WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo
- Thread starter Shroomy
- Start date
- Status
MichaelSomething
Legend
That article is quite a read and it seems like it explains the design decisions of 4th Edition. I expect this topic to become very long as people debate to attack/defend the ideas in the article.
Scribble
First Post
I am not sure it will generate so much debate simply because I didn't see anything particularly new about 4E's design philosophy in the article. All of those things have been mentioned countless times already - some people think these were good design decisions and others (myself included) think they were bad design decisions. Just about the only thing about design that was new to me in the article is the perception of Rob Heisnsoo that wizard is the most powerful class in 3E/3.5E and it is a sentiment I completely disagree with - I think the most powerful classes are the Cleric class and the Druid class with Wizard coming only after these two.
As Roman mentions, very little of the design philosophy Rob talks about is actually new or ground breaking, and I find myself agreeing with most of it. Yet despite my agreement and support of those philosophys and goals, I find myself surprised that the end product doesn't completely support the type of D&D I like to play.
Keefe the Thief
Hero
I agree with almost all of the sentiments and design goals mentioned 100%. No wonder i like 4e so much. 
Negflar2099
Explorer
I think this is the kind of article that should have been written when 4e first came out. To my mind it shows a healthy respect for 3e that was lacking in a lot of the early pro 4e hype. It explains the different methodology that the designers used for 4e without being condescending or dismissive. Unfortunately too many designers that wrote articles like this would instead start out by saying something that was pretty much "this is why 3e sucked and this is what we did to fix it." 
Hexmage-EN
Legend
I'm of the opinion that a major contributor to the "Edition Wars" was WotC's abysmal PR and advertising. It was basically aimed at people who don't like old-school DnD and was trying to convince them that they got rid of all the stuff they don't like. In the process they alienated many existing players and caused a bunch of the vitriol themselves.
I mean, really, one of their promotional videos depicted people who don't like the 4E changes as trolls. Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron and probably shouldn't work in advertising.
They definitely could have handled it better if their PR had been more along the lines of this Design and Development article. It does a great job at clarifying why they made the changes they did.
I mean, really, one of their promotional videos depicted people who don't like the 4E changes as trolls. Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron and probably shouldn't work in advertising.
They definitely could have handled it better if their PR had been more along the lines of this Design and Development article. It does a great job at clarifying why they made the changes they did.
Last edited:
SpydersWebbing
First Post
That "promotional" video didn't attack the disagreeing people in general, it just attacked the people who like to troll boards, hence the horribly funny image of the people (who I swear they just copied and pasted) as a trolls.
It's a bad pun.
- Status
