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

[FitzTheRuke]

I find it kind of funny how many people are apparently traumatized that it might have happened.

I don't think that's the case. I don't think anyone has ever meant to argue that there was NO influence. I think it's more often that people think that it's not a big deal if 4e was influenced by MMOs and get tired of hearing about it, in particular as it's nearly always brought up as a criticism, if not a full indictment.

Did 4e have some elements inspired by WoW? Sure. Do you know what inspired it more than WoW did? D&D. D&D inspired it, and D&D inspired WoW, too. You can chicken-or-the-egg it to death, but what's the point?

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but the part of the MMO argument that bothers me is the obvious fact that it goes the other way around FIRST: MMOs would NOT EXIST without D&D being a thing. They owe EVERYTHING to D&D. D&D took a few things back (maybe a few things that they shouldn't have)? Sure.

A lot of fiction, entertainment and video games would be different or not exist in their current form today if it weren't for D&D.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Really, it needed a pre-life QoL pass. I may be a 4e mega-fan, but it's pretty clear that it came out with at least a couple parts still half-baked, and that's before you consider the presentation issues.

If I could go back in time, in the very least I'd stop the idiot who jacked the Monster HP right before publication. (Monsters in 4e should ALWAYS have had less HP and deal more damage. In some cases, MUCH MORE damage, and MUCH LESS HP!)

 

[overgeeked]

RE: D&D, Board Games, 4e, and MMO's back in 2012

RPG Codez: "On the subject of exact rules, did Wizards take inspiration from computer or board games for the rules in the previous editions? If so, could you name some that were especially important? Do you see these more exact rules as something that could help the game make the transition to video-games and board games and other environments where there is no GM to make a ruling? If so, does the new edition's focus on modularity make it harder to make a boardgame or videogame based on it?"

Mike Mearls: "As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

What we’ve learned since then is that the specific RPG rules aren’t very useful for making other games. Instead, the world lore, feel of the game, distinct features of each class, race, and monster, and so on are much, much more important. If you look at our current boardgames, they don’t use the same exact rules as the RPG but they evoke a similar feel. That’s really the key to us. We want to be able to have a clear, easily understood definition of what a wizard or paladin is. We can then transfer that definition into other games. As long as the feel and key story beats are there, the specific rules are secondary."

from:

RPG Codex Interview: Mike Mearls on Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Next :: rpg codex > doesn't scale to your level

RPG Codex > putting the 'role' back in role-playing. A highly prestigious gaming magazine with news and views on the latest and not so latest RPGs.

rpgcodex.net

(followed by a question on modularity and one on balance)

In the actual interview this thread is about Rob talks about the MMO influence on 4E.

 

[Retreater]

I just want to add here, despite all my complaining I've been doing, I have long considered myself a 4e apologist. I don't consider it a bad system. I liked it enough to try to sell my group on it six months ago, after all.
I'm just running into a brick wall with this group. It's not meshing with their style or interests, and the whole experience is frustrating to me.
We have two months left before the group dissolves when half the players move away to college. I'd like to give them a satisfying end without abandoning the system or campaign.
They're not complaining about it to me - even telling me the opposite. It's just the vibes I'm picking up - comments during the game, lack of engagement, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think that's the case. I don't think anyone has ever meant to argue that there was NO influence. I think it's more often that people think that it's not a big deal if 4e was influenced by MMOs and get tired of hearing about it, in particular as it's nearly always brought up as a criticism, if not a full indictment.

Did 4e have some elements inspired by WoW? Sure. Do you know what inspired it more than WoW did? D&D. D&D inspired it, and D&D inspired WoW, too. You can chicken-or-the-egg it to death, but what's the point?

The bigger problem is that people use the MMO comparison like a discussion-ending cudgel. Hell, that kind of argument has been used as a cudgel for most of my life, given it was trotted out for 3e as well (just comparing it to Diablo rather than WoW).

People who use it are also EXTREMELY frequently making a pretty disingenuous comparison. E.g., they compare encounter abilities to "cooldowns"...even though that's not how cooldowns work in the vast majority of MMOs, and more importantly, encounter abilities are more usable than per-short-rest abilities, which these folks have no problem with. Or they say marking is exactly the same as threat/aggro/etc., when (as I argued above) the two literally couldn't be MORE different, because the former requires a real human mind making decisions, while the latter is pure mind control.

Is there some influence in there? Sure. WoW was HUGE, and the period from roughly early 2007 (start of BC) to late 2010 (end of Wrath) was absolutely its heyday when it was everywhere, it was a cultural phenomenon, you had commercials on what folks today might call "normie TV," you had paid sponsorship deals with well-known personalities like William Shatner, Mr. T, and Samuel L. Jackson describing their (probably fictitious, or at least only-for-marketing-purposes) WoW characters on ordinary television ads.

But you know what was a much bigger influence than anything from WoW? Soccer. That's where marking comes from. That's why they made two different styles of marks during 4e's run, one being a "pick a person, menace them" style, the other being the "pick an area, lock it down" style--because those are actually real methods used by people who play soccer. Indeed, all of the role names actually come from soccer. Defenders are defending your end of the field and your goal from the opposition. Strikers are the ones trying to get the ball across the field. Controllers try to maintain vigilance and control over an area of the field. Leaders push ahead of the strikers to pave the way for the strikers to land shots. 4e, unlike any previous (or subsequent...) D&D, was actually designed to be a team effort, rather than a "five people who happen to adventure in the same places at the same time" activity.

 

[Chaltab]

I find it kind of funny how many people are apparently traumatized that it might have happened.

(Do any MMO players act appalled when someone points out what their favorite game borrowed from DnD?)

It's not quite the same thing. Nobody tries to dismiss or criticize WOW by saying 'it's just D&D on a computer'--that same phrase is often used as praise of CRPGs like BG3 and Solasta, in fact.

But to me there's also just a fundamental disconnect. People say that and then point to things like abilities having short rest cooldowns, Martial characters getting powers, the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller divisions, etc. To me those are all just RPG mechanics stated a bit more explicitly. It's a bit more meta compared of the classic Warrior/Rogue/Priest/Mage groups of 2E, but it's not something that MMOs came up with.

But the things I sincerely dislike about MMOs--the need to constantly play 'keep up' or fall behind, the focus on optimal builds, loot treadmills, the emphasis on raids and large scale battles, and the static nature of the world where your actions are basically meaningless as quests reset? That's all stuff that's either not in any D&D edition... or they were also part of 3E. It's kind of like how 3E was dismissively called the Diablo edition when it came out. Even though I'm generally very critical of 3E, I don't think that's an accurate take on it at all.

I also don't want to sit here and be an edition warrior because there's plenty of things I emphatically don't miss from 4E.

Edit: Hah, ninja'd! @EzekielRaiden

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Edit: There's a good reason several of the major well-known, respected youtubers who do DM advice, such as Matt Colville, specifically advocate using 4e to improve your 5e games. 4e monster design is really, really good, to the point that you can leverage it to make better, more interesting, more engaging combats even in 5e.

I think that the funniest (most annoying?) thing when discussing 4e monster design, is that 4e monster design WAS very very good, BUT... its initial math was terrible, and only started getting fixed near the end.

The core problem with 4e monster design was: 1) What I posted above re: HP and damage output; 2) Early books had ACs and the other 3 defenses that were often TOO HIGH, or (rarer) too low. Math problems.

BUT... the rest of the design was far superior (IMO of course) to 5e's monster design, and the #1 thing that I "miss" from 4e. The above was also very easy to fix once you understood 4e. And dynamic to fight monsters were very easy to make, using 4e's rules.

Like Skill Challenges, though, the monsters included in some of the books did not show the best of what the design had to offer.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I just want to add here, despite all my complaining I've been doing, I have long considered myself a 4e apologist. I don't consider it a bad system. I liked it enough to try to sell my group on it six months ago, after all.
I'm just running into a brick wall with this group. It's not meshing with their style or interests, and the whole experience is frustrating to me.
We have two months left before the group dissolves when half the players move away to college. I'd like to give them a satisfying end without abandoning the system or campaign.
They're not complaining about it to me - even telling me the opposite. It's just the vibes I'm picking up - comments during the game, lack of engagement, etc.

Halve all Monster HP and Triple all Monster damage (fudge that when it doesn't look right). In the very least, it'll speed up combat and you'll get the game finished faster. I did this for my last few years of 4e, and the game became very exciting.

Edit: Actually without a Defender, maybe just Double all Monster Damage. You have two Leaders, so they ought to be able to keep everyone alive.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, it's so wild that people think tabletop RPGs should be some kind of walled garden. It's okay for video games to emulate, copy, and outright steal stuff from RPGs, but the second even a hint of video game mechanics shows up in RPGs it's suddenly a problem. Guess what, the mechanics of many video games, MMOs in particular, are almost purely D&D on a computer. Fighters in plate with a shield have always been tanks. Clerics have always been healers. Everyone else has always been support or damage dealers. Why the bizarre resistance to simply importing those terms (or similar) when it would save time? It's nonsensical. Video games have the benefit of tons of money and iterative design that RPGs simply cannot afford. Importing mechanics and ideas from video games saves time and money. Plus the added benefit of familiarity to a much, much, much larger audience than RPGs. The systems and mechanics have been proven to work time and time again. And yet tabletop RPG players turn up their noses at this stuff despite it working better. So odd.