WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[RefinedBean]

Yes, because talking about the problems of an edition you worked on equals saying it sucks.

Talking about the problems of an edition still supported by a thriving OGL and such established companies as Paizo isn't saying it sucks, but it's close.

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

Not that I have a problem with 4E, at all. But inefficient and counter-productive marketing?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

I don't see any problem with that. When you have something new that you honestly think fixes problems you've seen in a game, why not point out that you've fixed it?

I think that a lot of people just thought there was no reason at all to have a 4e and they didn't see any problems at all. So when WOTC started pointing out all the problems they've seen and the reasons they felt they needed a 4e, there were a large number of people who responded with "None of that was broken! Stop insulting our game!"

The real problem with the marketing of 4e was that the problems they were attempting to fix didn't affect every game. Those who were experiencing the problems said "That sounds awesome!". Those who weren't only saw insults to things that worked perfectly fine.

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

I'm not sure how you market a new edition of something without pointing out the differences. For instance, I'm excited about the fact that the sweet spot has been extended to all 30 levels. It is one of the reasons I like 4e. How do you explain that it is one of the features of 4e without talking about its differences from 3e?

Especially without explaining that there were levels that weren't "sweet" in 3e.

 

[RefinedBean]

I'm not sure how you market a new edition of something without pointing out the differences. For instance, I'm excited about the fact that the sweet spot has been extended to all 30 levels. It is one of the reasons I like 4e. How do you explain that it is one of the features of 4e without talking about its differences from 3e?

Especially without explaining that there were levels that weren't "sweet" in 3e.

Hey, I'm with you, I love 4E as well. I just feel it's a strong enough system that it could have been explained and marketed with little reference to the prior edition.

For instance, why even mention that the "sweet spot" has been extended to all 30 levels? People are going to find this out on their own, and be happy about it. However, it completely alienates the fairly sizeable group of gamers who have had a consistently "sweet" experience with 3E from level 1-20 and beyond, simply by promoting it as a change.

The interviews with the designers where they talked about the problems with 3E, the playful digs at fan reaction during some of the animated shorts, and initial problems with the GSL all managed to do one thing: Keep 3E on the minds of fans while 4E was being released.

This isn't to say they shouldn't have talked about 3E at all; just that they should have been addressed it directly less, maybe, and certainly not pointed out its flaws as much.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This isn't to say they shouldn't have talked about 3E at all; just that they should have been addressed it directly less, maybe, and certainly not pointed out its flaws as much.

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.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Talking about the problems of an edition still supported by a thriving OGL and such established companies as Paizo isn't saying it sucks, but it's close.

"Here's a reason for change, and here's the change we made." The problem is, many consumers saw this as simply "There's a problem with what you've been doing for the past 8 years. Here's our opportunity for you to spend money to fix it."

WotC could have easily delivered 4th edition without pointing out the differences between it and 3E as much as they did. It wasn't horrible marketing, but it could have been a bit more thought-out.

Not that I have a problem with 4E, at all. But inefficient and counter-productive marketing?

And there i was and thought that solving problems is pretty much the point of a new edition. Which is kind of hard to market if you don´t say "this is a problem we think we solved." And people think of that as an attack? I mean, making fun of the grappling rules (for instance) is basically part of the 3e core rules - i kow it was mandatory at my table. I wasn´t suprised that the Wotc designers agreed with us.

Oh well, wrong thread.

 

[MerricB]

Rob's designing a new version of Three Dragon Ante? Cool!

Cheers!

 

[Cadfan]

ZOMG! He's saying that three dragon ante sucks! How dare he alienate his customer base in this manner?

 

[Ariosto]

One thing right after another identified as a "flaw" was something I recognized as among the "features" 3E retained from previous editions. Even among folks who appreciate as "evolutionary" the pretty sweeping changes in WotC's first redesign, there are some who consider 4E "revolutionary" and not in a good way.

By the same token, there are some people to whom 4E is at last a game they can enjoy. Many things the designers saw as problems are also seen that way by a good few players of "really old" editions. They might not be in the market anyway, because they simply modify the old rules themselves. On the other hand, some of them might find 4E so far removed that they approach it not as a replacement for their D&D but as a separate game interesting in its own right.

The OGL means that 3E can continue its evolution, even in new commercial forms, despite Wizards' change of course. The existence of Pathfinder, for instance, suggests that dedicated players are not "locked in" to a 4E upgrade.

There's a different demographic being pursued. Presumably, WotC believes it's a more lucrative one. My guess is that was marketed in a targeted way. A message sure to turn off one segment was calculated to attract a more valuable one. "D&D for people who don't like D&D?" Maybe.

The obvious hope is that they'll like this D&D!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just some observations:
[sblock=Observe!]

First level characters in 3E could die the first time they took a hit. Worse yet, a first level 3E wizard or cleric could use up their spells in the first encounter and have nothing else to do. That might make sense if you're simulating a specific type of fantasy world where magic gets used up quickly, but it doesn't make any sense for new players who want to have fun playing the game.

I'm not a fan of how this presumes that a game where magic gets used up quickly isn't fun for new players. I mean, I'll admit that D&D wants you to be casting spells, and I'm overall a huge fan of making sure that mages can do something magical every round, but I'd also defend the other way as a good, entertaining, fun (even for newbs) playstyle. D&D doesn't want to be that kind of game, which is fair enough, but that's not about what new players would enjoy, it's about what the WotC Designers enjoy (and what I enjoy. ). I'd also point out that 3e, with the wands and the scrolls (scrolls for VERY cheap) largely removed this problem that existed in 2e and 1e, even if it was kind of a patch. The problem never really existed for my 3e spellcasters (though it existed for my 2e spellcasters).

Also, I will say that while I've got no problem with more robust first level characters, I do miss the "zero to hero" track that earlier editions had. I can't start off on a moisture farm on Tatooine knowing more about desert farming than intergalactic warfare and wind up as a Jedi Master -- I can't be Samwise the Gardener (or even Frodo the Average Hobbit) and wind up as Samwise the Brave (or the Ringbearer). I can't be an "average anybody mook" in 4e, that's not a role that I'm allowed to play, and I miss it, and the mythic journey that goes along with taking a being like that and turning them into the Hero of the Realm.

The robust first level is partially to blame for why I can't do that.

4e was meant to be played, unless, of course, you're a big fan of "expensive magick" or Campbell's Hero's Journey, in which case, 4e thinks you're not having fun anyway.

Games that are vulnerable to one-roll accidents aren't the best games, though they might fit certain narrative styles of gritty sudden-death adventuring.

Again, while I agree with the overall goal of a more survivable first few levels, I think Rob's confusing his own idea of what the "best" is with the fact that the "best games" are different for different people. Also, no "grim & gritty" ruleset I've seen really likes the idea of everything hinging on one roll. Binary design, by and large, is something you want to avoid, no matter what kind of feel you're going for with your game (which was a problem with me way back when Eberron was released with the binary Warforged).

Up at 11th level, the spellcasting characters started getting 6th level spells, spells with enough power to truly alter the way the game was played. A big problem with games that included 6th level spells was that most DMs stopped being able to truly predict what their PC groups were capable of, as cunning (or maybe just brute force) magic use could short-circuit most high-level 3E encounters that seemed like they were balanced.

I like how he thinks this is a problem.

Historically, the reason for these is pretty clear: DMs shouldn't be able to predict everything that the PC's can do, and if the PC's can shortcut encounters, it's good for them, and good for the DM, who learns to think a few steps ahead.

In the more competitive days of 1e, these spells weren't just useful, they were necessary. In 3e, the advice was sitting right there: you work them into your game, not around them, and not in ignorance of them.

Because the game wasn't about the encounter. It was about goals, challenges, and obstacles, about tools and problem solving.

Now, I do think it's also a good idea to reduce the scope of many of the PC's short-circuiting capabilities, so I still agree with the end goal, here. But, again, I think it's wrong to characterize these spells as something bad because they got PC's around encounters -- that's their purpose, and that SHOULD be OK.

We want all D&D characters to have the option of feeling heroic, to keep fighting and adventuring until they are truly too beat up to continue, and not to stop as soon as they have used up their only cool powers.

Consider the goal FAILED. My group stops on Action Points and Dailies. Two encounters, the day is over. Though I suppose part of that is a practical consideration: "It's already 5:30, if we get in another fight, I'll be here 'till 8:00 at least!"

I hated the fact that once you started playing level 11+ in 3E, the non-spellcasting character classes didn't matter as much as the spellcasters. There was fun to be had as a fighter, or as a monk (mostly through roleplaying), but the truth was that adventures usually depended on the abilities of the wizard and cleric—where a missing wizard or cleric got some high-level 3E games I was in rescheduled.

LOL WUT?

I mean, again, the modification of the game to neuter the "I can solve any problem" wizard or cleric is a good idea, IMO, but what kind of boner DM makes bottlenecks like that?! Who are you playing under, Rob, and how can I teach them how to be a better DM? Heck, the advice was right there in the 3e DMG: Don't make one answer the ONLY answer. I can't....believe...this level of narm. Such a big disconnect for me.

The fact was that in the 3E world, wizards were the most powerful characters, heirs to a fantasy tradition from Dying Earth, Lord of the Rings, and Forgotten Realms in which the earth-shakingly powerful characters were usually wizards.

For certain definitions of the word "power," I think you're right. Wizards had a (traditionally) crazy level of flexibility, which allowed them to accomplish a lot. It didn't hurt that most DMs ignored spellbook costs, either. But there are two things here: Fighters weren't slackers when the high-level goblins came a'callin' (which is still what 4e is mostly balanced around), and Rituals are still allowing Wizards and Clerics a crazy amount of flexibility that everyone else pays extra for. It's a better even playing field in 4e, which is OK, but then you loose some of the noncombat customization (as many "noncombat role" threads have pointed out) that was capable through the avenue of other problem-solving skills.

The first Player's Handbook teetered back and forth between design drafts and development drafts, and sometimes the wizard had been deliberately bumped up to be slightly better than all the other classes. I wasn't comfortable with that, and the final version of the wizard is, if anything, possibly on the slightly weak side

Bravo!

Given how much fun 3E's spellcasting characters had choosing spells

LOL WUT?

Choosing spells was always an effort in predicting what the DM would do, and was a lousy way to build to any archetype except "toolbox."

I wanted a game in which playing a high-level fighter could offer interesting choices for power selection and round-by-round choices in combat.

3e fighters had enough feats to do this.

I was succeeding purely as a consequence of correctly guessing which magic items I should pick up before the adventure. Oil of slipperiness and a flight ring? Pure gold. Sigurd's fighter abilities? Irrelevant.

See my note above with regards to "choosing spells." This was a problem for everyone, not just Sigurd the Fighter.

We want to reward players who think that playing a bard or a monk will be fun, not hand them a subtly poisoned time-delay capsule that will eventually wake them up to the realization that they're the weakest member of the party.

Huzzah!

Powers Every Level: Early on we somehow fixated on giving characters a power at every level, not realizing that this led to way too many powers in the game and didn't leave room for feats. We figured that out eventually.

I still think there are too many powers. I want a deck of 7 cards I can hold, not a stack of 20!

lso in the 'didn't-feel-like-D&D' category, we spent a lot of time experimenting with systems in which all powers were limited use at-will powers that had recharge mechanics. I blame myself for thinking something like this could work. In truth the system didn't start feeling right until Mike Mearls and Rich Baker came up with the at-will/encounter/day split that put power attrition back into the game.

We need more attrition, Coasties.

All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.

This intrigues me because the same-ness of the Powers system is one of its big failings. I look forward to seeing what they come up with (Bo9S-style?)
[/sblock]

Biggest thing is that I think Heinsoo over-judges some playstyles as BADWRONGFUN, and misaprehends how important spellcasters were based on some DMs who designed bottlenecks (and who, perhaps, had a view of spellcasters of important to begin with), but I think most of the goals the
4e team pursued were good ones.

 

[Greg K]

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.

That is exactly it (for myself anyway). There are some changes that I think are improvements. However, most of the changes are, imo, changes that made the game worse (or at least worse than could be done with the core 3e books, Unearthed Arcana, and a few third party supplements (including the implementation of similiar ideas)).