Agamon
Adventurer
Ooh, sequel to Three Dragon Ante. Shiny.
Yeah, that's awesome!
WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo
- Thread starter Shroomy
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, that's awesome!
Jack Colby
First Post
Wow, it is amazing that the magic-using classes survived and were popular for 30 years when they just weren't any fun! 
Really, I see what he was saying there, but it is just one view. Personally, I see fun as being directly tied to satisfaction, and being satisfied with a game or game mechanic/rule doesn't mean it has to be without negative consequences. Struggling and still succeeding is often more satisfying and fun than not having to struggle for anything.
For example: Wizards starting with one spell (unlike other classes) and running out of magic quickly at low levels can be very satisfying... while having endless, weak, at-will powers (like every other class, but renamed "spells") can be dull and un-fun. There is no universal fun-o-meter out there to measure these things, so don't let WotC convince you that they have one.
I like 4E and am in a game of it now, but this whole idea that features of earlier editions were unquestionably bad and needed to be replaced is just silly. It shows ignorance if they are honest opinions, and are just meaningless marketing language otherwise.
Really, I see what he was saying there, but it is just one view. Personally, I see fun as being directly tied to satisfaction, and being satisfied with a game or game mechanic/rule doesn't mean it has to be without negative consequences. Struggling and still succeeding is often more satisfying and fun than not having to struggle for anything.
For example: Wizards starting with one spell (unlike other classes) and running out of magic quickly at low levels can be very satisfying... while having endless, weak, at-will powers (like every other class, but renamed "spells") can be dull and un-fun. There is no universal fun-o-meter out there to measure these things, so don't let WotC convince you that they have one.
I like 4E and am in a game of it now, but this whole idea that features of earlier editions were unquestionably bad and needed to be replaced is just silly. It shows ignorance if they are honest opinions, and are just meaningless marketing language otherwise.
Treebore
First Post
Well, it clearly explains why 4E feels so video gamey. Like video games all characters are designed to be balanced/fair with regards to the others.
Personally I am fine with that variance. After all if you can one day be capable of casting Wish/Miracle, you are the most powerful classes in the game. How can a fighter or rogue match that? They can't, and aren't supposed too.
So it will be interesting to see how weakened spellcasters are, and how powered up the fighter types are, to make everyone equal.
Personally I am fine with that variance. After all if you can one day be capable of casting Wish/Miracle, you are the most powerful classes in the game. How can a fighter or rogue match that? They can't, and aren't supposed too.
So it will be interesting to see how weakened spellcasters are, and how powered up the fighter types are, to make everyone equal.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Dogs are a lot of fun, but they smell funny, slobber, bark loudly, have to be fed and watered, have bodily functions that are tough to deal with, and, eventually, die, making you very sad. Most people don't have fun with smelly, slobbery, barking, costly, messy, and mortal dogs. I have this suspicion that if the 4e team were to design a dog, it would be more like a fuzzy roomba that could play fetch. "It does everything you want a dog to do, with none of the problems of a real dog!"
Which is, really, missing the point.
Heck, 4e itself is a lot of hassle. Coordinating a schedule for six people of a similar playstyle to each spend at least $30, and meet in one place for about 5 hours, after buying enough accessories in the form of Dungeon Tiles and Minis to be able to diagram the encounter....that's a TREMENDOUS amount of effort.
That certainly doesn't mean that 4e isn't fun, though.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Re-stating it: "If you're a new player who wants to have fun playing the game, it doesn't make any sense to have magic get used up quickly."
That is totally BS, and I think he knows it.
It seems to have been a strange thing for him to say, considering that D&D has been the premier RPG since its inception, and hundreds of thousands of new players have had fun playing the game with just such a set-up!
edit: ninja'd by Jacky Colby. Although he didn't have to be a very sprightly ninja
Last edited:
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Not video-gamey - just more gamey. We already knew this, but the "fantasy world simulation" portion of previous editions was reduced and more game-like elements were increased.
Sounds like they wanted to make a game that everyone shares in the experience in a similar way. Nothing wrong with that - except that is NOT what I want from D&D (though I realize others prefer this).
And, as has already been brought up, this article reminded my of one of the things I hated about the 4E previews - that this (4E) style of game is *fun* and the other (1E/2E/3E) editions aren't. Clearly, what Rob H. thinks is "fun" with D&D is not the kind of "fun" I want from D&D.
C'est la vie.
Ironically, though, if they had pushed the gamist elements just a bit further, maybe they could come out with a really good D&D-based board game like (but better than) Talisman/Descent/Runequest etc. that I'd probably be intererested in. I'm just not interested in it for my D&D RPG experience.
Treebore
First Post
Yeah, I guess gamey is more precise, since you also find such design in board games and CCG's, etc...
Yes, such gamey flavor isn't what I look for in my D&D, which, ironically, is why I no longer play D&D.
I am much happier with wizards being the most powerful class on the field, or Druid, or Cleric. I don't want my fighter doing quasi magical stuff, I want my fighter to be a fighter. I want my thief to be a thief. When I want them able to do magical stuff I cross class to a spell casting class.
One thing I do commend about 4E though, they put a limit on just how good you can get. 30th level.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Thinking about it more, 4E seems to be similar to a stagnant mid-level 3E game (which, I think, is the intent - preserve the sweet spot). I wonder how 3E D&D would be if there were no level gains, and everyone simply played the equivalent of a 10th level character for their entire career. Since that's in the so-called "sweet spot", I imagine one could have a good RPG play experience for a long while just at that level.
However, I would think that the game would become stale faster than if you had the variety of lower/higher level play.
What will be interesting to hear from 4E fans, is their play experience going from 1 to 30 with different classes/characters. Will the 1-30 play experience of separate classes be too similar? Or is there enough variety so that once you've gone levels 1-30, it's a completely different experience with a new class, and thus still worth the time?
See, that's something I don't like. I don't like the idea that at some point, the game simply ends. That's like a board game. I don't mind if a company doesn't want to support a game beyond a certain point, but at least leave it open-ended (as 1E/2E/3E are) so that creative DMs at least have the tools to play beyond official support. (Or, you can do the 1E/2E XP progression, where it simply takes a long time to advance levels past a certain point.)
However, I would think that the game would become stale faster than if you had the variety of lower/higher level play.
What will be interesting to hear from 4E fans, is their play experience going from 1 to 30 with different classes/characters. Will the 1-30 play experience of separate classes be too similar? Or is there enough variety so that once you've gone levels 1-30, it's a completely different experience with a new class, and thus still worth the time?
Treebore said:
See, that's something I don't like. I don't like the idea that at some point, the game simply ends. That's like a board game. I don't mind if a company doesn't want to support a game beyond a certain point, but at least leave it open-ended (as 1E/2E/3E are) so that creative DMs at least have the tools to play beyond official support. (Or, you can do the 1E/2E XP progression, where it simply takes a long time to advance levels past a certain point.)
Every time a developer says "We did this so you can have FUN!" I wince.
As someone else said, you should never make "We can just fix it later" a part of your design. Never.
My problem with many of his examples regarding spellcasters is my same problem that I have with just about every example of spellcasters being "too powerful" that're out there: The fighter is a new player who doesn't understand the game, and the wizard has been playing since he was old enough to roll dice. Somehow the wizard knows everything that is to come and has full knowledge of the best spells, while the fighter can't tell the difference between Toughness and Power Attack.
I agree that monks and bards (and other classes along the line) suffered most from having no definable role. I'm also strongly intrigued by the "multiple power acuisition schemas," as I think that's what the powers system suffers from the most.
In the end, I think Rob and 4e developers overall HAD some good ideas, but the implimentation was not that great. I think the two big issues with their implimentation is that they approched it badly. First, they said "What's fun," when fun differes hugely between everyone in the known universe. Second, they said "Let's see if we can make this different" instead of "Should we make this different?" I think Kamikaze put it best when he quoted Jurrasic Park on it.
As someone else said, you should never make "We can just fix it later" a part of your design. Never.
My problem with many of his examples regarding spellcasters is my same problem that I have with just about every example of spellcasters being "too powerful" that're out there: The fighter is a new player who doesn't understand the game, and the wizard has been playing since he was old enough to roll dice. Somehow the wizard knows everything that is to come and has full knowledge of the best spells, while the fighter can't tell the difference between Toughness and Power Attack.
I agree that monks and bards (and other classes along the line) suffered most from having no definable role. I'm also strongly intrigued by the "multiple power acuisition schemas," as I think that's what the powers system suffers from the most.
In the end, I think Rob and 4e developers overall HAD some good ideas, but the implimentation was not that great. I think the two big issues with their implimentation is that they approched it badly. First, they said "What's fun," when fun differes hugely between everyone in the known universe. Second, they said "Let's see if we can make this different" instead of "Should we make this different?" I think Kamikaze put it best when he quoted Jurrasic Park on it.
RefinedBean
First Post
Well, the game doesn't end, just character advancement by level.
- Status
