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

[TiQuinn]

I think it all comes down to playstyle and what a player wants in their class fantasy.

For me personally, when playing the older editions I never liked the fact that I could have a spell that would help us solve a problem in the moment, but because I didn't memorize it in the morning then we couldn't use that solution. The game was basically taunting me by acknowledging I have the answer, but not letting me use it. And the only way for me to use it was to guess at the start of the day that this spell might be a solution I would need and then cross my fingers it would end up being true. But if it turned out the entire day was ending up being just one combat after the other and half my spell slots had utility magic memorized... then I'd cast the few spells I had and then spend the rest of the adventuring day firing a crossbow and getting like one out of every eight shots actually hitting. Which is not how I would envision a Magic-User actually behaving.

I would imagine that you have a different class fantasy and what I describe above for you would be a boon, not a flaw. Likewise if I was to say that I actually love attack cantrips because it allows me to actually be a Magic-User all the time and not have to spend 90% of my day as an inept crossbowman... you might say that the proliferation of magic in the game has now made the game worse.

Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong. It's all just a matter of preference and perspective.

I don’t have a different class fantasy but I realize it’s a different game and style of play. I would say that a problem with one solution, I.e. you have to have knock memorized is a poorly designed problem and I would say that a whole bucketload of early d&d modules were poorly written because it wasn’t until much later that they even figured out that was something people wanted to buy!

I also don’t have a problem with cantrips or flexible casting in general. I love 5e. But I also love 2e (1e kinda.) They create different play experiences but they’re easily my two favorite versions of the game. To me, it’s like saying driving on the left side of the road is weird - well, no, it’s just a different country. You get used to it. Every game system has it’s idiosyncrasies.

 

[Oofta]

I think it all comes down to playstyle and what a player wants in their class fantasy.

For me personally, when playing the older editions I never liked the fact that I could have a spell that would help us solve a problem in the moment, but because I didn't memorize it in the morning then we couldn't use that solution. The game was basically taunting me by acknowledging I have the answer, but not letting me use it. And the only way for me to use it was to guess at the start of the day that this spell might be a solution I would need and then cross my fingers it would end up being true. But if it turned out the entire day was ending up being just one combat after the other and half my spell slots had utility magic memorized... then I'd cast the few spells I had and then spend the rest of the adventuring day firing a crossbow and getting like one out of every eight shots actually hitting. Which is not how I would envision a Magic-User actually behaving.

I would imagine that you have a different class fantasy and what I describe above for you would be a boon, not a flaw. Likewise if I was to say that I actually love attack cantrips because it allows me to actually be a Magic-User all the time and not have to spend 90% of my day as an inept crossbowman... you might say that the proliferation of magic in the game has now made the game worse.

Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong. It's all just a matter of preference and perspective.

Vancian casting is why my wizard practically had to have a porter for all of his scrolls. Don't have the right spell prepped for this situation? Let me double check my library, I'm sure I've got something here somewhere.

Not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one.

 

[TiQuinn]

Vancian casting is why my wizard practically had to have a porter for all of his scrolls. Don't have the right spell prepped for this situation? Let me double check my library, I'm sure I've got something here somewhere.

Not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one.

There’s this too - scrolls and potions as treasure become important and valuable.

 

[billd91]

I think it all comes down to playstyle and what a player wants in their class fantasy.

<snip>

Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong. It's all just a matter of preference and perspective.

And because of those differences in preference and perspective, a statement a lot of people can cheer (“we’ve gotten rid of Vancian casting”) may still lead a lot of the same crowd to gasp “not like that” when they see the chosen solution.

And this kind of thing comes up a lot whenever there are complex issues to address, particularly contentiously in politics.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Vancian casting is why my wizard practically had to have a porter for all of his scrolls. Don't have the right spell prepped for this situation? Let me double check my library, I'm sure I've got something here somewhere.

Not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one.

There’s this too - scrolls and potions as treasure become important and valuable.

Yep, there were definitely ways to work around it, just like there are ways to work around most perceived issues or idiosyncracies of every edition thus far. The question ends up then just being whether or not those work-arounds are worth keeping the game as-is versus changing the rules for it with the next edition so it is no longer needed to be used.

That sort of thing is no different than the people who wanted to play an Archer Fighter in 4E but couldn't (because the Fighter was a Defender)... and they didn't want to use the work-around of playing a Ranger (build specifically to be the archer martial character) and just re-fluffing the class to be "more Fighter like" (in whatever their mind said a 'Fighter' should be.) Some people are okay with using work-arounds (for Vancian casting, thematic class description, etc.) and others aren't. And if you have too many of the latter, then the game eventually will find itself changing to make more people satisfied later on.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And because of those differences in preference and perspective, a statement a lot of people can cheer (“we’ve gotten rid of Vancian casting”) may still lead a lot of the same crowd to gasp “not like that” when they see the chosen solution.

And this kind of thing comes up a lot whenever there are complex issues to address, particularly contentiously in politics.

Heh heh... yep. The old "Be careful what you wish for..." chestnut.

I say that every time someone says they want an old campaign setting polished up and published for 5E. Cause most likely they ain't gonna like what 5E (and WotC) does to it.

 

[Belen]

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.

That makes perfect sense. I did not know he hated 2e.

For me 4e was a different game designed to appeal to WoW players without realizing that an MMO player who had a computer do all the math for them would not suddenly design to play a TTRPG.

 

[Belen]

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.

Nope. The mechanics were so bad and the feel of the game was so bad that I would have kept playing 3.5 or found a new game. If I wanted to play a miniature game or tabletop MMO, then I would play a miniature game or tabletop MMO.

 

[Parmandur]

Nope. The mechanics were so bad and the feel of the game was so bad that I would have kept playing 3.5 or found a new game. If I wanted to play a miniature game or tabletop MMO, then I would play a miniature game or tabletop MMO.

I just...stopped playing TTRPGs, or paying attention to their existence for half a decade.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nope. The mechanics were so bad and the feel of the game was so bad that I would have kept playing 3.5 or found a new game. If I wanted to play a miniature game or tabletop MMO, then I would play a miniature game or tabletop MMO.

Well, you played 3.5, which was just as much of a miniatures game as 4E was. Large numbers of 3.5 tables used miniatures and grids all the time. The only difference was that 3.5 made it easier to also play it Theater of the Mind style than 4E did if that was what someone wanted.