WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Ariosto]

oops

 

[Branduil]

I don't think there's any need to play this passive-aggressive game. Please, tell us how you really feel about 4e.

 

[Mournblade94]

The conversion issue provides a fairly objective measure of difference. I can take a module written for any major pre-3E version of D&D and use it with any other -- with few (if any) substantive changes. Introduction of a "foreign" player-character may entail a bit more work, but conversion is largely just a matter of noting race, class, level and ability scores, then applying game factors derived from those in the rules set at hand.

Conversion between AD&D and 3E can be a bit tricky, especially as levels get higher; I find it easier to go from 3E to AD&D than vice-versa. How about conversion between 3E and 4E? As I recall, the advice from Wizards was strongly to start with all new 1st-level characters rather attempt to convert a campaign from 3E to 4E.

The acid test: How about conversion between AD&D and 4E?

Maybe you have a different standard than I have. That's fine! It's not up to either of us how Hasbro uses the Dungeons & Dragons trademark. By that (even more objective, if arbitrary) standard, 4E is certainly D&D; so is the movie featuring Jeremy Irons.

I agree with this completely. I have a campaign where I have carried characters through 3 editions of D&D. When 4e was released it was virtually impossible to convert characters.

4e is as different from earlier D&D as any of the competitors. If I am going to use a different rules system than D&D I am going to go to a tried and true one like warhammer. 4e is pretty much D&D in name alone. To some it is true D&D sure, but when compared to the D&D game before it, 4e is radically different.

Again the squeaky wheels got the grease.

 

[Ariosto]

It's a fun board game, but not what I look for in a role-playing game. By the measure of what D&D means to me, it can only be terribly disappointing -- so I do not judge it by that standard!

"4DVENTURE" is sort of a nifty name, except that it sounds like a compact sedan.

 

[catsclaw227]

Again the squeaky wheels got the grease.

Or you can say that the issues that a majority of people saw as concerns, either through reading 6-8 years of message boards, or surveys, got the grease.

Generally, squeaky wheels are in the minority. I very much doubt that the number crunchers at WOTC and Hasbro would make changes that would only support a minority of the people.

It's a fun board game, but not what I look for in a role-playing game. By the measure of what D&D means to me, it can only be terribly disappointing -- so I do not judge it by that standard!

Please... 4e is just as much D&D and just as role-play intensive as 1E or 3E. Its all in the way the people around the table, players and DM, like their roleplaying. It may be a nice boardgame for you, but to someone like me, they added some great tactical elements to my RPG and now I have the best of both worlds.

 

[Branduil]

I don't really see how 4e inhibits role-playing any more than any previous edition.

 

[Treebore]

I played 3E for about 5 years, and thought I liked it better than previous editions of D&D. Then I went back to an old school type of play, IE very simple core rules, and added in a skill system and my version of feats, and I haven't been this happy playing RPG's since I started.

I tried 4E for two months, almost making 4th level, and it didn't come close to being as fun for me as my old school playing has been, so I am not interested in 4E.

There are plenty of fans of 4E, it just so happens I am not one of them.

I am NOT saying the system sucks, or anything like that, I am just saying it fails to give me the fun I experience with what I do play. Which is the same reason I don't play GURPS, Rolemaster, HARP, Savage Worlds, True 20, etc... They are not bad systems, they just don't give me the same degree of fun that I get out of my favorite game. Yes, I have played each of them, and will again if I have the time and like the people playing. Its why I am playing Warhammer in fact. I don't like the rules, but I like the people and have enough fun for it to be worth my time playing.

 

[MerricB]

I agree with this completely. I have a campaign where I have carried characters through 3 editions of D&D. When 4e was released it was virtually impossible to convert characters.

I'm curious: what characters couldn't you convert?

If 3e is distinguished by anything (and it has many points of distinguishment), it is by the vast array of options it has. If you try to convert a 3e character to an AD&D character, you're going to find it extremely difficult except in a few limited instances.

4e doesn't have those options (yet), so it's no surprise that the Incarnate has no direct comparison in 4e. For the Wizard, there's a bunch of stuff in Arcane Power which will make conversion easier, but as the designers were trying to change the Wizard to make it less of the "I can do everything!" class, it's no surprise that the 3e Wizard will have options that the 4e Wizard will never have. Even so, I can convert my AD&D magic-user to a 4e Wizard and feel that I'm in the same ballpark. It helps that my signature spells were fireball and lightning bolt!

4e is as different from earlier D&D as any of the competitors.

Hmm. That's a very big - and inaccurate - generalisation. Would you really say that 4e is as different from 3e as, say, the White Wolf storyteller games are from 3e?

4e keeps the core of what every edition of D&D has used: Your level determines your attack bonus. You then roll a d20, which is then compared to a defensive score (AC), that inflicts damage in hit points. You fight at full effectiveness until your hit points run out, and then you fall unconscious or die.

The other part of "core D&D" is the concept of class/levels: you have a class which you gain levels in, and higher levels give you greater power.

Everything else is window dressing. Every edition has had different takes on what you add to those core concepts. Look at the vast number of 3e classes that try very different things: Incarnate, Binder, Warblade, Psion. Are they all D&D? Surely so - but they have very different takes on how things work.

I've been playing a bunch of 4e without using miniatures or a board; it works pretty much as well as 1e did so, which is to say, there are times when you need to trust the DM's view of where everyone is and what people can do. Roleplaying? A lot of that, and we have tools to aid it mechanically if we want to use them.

Cheers!

 

[Mournblade94]

Or you can say that the issues that a majority of people saw as concerns, either through reading 6-8 years of message boards, or surveys, got the grease.

Generally, squeaky wheels are in the minority. I very much doubt that the number crunchers at WOTC and Hasbro would make changes that would only support a minority of the people.

I certainly do not have that faith in WOTC. The number crunchers at WOTC took a risk at changing the game to be more suitable for casual gamers, with mechanics and tactics similar to the video game. Only on the internet do I find people that think 4e was an improvement over 3rd edition D&D. I talk to alot of gamers.

Please... 4e is just as much D&D and just as role-play intensive as 1E or 3E. Its all in the way the people around the table, players and DM, like their roleplaying. It may be a nice boardgame for you, but to someone like me, they added some great tactical elements to my RPG and now I have the best of both worlds.

Just like character roles have always existed (just not so obviously labeled as City of Heroes or WoW roles) that same tactical element has always been in D&D. I certainly used it. 4e simplified things to make it simply unattractive. Roots of WOTC are in CCG's and they managed to merge that concept mixed with D&D miniatures to make a simplified version of D&D.

SO that I do not multipost, a quote was made as too what characters I cannot convert to 4e.

The answer is simply none of them. No characters convert well.

Rangers are no longer mystical, they are martial.
The wizard is nerfed, and the spells would not convert well
The fighter is pigeon holed into his defender role (Really? Only Defender? Since when?)

The cleric and rogue I might be able to convert, but it would not convert well. The spirit of the classes has changed.

I have had no problem converting characters from previous editions between each other. With tweaking it can be done.

4e conversion is closer to homogenization.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have had straight class fighters use only daggers. In fact this is an EXTREMELY common fighter type. I have encountered it often. One time granted it was a fighter mage bladesinger. The 3rd edition I am running now, currently has a straight class fighter who has all specializations in the throwing daggers. I am sure a min maxer would label him 'Stupid".

Most sane people would as well. Sort of like the fireman who doesnt wear protective gear because he's tough. I've long ago tired of "edgy" characters who rely on using weak options as crutches.

No hardly everyone min/maxes. I would not even say MOST players min/max. The character concept has always been more important. I have seen many occasions when the min maxer of the group would complain about someone's character choice. There is playing for min.max, and then there is the character concept.

And then there's playing a well designed character well. You know, like what you do after you get bored of the guy who fights with d3 weapons and the mage who only memorizes the worst possible spells to get attention.

There are plenty of tournament style modules that did not allow for this. When the cleric and wizard were done, and the rest of the party was good, we would often push on. You cannot say that once the cleric or wizard is done it is over.

Tournament modules also kept score, and were hardly indicitive of normal play. As to going on when the party was out of spells, I frankly do not believe you. When you're out of healing, you rest, unless something absoloutely prevents you from tossing a rope trick, spiking a dungeon door or retreating. You can say your party ran around naked, with 2 HP and nothing but a pointy stick to attack with all you want. I can also call hogwash. Out of spells meant you quit, unless your DM is going out of his way to play with kidskin gloves.