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

[JEB]

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.

I don't doubt this is true, but I've read anecdotes of folks who were literally told they couldn't use combat powers like spells outside of combat in 4e. This sort of problem isn't unique, of course (I still bitterly remember the PF Society GM who refused to let me throw dirt in someone's face because I didn't have the right feat)... but it still indicates that if the 4e designers actively wanted DMs and players to do this, they needed to be louder about it.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Well, first point, it would be highly convenient for the guy responsible for the rules changes (Heinsoo) if that were true, wouldn't it...?

Second point, two of the people heavily involved in the Setting changes (Jamea Wyaty and Chris Perkins) not only wrote the 2014 DMG, but are currently trying the ones writing the 2024 DMG, so clearly nobody with access to the data at Has ro agrees with Heinsoo about where this went wrong.

Third point, the Nentir Vale stuff was good actually, and would have been well received as a fuy developed standalone Setting product using d20 rules. Evidence: Exandria is basically the Nentir Vale more fully built oit, amd is very popular.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't doubt this is true, but I've read anecdotes of folks who were literally told they couldn't use combat powers like spells outside of combat in 4e. This sort of problem isn't unique, of course (I still bitterly remember the PF Society GM who refused to let me throw dirt in someone's face because I didn't have the right feat)... but it still indicates that if the 4e designers actively wanted DMs and players to do this, they needed to be louder about it.

So like, how did wizards Identify magic items in 4e? I remember thinking "how could this spell not be there?"

 

[Oofta]

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.

Well, I probably could have qualified my statement a bit more because who knows what could have been and certainly not me, but it seems like there was more innovation before the OGL. Maybe it was just where things were in the industry at the time. We'll never know now of course, but it seems to me that it makes developers less likely to truly innovate. Or not. Who knows.

 

[DarkCrisis]

1. It was a pen and paper MMO
2. Blowing up Faerun

I gave it a shot. Didn't like it. Dropped the system and the novels (Sorry Drizzt) and moved on.

5E brought me back but it's never really rubbed me the right way. Yet here I am about to buy 5.5E

 

[Parmandur]

Well, I probably could have qualified my statement a bit more because who knows what could have been and certainly not me, but it seems like there was more innovation before the OGL. Maybe it was just where things were in the industry at the time. We'll never know now of course, but it seems to me that it makes developers less likely to truly innovate. Or not. Who knows.

Well, system diversity. An intential goal pf the OGL was to incentive third parties to be third parties for D&D rather than first party competition for other games.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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

You said 4E appealled to a different audience instead of the "D&D audience" or something like that.

My post was attempted to define what those differences are.

The thing with 3.X was that the rules themselves lead to some wonky experiences. If you had ingrained play culture (or an active DM with good judgement) from AD&D or earlier, you would just house rule pass them and go on.

If the rules were the biggest factor in how you would play, you would find all the places where the game would break and push on that relentlessly, leading to a bad time.

Do you want to take this to another thread??

 

[dave2008]

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.

I think a combination of leaving the setting mostly alone and starting mechanically similar to the essentials line would have helped a lot. If the PHB and essentials line flipped having AEDU options for every class would have been well received I think.

Oh, and not junking the OGL for the GSL or whatever it was called.

 

[Oofta]

You said 4E appealled to a different audience instead of the "D&D audience" or something like that.

My post was attempted to define what those differences are.

The thing with 3.X was that the rules themselves lead to some wonky experiences. If you had ingrained play culture (or an active DM with good judgement) from AD&D or earlier, you would just house rule pass them and go on.

If the rules were the biggest factor in how you would play, you would find all the places where the game would break and push on that relentlessly, leading to a bad time.

Do you want to take this to another thread??

Nah, I just wasn't following.

 

[JEB]

So like, how did wizards Identify magic items in 4e? I remember thinking "how could this spell not be there?"

Had to go looking... 4e allowed characters (not just wizards) to ID one magic item per short rest. Though it also suggests rare items could require an Arcana check, and "especially powerful" items might require a quest. (Rules Compendium page 277)