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

[Zardnaar]

In fairness, the way players at the time responded, their condescension wasn't unwarranted. People did, in fact, cheer at the announced removal of Vancian spellcasting at one point.

"We've moved on from these things that cause problems and trip up the offered gameplay experience" isn't a snooty message when your players cheer on the "sacred barbecue."

One person's cheering is another person's poo sandwich.

The tribe has spoken.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What they came up with to fix didn't line up with what most people thought D&D's actual problems were. If Noonan was the only person coming up with this, then Noonan got it wrong in a big way. If this was the genesis of a new edition, it's not surprising that the edition that grew out of this was divisive. Not everyone agreed with Noonan on the problems that 4e needed to fix, or how 4e fixed them.

I don't think I really agree with this.

People at the end of (official support for) 3e understood many of the flaws of the game's design. They understood that the class tiers, while semi-intentional, had done pretty severe damage to the play-experience. They understood that Vancian spellcasting was incredibly overwrought and overcomplicated, while at the same time being heavily abusable by players. They understood that PrCs were busted to hell and back (hence the vehement opposition to anything PrC-like being added to 5e, because the well is so thoroughly poisoned that no one is willing to let WotC try again). People knew that high-level 3e was terrible to run, being incredibly DM-intensive without actually rewarding the DM with much freedom. People knew that the Full Attack concept had sounded cool, but ended up being an albatross around 3e's neck. Etc.

A lot of 3e's problems were known and understood. And a lot of the solutions are pretty consistent; there's a reason people who have played both games draw comparisons between 4e and PF2e.

Unfortunately, it just really is the case that some people are attached to...frankly, busted mechanics. Being able to be the star of the show. Being the god-wizard, who elects to allow others to participate because that's more fun than just solving every problem yourself. Being the insanely powerful shapeshifter-spellcaster-pet-owner. Etc. And, on the flipside, some people are so used to slapping patch after patch after patch after patch onto their game, they no longer see that activity as reflecting that there are problems with the underlying system; they see it as just the cost of doing business.

4e certainly failed to proselytize well, and its makers had such a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease, you'd think they were trying to devour their own femurs from the bottom up. And, as I've said here and many times elsewhere, 4e was plagued with both unforced (self-caused) and uncontrollable (externally-caused) problems that practically never seemed to let up.

It would always have been controversial--slaying sacred cows is like that. But if it had prevented the formation of Pathfinder (or, better yet, gotten Golarion as an official 3rd-party setting for 4e), straightened out its own act, presented itself as looking and feeling like a traditional D&D game even though the rules worked differently, prepared better for an incipient and extremely severe recession, and prevented the tragedies and unwise choices that repeatedly doomed the digital tools...I really do think 4e could have overcome the opposition it faced. A lack of organized resistance would have left a lot of players sticking with D&D because, as different as 4e might be, it's not AS different as something like World of Darkness or Shadowrun. It still has AC and attack rolls and six stats and modifiers and familiar classes etc.

One person's cheering is another person's poo sandwich.

The tribe has spoken.

Okay? I have no idea how this has any relevance to what I said. You're talking about the reaction AFTER. I'm talking about how WotC would have viewed things BEFORE. They were getting the right signals early on. People were positive about the changes, and positive about the way WotC initially presented those changes. So they continued doing what they were doing, because people responded positively at first.

That ended up being an unwise decision. In your words, "the tribe" changed its mind and spoke differently after a while. And at that point, the deed was already done. What had once been "do what the tribe says" became "you have done the opposite of what the tribe says now".

It's part of why I'm so skeptical of the crowd that basically says, "Yes, 5e should absolutely always do exactly what they're currently doing and never, ever change despite the massive changes to D&D's player demographics." In times past, WotC has listened. And guess what? The tribe was fickle and inconsistent. Democracy is like that. The madding crowd is not required to be rational and sure as hell isn't required to be consistent.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I would still keep the World Axis and Dawn War setting. But the changes to the other settings? Yeah, that should not have happened, though there likely should have been minor changes for including the new races and options in those settings. (Except maybe Dark Sun. I actually think that 4e Dark Sun was an improvement.)

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think I really agree with this.

People at the end of (official support for) 3e understood many of the flaws of the game's design. They understood that the class tiers, while semi-intentional, had done pretty severe damage to the play-experience. They understood that Vancian spellcasting was incredibly overwrought and overcomplicated, while at the same time being heavily abusable by players. They understood that PrCs were busted to hell and back (hence the vehement opposition to anything PrC-like being added to 5e, because the well is so thoroughly poisoned that no one is willing to let WotC try again). People knew that high-level 3e was terrible to run, being incredibly DM-intensive without actually rewarding the DM with much freedom. People knew that the Full Attack concept had sounded cool, but ended up being an albatross around 3e's neck. Etc.

A lot of 3e's problems were known and understood. And a lot of the solutions are pretty consistent; there's a reason people who have played both games draw comparisons between 4e and PF2e.

Unfortunately, it just really is the case that some people are attached to...frankly, busted mechanics. Being able to be the star of the show. Being the god-wizard, who elects to allow others to participate because that's more fun than just solving every problem yourself. Being the insanely powerful shapeshifter-spellcaster-pet-owner. Etc. And, on the flipside, some people are so used to slapping patch after patch after patch after patch onto their game, they no longer see that activity as reflecting that there are problems with the underlying system; they see it as just the cost of doing business.

4e certainly failed to proselytize well, and its makers had such a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease, you'd think they were trying to devour their own femurs from the bottom up. And, as I've said here and many times elsewhere, 4e was plagued with both unforced (self-caused) and uncontrollable (externally-caused) problems that practically never seemed to let up.

It would always have been controversial--slaying sacred cows is like that. But if it had prevented the formation of Pathfinder (or, better yet, gotten Golarion as an official 3rd-party setting for 4e), straightened out its own act, presented itself as looking and feeling like a traditional D&D game even though the rules worked differently, prepared better for an incipient and extremely severe recession, and prevented the tragedies and unwise choices that repeatedly doomed the digital tools...I really do think 4e could have overcome the opposition it faced. A lack of organized resistance would have left a lot of players sticking with D&D because, as different as 4e might be, it's not AS different as something like World of Darkness or Shadowrun. It still has AC and attack rolls and six stats and modifiers and familiar classes etc.


Okay? I have no idea how this has any relevance to what I said. You're talking about the reaction AFTER. I'm talking about how WotC would have viewed things BEFORE. They were getting the right signals early on. People were positive about the changes, and positive about the way WotC initially presented those changes. So they continued doing what they were doing, because people responded positively at first.

That ended up being an unwise decision. In your words, "the tribe" changed its mind and spoke differently after a while. And at that point, the deed was already done. What had once been "do what the tribe says" became "you have done the opposite of what the tribe says now".

It's part of why I'm so skeptical of the crowd that basically says, "Yes, 5e should absolutely always do exactly what they're currently doing and never, ever change despite the massive changes to D&D's player demographics." In times past, WotC has listened. And guess what? The tribe was fickle and inconsistent. Democracy is like that. The madding crowd is not required to be rational and sure as hell isn't required to be consistent.

Apparently it was mostly internal testing using preconceived notions.

So one coukd cherry pick donething and say you're getting rid of it. However if you're not revealing how you're replacing it or how it fits togather......

It was also rushed out the door a year early. Takes 3 years to design an edition or two years to revise one.

4E was designed anywhere between 1-2 years depending on his talking and what counts as direct design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Apparently it was mostly internal testing using preconceived notions.

So one coukd cherry pick donething and say you're getting rid of it. However if you're not revealing how you're replacing it or how it fits togather......

I mean...that's pretty much what 5e was too. I distinctly remember the horrible push-polls...where at least one of them literally didn't let you say no. All of the answers were some flavor of "yes," just varying from eager and enthusiastic to cautiously optimistic.

It was also rushed out the door a year early. Takes 3 years to design an edition or two years to revise one.

4E was designed anywhere between 1-2 years depending on his talking and what counts as direct design.

You'll hear no argument from me that 4e came out a year or so early. It needed more playtesting, it needed better overall aesthetic and layout, it needed more effort put into the "look and feel" without compromising the function.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean...that's pretty much what 5e was too. I distinctly remember the horrible push-polls...where at least one of them literally didn't let you say no. All of the answers were some flavor of "yes," just varying from eager and enthusiastic to cautiously optimistic.


You'll hear no argument from me that 4e came out a year or so early. It needed more playtesting, it needed better overall aesthetic and layout, it needed more effort put into the "look and feel" without compromising the function.

And yet 5E is the biggest selling edition ever. Polling worked.

Thing is IPs with established canvases don't really need fixing. 3.5 needed reigned in not burnt to the ground.

Sone sacred cows exist for a reason. D&D would probably be better off as a ten level game and spells top out at level 3 or 4. I wouldn't pull the trigger on that if I was grand high poobah.

 

[Bitbrain]

I think blowing up FR was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE mistake. So much change. Good luck with this thread not turning into "4e sucked vs 4e was great"....

When it comes to 4e and the Forgotten Realms specifically, they nuked the setting. NEVER nuke the setting.

I don’t even like the Forgotten Realms, but I do remember my old DM showing me two maps, one of 3e FR, the other of 4e FR.

Just seeing the scale of damage from the Spellplague made me feel incredibly sad for both him and other fans of the setting, because it kinda looked like someone had taken a map of the old Forgotten Realms out behind a building and taken a shotgun to it.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet 5E is the biggest selling edition ever. Polling worked

And when 6e eventually comes, 5e will be badmouthed to all hell once 6e is the biggest selling edition.

Because the D&D and fantasy community is large and diverse and every edition will have a whole in it for on section of it.

That was 4e's biggest issue after presentation. Not the blown up setting, the obvious whole.

 

[Shardstone]

4E feels like a video game because it has roles for its classes. Having to be a Leader or Striker instead of being a Controlling Fighter or a Leader Wizard was something a lot of people didn't like. Yes, you could use feats and powers and whatever to change this, but at a default, many playing TTRPG don't want to feel pigeon-holed.

 

[mamba]

It’s wild and sad that people are entirely unaware of a time before the OGL. Other games flourished. Other games were played more than D&D. D&D was nearly dead and gone. The only thing that saved it was the OGL. There was a bright and glorious time in the late 80s and 90s when D&D was not king. One game to rule them all. Sigh.

that had more to do with TSR’s problems than anything else. Not even sure it was not still the best selling game then (late 80s to early / mid 90s at least)

Once WotC released 3e it bounced back and would have done so even without the OGL