enough to establish themselves, after which they could break away and start making new games that they probably wouldn't have been able to otherwise.

 

[Belen]

I'm very curious if the idea of changing only the rules and not the setting would have made 4E more palatable to D&D fans. It seems to have worked for Pathfinder 2E, which changed the rules drastically but kept the setting largely the same.

No. It was the MMO/tactical miniatures style rules that drove me away. Additionally, I hated how they "patched" the rules via the character generator. I also detest PF2e.

The setting and lore had nothing to do with it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I could go into detail, but I think 4E had fundamental flaws and it simply didn't appeal to the same audience.

People who played 3.X as AD&D with clear writing are vastly different from people who played 3.X as a system to dissect and analyze.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

but by not paying at least some service to Theater of the Mind and "creative use" for magic an abilities that were not the standard 4E combat mechanics (for instance having no illusion spells that allowed you to just "make stuff up")... it felt like something was missing. Even if no one actually would have used it or necessarily cared, the fact that it wasn't there at all I'm sure just again felt jarring. Jarring enough to cause some people to react negatively and enough of a stir to make it turn into an issue.

I mean, this is simply not true. Rituals are still there. Rituals include silent image (works effectively the same way as the 5e spell), hallucinatory item (which can be a door, wall, or various other things), hallucinatory terrain, and hallucinatory creature, and the PHB Wizard has cantrips (including ghost sound and prestidigitation), amongst other various powers. And I know for a fact that they discussed, multiple times, that what one might call "off-label" uses of powers, or even modifying powers to fit a character theme, was perfectly legitimate and appropriate.

The stuff is still there. All of it. People just didn't see it in the same places, assumed it wasn't there, and then crusaded against 4e for omissions that never happened.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, it didn't. Again, exactly the opposite happened: various companies and designers that started out making d20-based products were able to develop not only a reserve of capital, but also name-recognition in the RPG hobby market. This allowed them to establish a strong enough position that they could then branch out and start producing non-D&D content later on.

Just look at Monte Cook. Or Green Ronin. Or Kobold Press. Or numerous other "alumni" from the d20 era. Some of them already had credits to their name, to be sure, but they all benefited immensely from being able to use the OGL to their advantage, eventually breaking away from the familiar-yet-profitable to try things that were more experimental.

The OGL allowed for the entire RPG market to flourish because it let newcomers hitch their metaphorical wagon to the big boys (i.e. WotC) long enough to establish themselves, after which they could break away and start making new games that they probably wouldn't have been able to otherwise.

More the scale I was referring to. Very few people play those other RPGs relative to when D&D had more competition.

So yes technically more rpgs are out there is it because of the OGL or changes in distribution and production?

They exist but good luck playing them.

 

[TiQuinn]

Around the 30 minute mark Teos asks Rob about the OGL. It’s a great response. The point was to “monopolize the industry’s creativity. Everybody does D&D.” It’s refreshing to have people just say the quiet part loud. Ryan Dancy has said similar things before. It’s weird how other people don’t believe him (or Rob) when they say things like this.

Also, I feel like this is a warning for the “They’ve given you everything you want. Why can’t you stop criticizing them!” crowd. Once an idea has gotten entrenched in management, it is very, very difficult to root out. Multiple times they’ve tried to kill the OGL, multiple times they’ve wanted to shift the entire game to digital because they’re positive that games are “eating their lunch”. That attitude isn’t going to go away.

No. It was the MMO/tactical miniatures style rules that drove me away. Additionally, I hated how they "patched" the rules via the character generator. I also detest PF2e.

The setting and lore had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I didn’t get far enough into it to see the lore changes. The layout, the presentation, the daily, at-will, encounter powers etc didn’t sit right with me. It just looked like a different game and one that felt drained of the things I liked about D&D. I listened to the podcast, and when Heinsoo said he hated 2e, I thought yeah, that tracks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

4E was a very good game on its own... but as an extension of the D&D brand... it just didn't maintain the stylistic branding and available material people were used to over the previous 30 years. And enough people just rebelled against it and had somewhere else they could turn. Which they did.

Hence why I say: fix the presentation issues, ditch the setting changes, absolutely veto any GSL bovine feces, make a point of keeping Paizo on board, write better starting adventures, focus on low-cost easy-to-use books because the financial crisis hurt the publishing industry, save the digital tools team, avoid Silverlight. Heck, if possible, beat Roll20 to the punch by offering an effective, easy-to-use VTT already integrated with the character builder and monster builder.

No flag to rally around. No setting grumbles to make people grind their teeth. No major company alternative promising the moon. Better introductory experience. Tools that actually deliver as promised.

Would it still have controversy? Yes. I don't question that. But every edition has had its controversies. Even 5e, the one that bent over backwards and tied itself in knots to appease older/lapsed fans.

In the absence of PF or any equivalent, in a world where the digital tools actually took off, in a world where the books were cheap and flexible, where the books looked and felt like D&D even though the mechanics didn't, I absolutely believe that the fervent hatred would have died a long, slow death.

 

[Oofta]

People who played 3.X as AD&D with clear writing are vastly different from people who played 3.X as a system to dissect and analyze.

I have no idea what that means or how it relates to what I said.

 

[JEB]

Rob credits the negative reaction to 4E being because it changed both the rules and the setting, saying that it might have been better received if the setting stayed the same while the rules changed.

I can't speak for everyone, but I admittedly would have given 4e more of a chance if they hadn't changed their approach to lore so much (both in terms of widespread changes from the past, and downplaying lore in favor of mechanics). The nail in the coffin at the time was reading the 4e Monster Manual and bouncing off hard. (The way they handled lore in Monster Vault was much more appealing, though I didn't actually read it until after 5e's launch...)

 

[Blue]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the OGL for the simple reason that it stifled creativity. Doesn't mean I'd want to play the games the other companies would have come up with and I buy 3PP now and then, but I think competition is healthy and the OGL shut down a lot of competition.

By "shutdown competition", do you mean "allow to do everything competition did before, plus allow them to use the OGL and play in the D&D pool"?

If it stifled anything, it was by giving 3pp more options, including an attractive one they wouldn't have had such easy access to before. Nothing but nothing was forced to shutdown any non-OGL products by the OGL.