WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Mephistopheles]

I'm playing in a few 4E games at the moment and despite being strongly inclined against the idea of a new edition when it was announced I've found a lot to like in this new edition. I don't think I like 4E better than previous editions but nor do I think it's worse; it's a different game with a set of good features and problems all of its own.

The biggest problem that I have with it after a few months of play is that combat just takes so long to resolve. Long combats were what ground my 3E game to a halt as we got to the middle levels and above. In 4E combat length is a problem from the beginning. I'll grant that players aren't usually waiting as long between turns as they used to in 3E but the game as a whole seems to crawl along as combats just grind things to a halt; I enjoy the combat but at the same time I feel frustrated that the bigger picture is moving so slowly.

For all of the references Mr Heinsoo makes in the interview to problems caused in 3E by casters relative to non-casters at higher levels I do wish that their tendency to make combats take far too long to resolve was one of them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's specious reasoning. Something being immensely popular does not mean aspects of it cannot be criticized or improved upon.

I think it's safe to say that while D&D has always been popular for lots and lots of reasons, balance between classes, across all levels, has never been a particularly strong selling point.

I'm not saying that it cannot be criticised or improved upon though - what I'm saying is that assertions that it is a poor basis for a game to have low level wizards with only a spell or two are not borne out by the evidence.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

The complete lack of this was one of my biggest complaints about 3e, and it was never really resolved. OD&D and 1e had enough information to whet the mind and get people thinking. It led to higher level characters engaging in different sorts of adventures which seemed to really expand the scope of the game to us.

Since 3e and now 4e lack anything about this, anything about social advancement, there will probably be a generation of D&D players who will never have the excitement of the social advancement side of a campaign (unless they are very lucky with their DM). I imagine that the majority of people will just run games around the information which is provided - as someone has already said, moving from collecting rat tails to collecting demon rat tails

I understand that some people don't want that, and they would prefer an escalating series of combats. I don't have a problem with that, but I think it is a shame that a whole traditional slice of D&D and FRPing has been excised from the rules.

Ah well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a very 2009 mindset though, and seems informed more by recent history.

Considering that 1e was the heydey of D&D, highly successful, enjoyed by tens of thousands (if not more), who are you to say that it didn't make sense, or was in some way un-fun?

I don't think there is much disputing the fact that 1e remained the most popular of all RPGs by quite a long shot.

Cheers

Maybe it is a 2009er mindset, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. ON the contrary, it is right _now_.

Todays players all have a different background than the 70s players have.
OD&D was more than just Wizards with Vancian Spellcasting and a few slots. It was an entire new genre of games, with a lot of new stuff that was simply amazing.

But today, OD&D is just one of many games (and RPG)s. What worked then doesn't necessarily work as well now. We already have OD&D, and we also have Shadowrun and D&D 3E and Midgard and Warhammer and Savage Worlds. People have different assumptions and different experiences.

My first game was Shadowrun. When I read D&D 3E or The Dark Eyes magic rules, I was surprised - spell slots instead of drain? Not casting spells all the time? The Dark Eye? It takes _days_ to recover your mana? WHen would you ever cast spells?! Just one game I did play changed my expectations from how a game - or magic in a game - works.

OD&D players came from a Wargaming background, at least at first. I guess it was obvious for them that the artillery class (wizard) would have limited number of shots.

 

[Plane Sailing]

OD&D players came from a Wargaming background, at least at first. I guess it was obvious for them that the artillery class (wizard) would have limited number of shots.

Although we came from a wargaming background, I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots because most of us were familiar with Gandalf, Wizard of Earthsea and pretty much every other literary source apart from Vance

I don't know anyone who treated OD&D as an extension of wargaming - although that was what we played before D&D, this Role-Playing thingy was entirely different - an opportunity to be in our own version of a story. Heady stuff!

Cheers

 

[DaveMage]

I agree with you and I dissagree with you at the same time dave!

I like the fact that there is a definite end to the core game.

What I WANT to see is an add on game in a similar vein to the immortals stuff. It kind of feels... weird to me to just keep on keepin on for epic levels. It seems like there would have to come a point where your character is just so dang powerful that the regular world just seems... pointless. Things like athletics? Who really cares when your breath weapon is more powerful then a neutron bomb?

The game in my opinion at that point needs to change focus. It needs to "feel" different. It can't just feel like the same thing with ever bigger numbers.

I could see that. I could also see a limit to particular class levels. For example, 20 levels of Fighter could be the most you could take. You can still advance, but it now must be in another class, as you have become the epitome of the fighter. (And this would actually dovetail nicely with what you are proposing.)

But whatever way it's done, I just don't think an end point to character progression in D&D is a good thing.

 

[Mournblade94]

I just think if you are marketing a new edition you need to address the question: "Why should we buy this when we already have 3.5e? What makes this an improvement?"

And the problem with 4e is that it is designed in such a way that there is nothing you can point at without at least insinuating that it was a problem before. This happened way more than any direct insults at 3.5e.

"We now have simple to run monsters."
-"What do you mean? We already have simple to run monsters! Are you telling me I'm doing it wrong?"

"The game flows very smoothly without getting in the way of gameplay."
-"So 3.5e gets in the way of gameplay? Why did anyone ever play it if it was so bad?"

"You get something cool to do at every level of play."
-"I always felt like I had something cool to do in 3.5e. You are saying that it was boring because I didn't get anything cool? That's not true."

The thing about hyping new features is that your audience has to agree they are improvements. If a large number of people doesn't feel they ARE improvements than anything you say about it, even if it is all positive, will appear to be negative to them.

The changes to 4e were a function of the squeaky wheels getting the grease. I was excited about 4e at the start. Then I realized... there was no improvement only dilution.

1st level has always been fun, I have no idea why Rob Heinsoo felt it was not.

Fortunately there are designers just as competent as WOTC working at PAIZO (or more so perhaps) that there is hope for a truer successor to D&D that $E has been.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The changes to 4e were a function of the squeaky wheels getting the grease. I was excited about 4e at the start. Then I realized... there was no improvement only dilution.

1st level has always been fun, I have no idea why Rob Heinsoo felt it was not.

I suspect that Rob felt this way for two reasons:
- He didn't like it. I can see that, because I did not like it either, nor the rest of my group.Starting at 1st level was always dreaded.
- WotC saw enough complaints - directly or indirectly - and enough people not bothering to start playing at 1st level.

Fortunately there are designers just as competent as WOTC working at PAIZO (or more so perhaps)

Maybe. I reserve some doubts due to past experience with the game design elements contained in the various adventure path.

Although we came from a wargaming background, I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots because most of us were familiar with Gandalf, Wizard of Earthsea and pretty much every other literary source apart from Vance

So you liked OD&D despite the frustrations? Do you think they were necessary to make you appreciate the game more?

 

[delericho]

I agree with most of what he has to say, which is why I like 4e.

Funny, I agree with most of what he has to say, and I really don't like large parts of 4e.

 

[Storminator]

In 4e, the players look around the table, say "we *could* push on, but it'll probably be a long and grindy combat" and collectively decide they should stop for the night.

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!

Where as our group (4E) looks around the table and says "if we push on it could be a TPK..."

And then we push on.

PS