WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Ariosto]

It's more the lack of healing surges that seems to put a hard cap on effectiveness.

That's what (by a naive approximation) I thought. A guy was bellyaching about another foray, and I figured he had effectively 100+ (or something like that) HP left. Old-school, I'm glad to have 7.

But what really matters is access to surges. When you've used your second wind, don't have a potion, and the clerics are down ... it can get pretty dicey!

For a single encounter, anyway.

In 4E, the diamond-bitted chainsaw or high explosive round that doesn't kill me can't hurt me for longer than an extended rest.

 

[MerricB]

It's more the lack of healing surges that seems to put a hard cap on effectiveness. I remember after one particularly harrowing fight against wights we decided to stop for the day after the 2nd encounter. Most of us still had a daily or two left, but 2 of us were out of healing surges so the group decided it'd be suicide to push on!

Definitely. Depletion of healing surges is the #1 trigger for a party resting.

There's a very interesting balance, however, between expending daily powers in combat and gaining new ones through milestones & magic items; after the second encounter the PCs gain an action point and can use their 2nd daily power from a magic item. If they have magic items with cool dailies, this starts to become very significant.

Cheers!

 

[kibbitz]

Then I would urge you to consider yourself the keeper of a cultural trust, with fiduciary duty to more than momentary commercial or personal interests. I would do that not out of any expectation of success but simply because it is in my nature.

Considering that, what then? We shouldn't make any changes ever or offer them as optional rules since there will always be people who are fine with the system as is? Or is it fine to make changes as long as the essence of D&D is intact?

But that leads to another problem. Assuming that the people involved do care about preserving the essence of D&D across new editions, we would probably see ourselves as changing it for the better and either making necessary sacrifices for it, or making changes that didn't affect the heart and soul of D&D. After all, D&D probably means different things to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be disagreeing on the power balance issue, among other things.

 

[Ariosto]

kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's The Hobbit, and Dennis L. McKiernan's The Lord of the Rings? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?

No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such an objection, so I can correct it!

On to other windmills.

Poor Rob. Where's the "Interview With Mike Mearls" thread?

 

[kibbitz]

kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's The Hobbit, and Dennis L. McKiernan's The Lord of the Rings? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?

No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such, so I can correct it!

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a rewrite or remake of a story to new editions but D&D has always been like this. Every iteration has had changes, so effectively you've had The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings written by anyone from R.A.Salvatore to J.K.Rowling (your choice of authors may vary depending on how you view the editions, of course!)

As for keeping Tolkien out of print, it's too bad but they own the material. They are a company first and a cultural entity second, so I can't fault them for doing what they feel is right for them commercially. At best, I can only question and voice my opinion as to whether their decision was wise.

Can't talk much about optional rules, I'm afraid. I buy RPGs but for D&D, I only own bits of the Boxed series (up to Companion, loved all of it) and 3rd (ugh.) I've not had the (dis?)pleasure of encountering OD&D but I didn't like 1st and 2nd edition personally, and 4th was to me about as bad as 3rd taste-wise, and worse layout/content-wise. So, I don't know D&D as well as some, or maybe even most of the people on this board.

 

[3catcircus]

As has been stated earlier, I think there is a certain chutzpah to Mr. Heinsoo's statements regarding wrongbadfun in earlier editions of the game.

I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.

Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."

Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.

Additionally, what else that has been missing from the rules is a quick-n-easy method for allowing players to do non-combat things.

Frankly, the idea that 4e fixes the sweet spot that existed in 3e is a fallacy based upon the fact that players (and DMs) don't really have a decent toolkit in 3.x to allow them to go from being one of the grunts in the trenches to becoming generals of armies and eventually political movers and shakers. There are smatterings of help in the DMG2 and Power of Faerun, but you'll also have to adopt rules from something like MMS:WE.

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

 

[kibbitz]

Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."

Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.

Your example is a tad confusing, since you seem to be talking about power selection rather than magic items, which is no different from casters picking out spells from their spell list. For the magic items being in the PHB, it makes me see it more as *improved* equipment now but I don't see how different it is in terms of access. The DM still controls access, about all you could say is that having in the PHB creates a sense of entitlement where the players could ask for specific equipment to fit their character concept. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you play.

Frankly, the idea that 4e fixes the sweet spot that existed in 3e is a fallacy based upon the fact that players (and DMs) don't really have a decent toolkit in 3.x to allow them to go from being one of the grunts in the trenches to becoming generals of armies and eventually political movers and shakers. There are smatterings of help in the DMG2 and Power of Faerun, but you'll also have to adopt rules from something like MMS:WE.

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

Never used those. My visions of my epic hero is more of a legendary doer of deeds, not a leader of men, so I don't agree that I should be doing all those things such as acquiring landholdings and attracting vassals. I do agree that more concrete rules could be present, at the very least for expanding your horizons as a player and/or DM if you're inclined.

 

[darjr]

As a practical suggestion, healing can be augmented with a paladins 'lay on hands' and something like the healing weapon or bracers of respite or the battleforged shield. There are examples of healing in 4e that do not require the benefactor to spend a surge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It amazes me that there aren't rules as good as what is in 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D to do something as simple as acquiring landholdings, attracting vassals (to work the land, provide income, etc.), directing armies on the field of battle or allowing for political intrigue. D&D's War Machine mass combat rules and its dominion rules are elegant and allow players and DMs to quickly and easily play out all of those things that high-level PCs should be doing instead of slogging through every 2-bit dungeon.

D&D in some ways it seems, most obviously in 4e, has been boiled down to one thing:

Fantasy combat.

As if the only truly fun part of any D&D game from the red box on up was when you got to kill things with swords.

It's kind of gradually wound up crossing a line from being an important, fun, great part of the game, to being the whole (or 95%) of the game.

There's a middle ground I think we passed somewhere between 2e and 3e. I've never had a huge desire to be a "leader of men," but that whole heroic arc has been set aside in favor of more fantasy combat. I think fantasy combat is great and I want my 20th level characters to still do it, but I don't really want that to be all my character does from level 1-20. It's kind related to of one of the famous complaints about MMORPG's: you go from killing rats in the sewers for Rat Tails to killing interdimensional demon-rats for demon-rat tails. The game doesn't change.

That's something that D&D has certainly lost over the years (2e didn't have much, and 3e didn't have anything really solid, and 4e doesn't go back there).

 

[Ariosto]

What the Kamikaze said.

Apparently, being a real mover and shaker is "not fun."

More, Sir?

Whaddaya want? A bonus to hit?

Ha ha har ha huck (choleric cough)

Shaddup an eatcher damage bonus, if ya kin ketch it!

But please, Sir! All I want is enough.

Checkers ain't enuff fer ye, eh? DUPLICITOUS DAZE! SLY SLIDE!

Shout at me like that again, Sir, and I might incidentally discommode your codpiece.