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

[Alzrius]

Sigh. No. I'm not. I'm not talking about fun. I'm talking about math. And power. You're talking about fun. This is why we're talking past each other. You're assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not. As evidenced by the whole rest of your post going on about fun.

Yes, fun is subjective. Cool? Let it go.

It's all subjective, was my point. You mentioned before that wizards are "better" than other classes. I pointed out that "better" was subjective, because it came with assumptions about what was good and what wasn't, and those assumptions weren't shared or even overtly communicated. That's the salient issue here.

I'm not talking about fun, I'm talking about power and math. 2>1. Having more options is more powerful than fewer options. Having better options is more powerful than having worse options.

And I'm saying that the practical aspect of "more power" is the impact that it presumably has on the course of play, which is ultimately in service to the entertainment of the people engaged in that. If we assume that "more power" is something to be desired, we need to look at why it's desired, i.e. what that desire is in service to. Because if it's "dominates the game" or "overshadows everyone else," then we need to follow that back to the implicit pejorative that such a thing isn't desired. Why not? Because it's not fun for everyone who isn't playing a wizard.

I don't find power gaming fun. Quite the opposite, it saps the fun out of the game. I don't find wizards fun because they're too powerful.

Which goes to show that "fun" is indeed what we're talking about, and what the issue of "power," or "better," or anything else, is in service to.

 

[Oofta]

You know what beats DPR? Side-stepping entire combat encounters entirely with a spell. This is why damage meters don't tell the full picture. It's also why Fireball, although powerful for a 3rd level spell, doesn't generally enter most conversations about a spell ending an encounter, as per your earlier pithy remark.

I've rarely seen an avoided encounter because of a spell. I've seen it because of clever play, bluffing, doing something I've never expected far more often. There are many ways to avoid it, but if it does happen? Awesome. Good thing I always have an extra encounter or two prepped because I run a very open game. If the players figure out how to bypass an obstacle easily, good for them! If I'm designing a session around assumptions on how players will approach an obstacle, I'd call that bad DMing.

 

[Oofta]

Sigh. No. I'm not. I'm not talking about fun. I'm talking about math. And power. You're talking about fun. This is why we're talking past each other. You're assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not. As evidenced by the whole rest of your post going on about fun.

Yes, fun is subjective. Cool? Let it go.

I'm not talking about fun, I'm talking about power and math. 2>1. Having more options is more powerful than fewer options. Having better options is more powerful than having worse options.

I don't find power gaming fun. Quite the opposite, it saps the fun out of the game. I don't find wizards fun because they're too powerful.

But you're only talking about math when it suits your purpose. When I pointed out that the math doesn't match, suddenly it's a different issue that makes them more powerful.

 

[Belen]

You know what beats DPR? Side-stepping entire combat encounters entirely with a spell. This is why damage meters don't tell the full picture. It's also why Fireball, although powerful for a 3rd level spell, doesn't generally enter most conversations about a spell ending an encounter, as per your earlier pithy remark.

How are entire encounters side-stepped by a spell?

I have had players miss entire sessions because they decided to go in the opposite direction. I have had casters trash my prepared sessions too but player ingenuity often causes this issue.

As a DM, if an encounter is spoiled, then I usually add something else.

I did have a player who loved the banish enemies. The party loved it until he banished an enemy once that was connected to a spell that prevented the release of an even more powerful enemy.

 

[overgeeked]

Here's my real-world example of the game I'm currently running.

Of course - yes, we can roleplay. But consider this...
I have been running the same group of characters for 3-4 hour weekly sessions for 6 months. Just to speed up the game, I am awarding over double the recommended XP. They just reached 5th level (out of a 30 level game).
This is cramming in as many combat encounters as I possibly can.
Another group I was running through the H1 - E3 campaign would've taken close to 5 years at the rate we were going.
So ... yes, there is the possibility of roleplaying, exploration, investigation, etc., but the focus is so much on combat. If you want to advance your characters or interact with 90% of the rules, you MUST focus on combat. And a battle isn't 20-30 minutes. It's a commitment that is going to take the majority of your session.

Right. But that's a choice you're making. Not something the game itself is imposing upon you. You want to engage with 90% of the rules, so you're making your game almost entirely about combat. We fell into that exact same trap. Then we complained about how we weren't roleplaying and how the game was all about combat. It's a self-inflicted wound.

You can award XP for whatever you want. There are rules for XP rewards for non-combat encounters. There are rules for XP rewards for quests. The game is about whatever you want it to be about. The rules do not dictate what you do at your table. Yes, system matters, clearly. But you can always choose to stop making every session nothing but combat. That's a choice you're making.

ETA: Maybe try replacing filler combats with a looser skill challenge system that's more akin to Blades in the Dark's clocks and countdowns. Save the full combat rules for boss fights.

 

[jayoungr]

new Concentration is too harsh for my taste.

And personally, I love Concentration. I feel like it forces interesting and meaningful choices between one buff (or debuff) and another, instead of just stacking them all.

That said, there are a few spells where I would remove Concentration, given the choice. Witch Bolt, for example.

 

[Umbran]

I have never had a problem with an overpowered Wizard or one that could so everything the other classes can do.

Wizards can be very powerful. You'll get no argument from me on that.

And, the wizard spell lists do contain a bunch of stuff that does allow them to solve issues other classes would traditionally be called on to solve, sure.

But, I have found that latter to be more of a theoretical concern than an actual one. The limits on spell preparation mean that a wizard can't do everything everyone else can do on a moment's notice. Sure, they can do it, but they have to go back home to take a long rest and prepare, and come back tomorrow and do it. Meanwhile, the situation they'd be facing has probably changed, such that their preparation doesn't meet the new needs. Nor, as a practical matter, do they seem able to out-do other classes at their own shtick for very long.

 

[Clint_L]

Here's my real-world example of the game I'm currently running.

Of course - yes, we can roleplay. But consider this...
I have been running the same group of characters for 3-4 hour weekly sessions for 6 months. Just to speed up the game, I am awarding over double the recommended XP. They just reached 5th level (out of a 30 level game).
This is cramming in as many combat encounters as I possibly can.
Another group I was running through the H1 - E3 campaign would've taken close to 5 years at the rate we were going.
So ... yes, there is the possibility of roleplaying, exploration, investigation, etc., but the focus is so much on combat. If you want to advance your characters or interact with 90% of the rules, you MUST focus on combat. And a battle isn't 20-30 minutes. It's a commitment that is going to take the majority of your session.

Have you ever considered milestone levelling?

I love it, precisely because it takes the emphasis off doing things that are needed to "earn experience" (i.e. grinding) and puts it on developing the story.

 

[Undrave]

but instead lamented the lack of rules that facilitated immersion in their gameworld

What does that even mean? What is a rule that 'facilitate immersion'?!

This. I rarely see people play Wizards. They do not like the hassle especially if the DM enforces spell components and costs.

In the past, I tagged spells as common vs uncommon vs rare so a Wizards can easily find and learn a common spells when they level but have to work to get others.

I just do not see a lot of folks even think about playing a Wizard.

I played a Druid. It was super powerful and super easy but also dreadfully BORING to me. So the fun of it doesn't matter when discussing power. Some people love to be the most powerful and others don't.

Leaving aside instances of situationality, optimization, and the differences between theory and the actual course of play, isn't the point of all this to have fun? Because I'm fairly sure that most of the people playing D&D, especially repeatedly, are doing it because they want to have a good time. If that's their main goal, which again is not at all unusual, then everything you've outlined here only matters insofar as it dovetails with how much fun it is. And in my experience, there's a lot of people for whom that runs directly counter to being fun.

Don't excuse bad game design just because it's fun.

Maybe you don't care about the Wizard being overpowered, but do do you think it's faire the Wizard (and Cleric) had TONS of pages dedicated to a like 8 subclass each in the PHB while all the others only got 3? Heck, didn't the Ranger only have 2? and one of them had to be fixed to be more functional? and then WotC went and produced a whole supplement set in a Magic School... You're telling me the caster bias doesn't impact your fun use because you don't care about power level? Almost every book had new spells, mostly for the Wizard, but we had to wait for Tasha to get new Maneuvers for the Fighter, does that sound fun to you?

For you. For a lot of other players, that's not the case, and their take on things is no less valid than your own.

But the thing is we're not talking about preferences or these people's criteria here. They are irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking power ONLY. It's actually pretty clear it's what we talked about.

 

[Oofta]

What does that even mean? What is a rule that 'facilitate immersion'?!

I played a Druid. It was super powerful and super easy but also dreadfully BORING to me. So the fun of it doesn't matter when discussing power. Some people love to be the most powerful and others don't.

Don't excuse bad game design just because it's fun.

Last time I checked the reason I, and the people I play with, play the game is to have fun. If it's fun, it's good design as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe you don't care about the Wizard being overpowered, but do do you think it's faire the Wizard (and Cleric) had TONS of pages dedicated to a like 8 subclass each in the PHB while all the others only got 3? Heck, didn't the Ranger only have 2? and one of them had to be fixed to be more functional? and then WotC went and produced a whole supplement set in a Magic School... You're telling me the caster bias doesn't impact your fun use because you don't care about power level? Almost every book had new spells, mostly for the Wizard, but we had to wait for Tasha to get new Maneuvers for the Fighter, does that sound fun to you?

But the thing is we're not talking about preferences or these people's criteria here. They are irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking power ONLY. It's actually pretty clear it's what we talked about.

How do you measure power? If it's DPR, I don't see it. If it's bypassing obstacles, it seems to be more theorycrafting than anything I've ever seen. Occasionally players of all classes figure out how to bypass obstacles so good on them. If it's page count, all I can say is that more complexity has little to do with power.