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

[DinoInDisguise]

My guess, as with most things, is that there is a range in which things work well for most folks. And as you move farther and farther from that range it ejects more and more folks.

This can be balance or verisimilitude in games, music volume or temperature in a store, amount of spice in a food, etc...

I would be amazed to find that almost everyone didn't think some level of balance was needed (if we give all Wizards an extra level but no one else? Two extra levels? Ten?).

On the other hand I have a hard time imagining that "exact balance" in a game can be achieved without jettisoning a lot of things people like.

So the trial and error thing is to find those boundaries.

I think you are exactly right. I think the take away has to be that 5e is within the acceptable range for most players. And I think there is an argument that 4e was not.

 

[TwoSix]

My guess, as with most things, is that there is a range in which things work well for most folks. And as you move farther and farther from that range it ejects more and more folks.

This can be balance or verisimilitude in games, music volume or temperature in a store, amount of spice in a food, etc...

I would be amazed to find that almost everyone didn't think some level of balance was needed (if we give all Wizards an extra level but no one else? Two extra levels? Ten?).

On the other hand I have a hard time imagining that "exact balance" in a game can be achieved without jettisoning a lot of things people like.

So the trial and error thing is to find those boundaries.

Since D&D is fundamentally a cooperative game, I don't think people are really looking for perfect balance. The only concern on the balance front is the appearance of tradeoffs (well, he doesn't get spells, but he does have more hit points!) and for no option to completely eclipse another, similar option.

The goal is always to avoid making options for feature B that are "feature A, but just better".

 

[overgeeked]

I feel like there is a divide of sorts. This forum as a whole has shown this to me. I think the importance of game balance is overplayed on this forum compared to the community as a whole.

I feel like there is a segment of players who value game balance over pretty much everything. I think, if you do, 4e is very alluring. There is a strong argument it's the best balanced ttrpg in existence.

But I think this is fool's errand of sorts. 4e didn't do well commercially from WotC's point of view. According to a self reporting survey of hobby stores in Q3 of 2010, it was in a dead heat with pathfinder for sales. As opposed to 5e, where many call it a monopoly, and malign the lack of players for other systems - pathfinder included.

I think it's unanswerable whether the AEDU system of actions was in part, or in whole, responsible for 4e's comparatively lack luster popularity. A simple search of reddit posts on the topic from the 2010-2014 era, shows the system is contentious at best. This contentiousness implies that it's, in part, responsible for the performance of 4e. It was a defining feature of the edition.

I don’t think it’s a 1-to-1 cause and effect. You can have balanced classes without the tactical mini skirmish game combat. I think that aspect is what people objected to most. It’s worth noting that the sales parity with Pathfinder was during the playtest / new edition is imminent phase of 4E’s lifecycle. The sales dip every time there’s an edition change. Until that moment, 4E still outsold Pathfinder.

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

EDIT: cleaned up two typos

One reason I think 5E is so popular is because the design team did balance the game…around a far off point of many combats in a day that most tables never see. But, as a result, 5E is way more explicitly the kind of “we’re always awesome and we always win” kind of power fantasy that people seem to like without the slog of combat. In 4E classes were balanced against each other and were all but guaranteed to win, but actually winning was a slog. It’s no longer a default slog to win in 5E, but the classes are hilariously unbalanced against each other. There’s more than one kind of balance.

 

[overgeeked]

Since D&D is fundamentally a cooperative game, I don't think people are really looking for perfect balance. The only concern on the balance front is the appearance of tradeoffs (well, he doesn't get spells, but he does have more hit points!) and for no option to completely eclipse another, similar option.

The goal is always to avoid making options for feature B that are "feature A, but just better".

I am looking for (as near as humanly possible) perfect balance between the classes. One of my problems with 5E is that casters are simply better than everyone else, that they utterly eclipse everyone else.

 

[zakael19]

I'm tired of having the group run away from challenges they think are too hard - it happens about every other combat. So I have to throw out my prep - and everyone's in a bad mood.

For example, I was running an adventure for levels 6-8. There is a 10th level encounter early on. One of the opponents is a 10th level elite (in addition to a trap and two other opponents) that wrecked the party. They asked "were we supposed to be able to beat that?" And I don't know how to answer them.



So theoretically, I can go through, re-tool all the encounters that look "off" with this business card math, and it should work?

At this point, I think it's the only hope I've got in salvaging this adventure.

I wouldn’t do it ahead of time, just have the reference handy and if you want to adjust challenge on the fly do so. If it’s a level 7 xp budget challenge, and you’ve got 6 level 8s, tweak it a bit. If it’s a level 10, and they’re not using abilities well to make hits happen, use the math to quickly drop AC / defenses by like … 1.

Does the party have their math in order btw? Did you use inherent bonuses or give everybody appropriate +1s for armor & weapon?

I would 100% drop filler encounters entirely and just work around the narratively important ones in the module. If it’s not using enough skill challenges to make up the difference XP wise, add some. I haven’t read all of Gardmore, but what I did seemed interesting. However I did find that the better regarded 4e adventurers leave more empty space for a DM to steer themselves then most 5e adventures which tend to be proscriptive.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel like there is a divide of sorts. This forum as a whole has shown this to me. I think the importance of game balance is overplayed on this forum compared to the community as a whole.

I feel like there is a segment of players who value game balance over pretty much everything. I think, if you do, 4e is very alluring. There is a strong argument it's the best balanced ttrpg in existence.

But I think this is fool's errand of sorts. 4e didn't do well commercially from WotC's point of view. According to a self reporting survey of hobby stores in Q3 of 2010, it was in a dead heat with pathfinder for sales. As opposed to 5e, where many call it a monopoly, and malign the lack of players for other systems - pathfinder included.

I think it's unanswerable whether the AEDU system of actions was in part, or in whole, responsible for 4e's comparatively lack luster popularity. A simple search of reddit posts on the topic from the 2010-2014 era, shows the system is contentious at best. This contentiousness implies that it's, in part, responsible for the performance of 4e. It was a defining feature of the edition.

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

EDIT: cleaned up two typos

If I were to make a list of what appealed to me about 4e D&D, I don't think that game balance would make my Top 10 reasons. I sometimes think that this issue of balance likewise gets overstated against 4e.

 

[Pedantic]

If I were to make a list of what appealed to me about 4e D&D, I don't think that game balance would make my Top 10 reasons. I sometimes think that this issue of balance likewise gets overstated against 4e.

Yeah, and I'm not precisely thrilled that 4e has been (by both proponents and detractors) reified as the inevitable endpoint of trying to make a balanced D&D game. It's led to both "balance is bad, look it gave us 4e, stop trying" and "clearly you object to game balance on principle, because you don't approve of this specific 4e design choice."

It's made it that much harder to talk about design than it already was.

 

[Retreater]

Does the party have their math in order btw? Did you use inherent bonuses or give everybody appropriate +1s for armor & weapon?

Yes. For every character, I use the Character Builder each level-up and refresh their magic items.

 

[Oofta]

I feel like there is a divide of sorts. This forum as a whole has shown this to me. I think the importance of game balance is overplayed on this forum compared to the community as a whole.

I feel like there is a segment of players who that value game balance over pretty much everything. I think, if you do, 4e is very alluring. There is a strong argument it's the best balanced ttrpg in existence.

But I think this is fool's errand of sorts. 4e didn't do well commercially from WotC's point of view. According to a self reporting survey of hobby stores in Q3 of 2010, it was in a dead heat with pathfinder for sale. As opposed to 5e, where many call it a monopoly, and malign the lack of players for other systems - pathfinder included.

I think it's unanswerable whether the AEDU system of actions was in part, or in whole, responsible for 4e's comparatively lack luster popularity. A simple search of reddit posts on the topic from the 2010-2014 era, shows the system is contentious at best. This contentiousness implies that it's, in part, responsible for the performance of 4e. It was a defining feature of the edition.

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

I sgree, there is no such thing as perfect balance. Too much depends on specific builds, the DM, other players, nature of encounters and so on.

For example in games I've played or run, Wizards don't really overshadow other characters. They have their moments. They're flashier. But if you're looking at overall DPR the fighter usually wins. Utility? Depends on what the player focused on and nature of the challenges. Frequently rogues and bards do more.

There's just too much variation to say what is balanced.

 

[overgeeked]

If I were to make a list of what appealed to me about 4e D&D, I don't think that game balance would make my Top 10 reasons. I sometimes think that this issue of balance likewise gets overstated against 4e.

It would be my #1. And it’s not even close.