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

[Hexmage-EN]

I despise MMOs and their design and strongly disagree. It's just RPG stuff. Fourth edition is less like an MMO than it's like your Ogre Battles or Final Fantasy Tactics: you have front line attackers, you have healers, you have people that work as crowd control.

I was a fan of Tactics RPG video games before I started playing my first D&D edition (3.5). One of the first attempts at homebrew I created was a feat inspired by a tactical RPG called Disgaea that would let a fighter move three spaces and deal damage to any enemies whose space he moved through. 4E, which came out not too long after, obviously appealed to me, and I would have loved a 4E video game based on the rules set.

Regarding MMOs, I've seen game play videos of the Neverwinter MMO that came out during 4E but looks to play nothing like 4E itself.

 

[Chaltab]

I was a fan of Tactics RPG video games before I started playing my first D&D edition (3.5). One of the first attempts at homebrew I created was a feat inspired by a tactical RPG called Disgaea that would let a fighter move three spaces and deal damage to any enemies whose space he moved through. 4E, which came out not too long after, obviously appealed to me, and I would have loved a 4E video game based on the rules set.

Regarding MMOs, I've seen game play videos of the Neverwinter MMO that came out during 4E but looks to play nothing like 4E itself.

Yeah, Neverwinter essentially takes a few names and visual design cues from 4th Edition but doesn't emulate the mechanics at all, since it's more of an action MMO. Any given 3E or 5E-based CRPG plays more like 4E than Neverwinter does.

 

[GrimCo]

I like watching Critical Role. I never want to get anywhere close to playing like that. I’m far more a plot-driven, action-adventure gamer. Not hack & slash. I think combat’s the most boring part of D&D. But the puzzles, exploration, bizarre shenanigans, etc. I’m absolutely here for that. Splashes of color, yes please.

Same, their play style isn't my jam. But on the other hand, i don't watch them. Too long, to much. I like my games with simple plot, interesting NPCs, fast combat and not too serious. Kinda like 80's and 90's action adventure movies. Punchlines and good puns are must have.

On the other hand, I quite like good hack&slash in Diablo like fashion. But, i like it with people who have very good system mastery. I have group of friends who are primarily 40k wargamers (and hardcore WoW pvp raiders) but also play D&D. It's power trip, monty haul, hack&slash galore. But they know system inside out (and how to brake it for maximum power). With them, game runs smooth and fast, cause they plan their turns just like in tactical wargame. They know their character powers and which one is best to use depending on the current situation at the table. With them, 4e shines in all it's glory.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's because for a non-negligible portion of the player base, thespianism and invocations of colo(u)r are among the principal purposes of play.

It's similar to some posts in other concurrent threads about how the only difference between two characters that actually matters is how they're "roleplayed", i.e. how their personalities are invoked during freeform narration.

Yes! Though my (personal) interest and tolerance for "thespianism" stops at "just under Critical Role" and doesn't extend even close to the "method actor" player-type. OTOH, invocations of colo(u)r (I like what you did there) are what I live for.

I love colour. It's a big part of why I enjoy RPGing more than boardgaming. But I want the colour to matter. So if I'm going to describe myself ducking under and stabbing up, that should matter (eg in Prince Valiant that could trigger an Athletics check to impose a penalty on my opponent's Arms check). If it doesn't matter - if it's mere colour - than my interest is very limited.

When it comes to invoking personalities, again I want that to be in action declaration. The idea that personality is mere colour, but when it comes to the action (and especially combat action) the PCs are a hivemind and personality is nothing but quips, is not what I'm looking for.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I mean, if you're offering, I won't say no. Mondays and Tuesdays are booked for me (that's Hussar's game and my own DMing respectively), but if you've got any other day that works for you, I'm game.

Well I'm officially offering now. Come check out the thread and offer your input!

MichaelSomething's 4E Comeback special

June 2 and June 9th. 6:15 pm EST to 10:15 pm EST (ish) Discord, Microphone, and Roll 20 required 4th Edition D&D Paging @EzekielRaiden Since we're all arguing about 4E, why don't we go play some? As you know, Enworlders are among the greatest players ever to throw the dice, so you should...

www.enworld.org

 

[Aldarc]

I can call my cat a dog but she's still going to meow.

That is a horrible analogy, and you know it. This is about your sense for what is or isn't supernatural based on your own subjective sensibilities. It is not about whether a cat is actually a dog, which portrays people saying that 4e fighters aren't using supernatural abilities as being people dumb enough not able to objectively recognize a cat for a dog.

We disagree. As far as I'm concerned the only possible reason a fighter could do what they do is because at least some of their powers are supernatural. The martial label is not defined as mundane, it's defined as the label of powers for fighters. You are the one insisting it cannot be supernatural in nature, it is not stated one way or another in the PHB.

This is as close as we get in PHB 1:

Martial: Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power. Martial powers are called exploits.

I suspect that you will choose to read this as an admission that it's magic or supernatural, namely the part where it says that "some powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals," whereas I would say that I and others would probably call this "extraordinary," following the naming conventions of abilities in 3e.

I wouldn't say that's as black-and-white as you're stating it...

Is there a word for "well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"...?

Extraordinary:

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)​

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

3.5 D&D SRD

 

[Oofta]

That is a horrible analogy, and you know it. This is about your sense for what is or isn't supernatural based on your own subjective sensibilities. It is not about whether a cat is actually a dog, which portrays people saying that 4e fighters aren't using supernatural abilities as being people dumb enough not able to objectively recognize a cat for a dog.


This is as close as we get in PHB 1:

I suspect that you will choose to read this as an admission that it's magic or supernatural, namely the part where it says that "some powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals," whereas I would say that I and others would probably call this "extraordinary," following the naming conventions of abilities in 3e.


Extraordinary:

3.5 D&D SRD

To me the martial power source is an awful lot like paladins in 5E getting abilities from dedication to their oaths*. Other than the fact that paladins explicitly cast spells of course. But anything that breaks the laws of physics is, by definition, supernatural. It's not necessarily a spell, you don't even have to call it magic. Maybe there's a better word out there for it than supernatural, but I don't know what it is. Because unless you are using the 3.5 game definition of extraordinary, many Olympic level athletes also do things that are extraordinary. Top level gymnasts seem to break the laws of physics on a regular basis but obviously they are not because they're doing it in our boring mundane muggle world.

But this all started because while D&D fighters in all pre-4E editions were able to do amazing things, I could still visualize the default fighter as just a more-or-less mundane mortal doing extraordinary things. I like having the option to play a fighter that, unless they are explicitly a magical subclass, is based on more or less mundane abilities along the lines of an action movie hero. It's a trope I personally like to play and something I felt was missing from 4E. Heck, I'm even okay with a bit of magic like my rune caster fighter because they just come out and say "you have a couple of cool magical abilities". They don't try to call it mundane when he grows to twice his size because it's not.

Of course D&D will always have oddities. Hit points are a simple way of tracking durability in combat, which when combined with simplified falling damage you get illogical results. You get "hit" by a dragon and you aren't taking the full force of that hit, you're deflecting the vast majority of it but still suffering some strain and stamina loss or however you want to explain it. But those results come about because of the nature of the rules and making the game easy to play, not because of conscious design.

But I express my opinion, my interpretation of what that martial powers did and try to explain why for me it gives a different feel, a different tone, a different approach to fighters that what came before and I'm told I can't say that. That I can't express my thoughts on the subject. The "martial powers are not supernatural" police come out to tell me that for some reason I can't express my opinion.

Last, but not least, I get that a lot of people don't care. The one guy I played with that really liked 4E was also very into anime where fighters are just kind of assumed to be supernatural. There's nothing wrong with the stylistic direction or thematic expression, it's just not a direction I personally care for. No game can be for everyone, no expression of a fighter will make everyone happy.


*4E Power Source: Martial. You have become a master of combat through endless hours of practice, determination, and your own sheer physical toughness
5E Paladin: Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work ... a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

 

[pemerton]

anything that breaks the laws of physics is, by definition, supernatural.

(1) Not according to the 3E D&D rules.

(2) Given that all fighters in all versions of D&D break the laws of physics - eg by the sort of martial prowess they bring to bear against giants and dragons - then they are all supernatural per your definition.

You get "hit" by a dragon and you aren't taking the full force of that hit, you're deflecting the vast majority of it but still suffering some strain and stamina loss or however you want to explain it.

What you describe here breaks the laws of physics. No one "deflects" the "vast majority" of a blow from a creature the size of a dragon!

 

[Aldarc]

But anything that breaks the laws of physics is, by definition, supernatural.

Not according to 3.5e D&D. Trying to play word games like this risks equivocating what is meant in this case by "supernatural."

It's not necessarily a spell, you don't even have to call it magic. Maybe there's a better word out there for it than supernatural, but I don't know what it is. Because unless you are using the 3.5 game definition of extraordinary, many Olympic level athletes also do things that are extraordinary. Top level gymnasts seem to break the laws of physics on a regular basis but obviously they are not because they're doing it in our boring mundane muggle world.

Have you considered the word "extraordinary"? Have you considered applying the understanding of "extraordinary" used by 3.5e D&D, which elaborates what it means? Or would accepting that somehow require you conceding that it's not magical or not supernatural? In 3.5e D&D, extraordinary abilities =! supernatural abilities. Martial abilities in 4e D&D are consistent with extraordinary abilities in 3.5 D&D, which makes sense IMO as the designers for 4e had previously been working on 3.5 D&D. They can even break the laws of physics at times, much like the mundane action movie heroes you mention below.

But this all started because while D&D fighters in all pre-4E editions were able to do amazing things, I could still visualize the default fighter as just a more-or-less mundane mortal doing extraordinary things. I like having the option to play a fighter that, unless they are explicitly a magical subclass, is based on more or less mundane abilities along the lines of an action movie hero. It's a trope I personally like to play and something I felt was missing from 4E.

The 4e Fighter continues the trend of earlier editions of the fighter performing extrordinary feats. I would argue that the 4e fighter does a better job of emulating the action movie hero performing extorardinary feats than fighters in other editions.

But I express my opinion, my interpretation of what that martial powers did and try to explain why for me it gives a different feel, a different tone, a different approach to fighters that what came before and I'm told I can't say that. That I can't express my thoughts on the subject. The "martial powers are not supernatural" police come out to tell me that for some reason I can't express my opinion.

Don't feign offense. You can express your opinion, but people on a forum are free to challenge your opinion and express theirs in return. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it automatically immune from reproach.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

As I understood it, all characters are effected by the will of the gods, blessings and so on.

In the game fiction, the “martial” characters are seen as heroes and perhaps favored but not necessarily as outside of human capability.

As to hit points, going back to 1e, we are told they are an abstraction. A small portion are meat. Most of it is luck and favor and slipping so that the killing blow is not dealt. People are scratched up and worn out to the point they may not be as able to dodge. Or their luck has run out. Whatever. No—-no one is shrugging off a hit from a dragon.

I think a lot of this discussion is arguing for and against the idea that I cannot tell the difference from anime and say an action movie.

Sometimes we don’t have technical/opertional language to make a distinction like this and we default to what we have. Then we pick that apart because of course it is imprecise.

But we know there is a difference even if we can pick at the margins and argue for 100s of pages.

Whatever. But surely we can allow some people want the more extreme examples as typical of martial characters and others don’t.

If only there was a way to meet those needs through game/edition choice…