WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Odhanan]

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.

There's no need to. What's done is done. 4E is here to stay. We all can make decisions for ourselves, I believe - no need to argue about it.

Personally, reading through the article, I understand why 4E is not for me just like others understand why they like it so much.

Different POV. Fine with me.

 

[Cadfan]

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Just some observations:

...

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.

I agree with your comments and your detailed observations - it reminds me of some of the issues I had with 3.5e changes writ large (changes which seemed to me to reflect personal preferences of designers without necessarily relating to working out the maths or thinking about how people in general might play: 2 for 1 power attack comes to mind).

I really don't understand the idea that wizards were the most powerful class in 3e, as the druid and cleric knocked them into a cocked hat at every point during the level progression. Psion too.

In addition, when I was playing in a 14th level game the wizard was poinking a few spells down, doing 35hp here, and a couple of dozen there - while the fighters were doing mighty full attacks, hitting three times and doing an average of 100 damage (more on a crit). In 3e the fighting classes were king of damage by a long way, and had magic items to shore up their tactical and strategic choices at the high levels (which has always been a feature of D&D as much as a bug).

Cheers

 

[Imaro]

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

No, it's really not.

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

Doesn't mean he is right and/or that people can't disagree with him.

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

Again, doesn't mean they're right and that others can't disagree.

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

Good for you. I mean it, you got a game you like, others didn't.

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

How about...Different from your own opinions and should still be considered just as valid?

 

[Remathilis]

Biggest thing is that I think Heinsoo over-judges some playstyles as BADWRONGFUN, and misapprehends 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.

Keep in mind the 4e team had to design an edition of D&D that worked well for those "creative DMs" who can flow, adapt and run with whatever flight of whimsy their PCs toss at them AND support the highly structured RPGA-style tournament play. The former style can be supported by any edition of D&D from White Box on, but the latter has needed constant refinement.

I don't think he's saying one style is better than the other, more of "both styles need support; sandboxers need very little, but scripted scenario players need a lot. So we wrote 4e with scripting in mind since sandboxers won't care either way"

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. He's not badwrongfunning anyone. He's unfunning people. Totally different.

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.

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.

2. Declaring what is or is not fun for the majority of people is his job.

He's in game design. His job is to realize design goals, which are (or at least really should be) less subjective than "be fun for a lot of people." It's for the higher-ups, the directors, the managers, the people with access to numbers and data, to give him goals that, in their view, will be fun for a lot of people.

They can be wrong, and even if they're right, it may not be in the game's best interest to exclude the ends of the bell curve. That's kind of a separate conversation, but it's worth pointing out that "what is fun for the majority of people" does not equal "what Rob Heinsoo thinks is fun." Which comments like the one above, and a few others in the article, indicate that Rob Heinsoo might not fully be designing with those ideas in mind. Perhaps he (and the rest of WotC) should be?

3. Every other game designer out there does the same thing.

I don't know what this "same thing" is that you're talking about. Assume that low-magic games are bad for new players? I'm very positive that there are at least a few game designers out there who don't do that. Tell people that if they play different than what the designer designed for that they're not having as much fun? Somehow I don't think even Rob meant to really imply that (even if it came across like that in a few places that he really doesn't think, say, subverting an encounter can be fun).

4. I think 4e did a better job at it than 3e.

"It?" Did a better job at assuming low-magic games are bad for new players? Yes, 4e is certainly designed with that in mind. 3e did that, too, you'll remember, with copious amounts of cheap scrolls that spellcasters could make right off the bat (it was even a class ability for wizards!). Is that a good thought to have in mind when designing an edition of D&D? I think the question is worth asking: should D&D be broad enough to support low-magic games? 4e certainly thinks that D&D can be in some respects (magic items now can easily become just inherent bonuses), but not in others (wizards never have to fire a crossbow).

5. Any argument about how Heinsoo is being wrongfully judgmental about what is or is not fun that also includes arguments that, for example, choosing spells in 3e isn't actually fun, is... something. I don't really know what to say.

The argument is more "Heinsoo wrongfully assumes he knows what fun is." Obviously (and it should be obvious to him and everyone else, too) he doesn't. Not only is fun found in many things that Heinsoo assumes aren't fun, but also some things he assumes ARE fun, aren't.

It's pretty arrogant of even a very well-informed designer to come down to the lowly fans with a message of what fun REALLY is and why people weren't having it before he came along with his miracle game.

The designers might be better served by supporting the fun people are already having, even if that's bad, wrong fun. Even if it's low-magic, gritty, and involving powerful wizards. I hear Ars Magica is pretty fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Keep in mind the 4e team had to design an edition of D&D that worked well for those "creative DMs" who can flow, adapt and run with whatever flight of whimsy their PCs toss at them AND support the highly structured RPGA-style tournament play. The former style can be supported by any edition of D&D from White Box on, but the latter has needed constant refinement.

My experience as an improv-heavy DM says otherwise.

I don't think he's saying one style is better than the other, more of "both styles need support; sandboxers need very little, but scripted scenario players need a lot. So we wrote 4e with scripting in mind since sandboxers won't care either way"

Well, a lot of the "this isn't really fun" stuff is directed at low-magic, gritty, wizard-controlled games, not "sandbox" or "scenario."

 

[RefinedBean]

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.

Yeah, exactly. Really, WotC's marketing of 4E was pretty much in dire straits from the beginning, since it was basically in competition with itself.

Ultimately, it's a problem stemming from terms such as "improvements." With almost 8 years of support and history behind it, 3E is still a favorite game for many, and WotC shot itself in the foot by marketing many of the changes in 4E as "improvements."

They could have easily marketed as another take on D&D, and focused on the best parts of 3E and how they wanted to take parts of that system and offer something different. Not BETTER, but different.

Of course, I'm a die-hard 4E fan, so I'm making the assumption that the system/edition could sell itself quite well. I'm not privy to the marketing research that WotC had, so maybe they made the best of a bad situation.

Man, I haven't had a marketing discussion in a while. Brings back undergrad memories.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

I have to agree with this. This is the main reason why there are such things as edition wars. And that one "Ze game will remain Ze same" spot didn't help much, it just came off as saying "I grapple the troll, lol. The 3.x rules are silly."

I really don't understand the idea that wizards were the most powerful class in 3e, as the druid and cleric knocked them into a cocked hat at every point during the level progression. Psion too.

It's not that they were the most powerful class, it is that they were ones that got the bad rap for it. Clerics and druids were overpowered because people hate playing heal-bots, and somehow or another the designers wanted to make the classes attractive. This made them "acceptably overpowered" in the eyes of many. As for psions, that was an issue of apples VS oranges, where oranges were far less common and happened to have a highly vocal group trying to prove they weren't overpowered with a slander campaign aimed at apples.

Thinking aback on it, that pro-psionic(anti-caster) campaign is probably the reason everyone singles out wizards.

 

[Teemu]

In addition, when I was playing in a 14th level game the wizard was poinking a few spells down, doing 35hp here, and a couple of dozen there - while the fighters were doing mighty full attacks, hitting three times and doing an average of 100 damage (more on a crit). In 3e the fighting classes were king of damage by a long way, and had magic items to shore up their tactical and strategic choices at the high levels (which has always been a feature of D&D as much as a bug).

I think high level 3e wizards are at their strongest when focusing on save or die/suck spells. I've understood that dealing hp damage is suboptimal past a certain level.