# WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo



## Shroomy (Mar 13, 2009)

Some fairly extensive thoughts on the design of 4e:

Spotlight Interview - Rob Heinsoo


----------



## darjr (Mar 13, 2009)

Will read, but I kinda wish they had done it as a podcast.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 13, 2009)

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.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 13, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> 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.




heh... I was kind of thinking that too when I read it.


----------



## Roman (Mar 13, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> 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.




I am not sure it will generate so much debate simply because I didn't see anything particularly new about 4E's design philosophy in the article. All of those things have been mentioned countless times already - some people think these were good design decisions and others (myself included) think they were bad design decisions. Just about the only thing about design that was new to me in the article is the perception of Rob Heisnsoo that wizard is the most powerful class in 3E/3.5E and it is a sentiment I completely disagree with - I think the most powerful classes are the Cleric class and the Druid class with Wizard coming only after these two.


----------



## Khairn (Mar 13, 2009)

As Roman mentions, very little of the design philosophy Rob talks about is actually new or ground breaking, and I find myself agreeing with most of it.  Yet despite my agreement and support of those philosophys and goals, I find myself surprised that the end product doesn't completely support the type of D&D I like to play.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 13, 2009)

I agree with almost all of the sentiments and design goals mentioned 100%. No wonder i like 4e so much.


----------



## Negflar2099 (Mar 13, 2009)

I think this is the kind of article that should have been written when 4e first came out. To my mind it shows a healthy respect for 3e that was lacking in a lot of the early pro 4e hype. It explains the different methodology that the designers used for 4e without being condescending or dismissive. Unfortunately too many designers that wrote articles like this would instead start out by saying something that was pretty much "this is why 3e sucked and this is what we did to fix it."


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Mar 13, 2009)

I'm of the opinion that a major contributor to the "Edition Wars" was WotC's abysmal PR and advertising. It was basically aimed at people who don't like old-school DnD and was trying to convince them that they got rid of all the stuff they don't like. In the process they alienated many existing players and caused a bunch of the vitriol themselves.

I mean, really, one of their promotional videos depicted people who don't like the 4E changes as trolls. Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron and probably shouldn't work in advertising.

They definitely could have handled it better if their PR had been more along the lines of this Design and Development article. It does a great job at clarifying why they made the changes they did.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Mar 13, 2009)

Hexmage-EN said:


> I'm of the opinion that a major contributor to the "Edition Wars" was WotC's abysmal PR and advertising. It was basically aimed at people who don't like old-school DnD and was trying to convince them that they got rid of all the stuff they don't like. In the process they alienated many existing players and caused a bunch of the vitriol themselves.
> 
> I mean, really, one of their promotional videos depicted people who don't like the 4E changes as trolls. Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron and probably shouldn't work in advertising.
> 
> They definitely could have handled it better if their PR had been more along the lines of this Design and Development article. It does a great job at clarifying why they made the changes they did.




That "promotional" video didn't attack the disagreeing people in general, it just attacked the people who like to troll boards, hence the horribly funny image of the people (who I swear they just copied and pasted) as a trolls.

It's a bad pun.


----------



## darjr (Mar 13, 2009)

I'm very curious about the 'Traveller' style character generation they played around with. I'd like to see some of that.


----------



## darjr (Mar 13, 2009)

Inn fighting D&D 4e character conversion? I wonder if it could actually be used to substitute combat, miniless so to speak?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 14, 2009)

The only thing that I feel is missing from the "every spot is the sweet spot" design is monsters with levels lower than 1.

They kind of need them to make things work right.

Its not a huge issue, but it does mean that your to-hit chances are a little more punishing at level 1 than they will be for most of the rest of the game.  You never get the opportunity to fight monsters with easy defenses and low hit points.

Minions sort of fill that role, but not really.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Mar 14, 2009)

I have to agree that most of this has been discussed to death at this point.  It's a good resource to steer people towards if they're already gamers don't frequent boards like these and haven't given 4E much thought, but there's not much here for we of the endless banter.

I do still wish that we had gotten different power progressions based on power source, though.  It would've made the distinction of declaring the power sources in the first place a lot more meaningful for me.


----------



## Plissken (Mar 14, 2009)

> the wizard was all alone as the first practitioner of the controller role and we stayed cautious knowing that we could improve the class later if we needed to.




Joy...more money to burn. 



> Third Edition *D&D* is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works.




Pre 4e release, WoTC = "3RD EDITION SUCKS!"


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 14, 2009)

The only thing I'll disagree with his his notion that 1st level 4e feels like 5th level 3e.

I say its just the opposite. While yes 1st level 4e is more survivable, I feel that I have about the options at 8th level 4e as I do at 5th level 3e. Not saying that's bad, just that I prefer higher levels in 4e than I did in 3e, which makes sense given 4e 30 level progression.


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2009)

Plissken said:


> Joy...more money to burn.



This was the one part of the article that made me roll my eyes. "We didn't need to sweat getting the class right, because we knew we'd have the option to 'fix it" later--you know, in some splat book".  

So basically, power creep is a feature, not a bug. If in the future, wizards wind up pulling all of their at-wills and most of their other resources out of Arcane Power than the PHB, that's actually part of the design. 

I can't buy that logic, just because a lot of 4e's inequities aren't that hard to spot. It shouldn't have taken much to look at fireball and realize "hey, it doesn't matter how big the AoE is, 3d6 + Int kinda sucks". So, the solution we get is, just don't pick fireball anymore. The "fix" for old, weak powers is to eclipse them with new powers.

Having said that, I overall think there's little else to have qualms about with Rob's article. He lays out a good case for how 4e contains some genuine improvements.


----------



## NMcCoy (Mar 14, 2009)

Ooh, sequel to Three Dragon Ante. Shiny.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 14, 2009)

The only thing 4e needs, IMO are three things that keep it from absolute gaming perfection:

I want a power refresh mechanic. I hate the entire notion of daily anything. Everything should be balanced per encounter.

I also wish each class had a variant suite of powers that excised all the grid based movement mechanics so that you could play it miniless. I like minis, but sometimes I just don't want to bust out the battlemat.

There should also be a mechanic to speed up ritual casting time and you should be able to cast rituals in combat.

Thats it. Other than that, 4e is my ideal RPG.

As far as edition wars go, it was ultimately inevitable. Everything I like in 4e are the very things that some 3e fans hate, and everything they like in 3e are things I hate and consider bad game design. Its just not possible to make a game system that both sets of fans love since our likes and dislikes are fundamentally incompatible.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 14, 2009)

Plissken said:


> Pre 4e release, WoTC = "3RD EDITION SUCKS!"




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


----------



## RefinedBean (Mar 14, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> "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.



RefinedBean said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> 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."
> 
> ...





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 (Mar 14, 2009)

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

Cheers!


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 14, 2009)

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


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 14, 2009)

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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Just some observations:
[sblock=Observe!]


			
				Rob Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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). 



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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!" 



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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!



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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."



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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)).


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 14, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just some observations:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Cadfan said:


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



No, it's really not.



Cadfan said:


> 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.



Cadfan said:


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




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



Cadfan said:


> 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.



Cadfan said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

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






			
				Rob Heinsoo said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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."



Plane Sailing said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> 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.


----------



## Agamon (Mar 14, 2009)

NMcCoy said:


> Ooh, sequel to Three Dragon Ante. Shiny.




Yeah, that's awesome!


----------



## Jack Colby (Mar 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 14, 2009)

> 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.




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 (Mar 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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_


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 15, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Well, it clearly explains why 4E feels so video gamey.




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 (Mar 15, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> 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).
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 15, 2009)

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?



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> One thing I do commend about 4E though, they put a limit on just how good you can get. 30th level.




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.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## RefinedBean (Mar 15, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> See, that's something I don't like.  I don't like the idea that at some point, the game simply ends.




Well, the game doesn't end, just character advancement by level.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 15, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Well, the game doesn't end, just character advancement by level.




See, that's something I don't like.  I don't like the idea that at some point, character advancement by level simply ends.


----------



## RefinedBean (Mar 15, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> See, that's something I don't like.  I don't like the idea that at some point, character advancement by level simply ends.




Ahhh.

Well, that's just a problem with level-based systems in general, in my opinion.  There's always a cut-off point, whether it's a hard cut (4E's "nothing beyond 30") or a soft one (3E's "We kinda-sorta worked out some epic level rules for you").

Maybe now that the GSL has been loosened, someone will come up with an alternate rules system that gets rid of the 30-level cut-off.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 15, 2009)

Since we´ve had the video game and board game comparisons already, could somebody
- refer to New Coke
and
- say something about Magic the Gathering? 
The comments look incomplete without it.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 15, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> 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?




I'm running two 4e campaigns, with a couple of players who play in both. PCs are 8th and 6th level. One has a Ranger and a Warlock, and he's said on several occasions that he finds the two classes very different to play. (They're also both strikers, so role isn't everything).

It's very interesting to contrast the changing experience of the levels in 4e. From running these two campaigns, it's very evident that the characters are growing throughout the heroic tier. First level characters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination, but they don't have the _options_ of 8th level PCs. There's a big difference between 2 at-wills, 1 encounter and 1 daily and 2 at wills, 3 encounters, 2 dailies, 2 utilities and various item powers!

We can already see that paragon will be a big shift to what the PCs can do. Action points will become a lot more important, and there are a host of other powers and abilities that begin in those levels to really let the PCs know they've reached those levels.

Epic? Let you know in another year's time.

Cheers!


----------



## Obergnom (Mar 15, 2009)

We just finished our Heroic Tier Campaign, running from level 1 to 10. The game did not feel stagnant at all, I would compare it with going from level 3 to level 7 in 3e, but with the players getting 9 instead of 4 level ups.

For me, as a DM, that was great because it removes that feeling of the PCs power growing too rapidly. On the players side, if I would have ever created a 3e campaign running 33 session with them only leveling up 4 times, they would have been very unhappy...

Both rituals and mounts give a true sense of where the characters arein terms of power, right now. One of them owns a hippogriff, escentially granting overland flight, another one rides a rage drake (which makes him feel quite "epic") and being able to pay for the weaker rituals easily gives more of that "magic tool box" effect back to the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

One thing that's striking to me is the emphasis on _removing options_, even when it's presented as providing them. Players always had the option of starting characters at 4th level or retiring them at 14th. When the "kernel" was relatively simple and modular, players could modify the game in _all sorts_ of ways -- including, of course, with "official" supplements. Plenty of folks have altered things along 4E lines, _by their own choice_.

Now, it's supposedly the company's job to _prevent_ people from playing old-style 1st- or 21st-level characters. Set aside number-crunching mechanical details and compare this _basic attitude_ to the quite different one expressed in the seminal work published in 1974.

From design to marketing, there's a question either lurking or looming: whose game is it?

Arneson and Gygax designed the original. Gygax designed AD&D, and, whatever his position in the company, D&D remained "Gary's game" in the eyes of the public. Holmes, Moldvay, Marsh, Cook and Mentzer were pretty clearly working not so much on _their_ games as on new presentations of _the_ game.

Then new ownership came in, and Gygax was out. TSR was not in WotC's league as far as interest in market research, but the firm solicited a lot of player input as to what the second edition of AD&D should be like. David "Zeb" Cook was not in the position of creative control that Gygax had enjoyed; 2E was not really "his" (or anyone's) personal expression. It was the first truly "corporate" version of D&D.

TSR owned the trademark, but in a sense the fans owned the definition of the game. That was but a very tenuous sense, to be sure, and while I pretty much missed out on the "edition war" of the 1990s that was in part because I had already lost interest in new releases from TSR. They were in a sense slapping older-edition players with the "let us tell you the proper way to have fun" line.

The origin may be a chicken-or-the-egg question, but there was a significant departure -- and a lot of players were on board with the company. The latter could hardly have kept churning out "splat books" if the former were not buying. Eventually, the supplements would transform the game pretty radically for those who used the whole kit and caboodle.

The core rules, though, remained pretty darned recognizable. The "no difference" line was baloney (and the "improved" one just a matter of opinion) even then, and the objective differences alone are plenty to warrant a preference for 1E or 2E. However, enough fundamental matters remained the same that one could without too much trouble use material from 1996 (assuming one found some worth using) with the rules-set of 1976 -- or vice-versa. There was a foundation of common concepts expressed in mostly the same language.

So, for 26 years (1974-2000) "D&D" was at its heart a reference not merely to a trademark but to a game about as objectively definable as many others. It was from the start meant to _be_ just a start, a framework to be reshaped and built upon from campaign to campaign. That was part of the tradition.

With 3E, tradition lost its primacy and became just one consideration among many. Everything was negotiable -- among the new designers. They were designing _their_ (and the company's) game.

Already with 2E, the process had been turned upside-down. It was not a matter of someone creating something just for fun and then finding that it had a market. There was no Muse (What is the name of the patron Muse of RPGs, anyway?) demanding that it be written; the demand was from Corporate, for a product. Tradition was respected because it was thought to sell.

Wizards held onto that idea rather loosely. I think part of why is that the designers were a new generation, their image of what was definitive of D&D shaped by TSR's 2E-era marketing. There's a feedback loop when folks who "drank the Kool-Aid" are put in charge of making it. That's also going on in the market. The folks still buying the product make up a demographic self-selected for not considering the latest stuff crap. How many former customers have been lost? How many potential customers might have bought the older model?

Maybe WotC's market research breaks that loop. The bottom line, though, is not about fidelity to "D&D" as anything but a trademark. 3E established that one thing that sold was treating D&D players not as fellow hobbyists but as _consumers_. The "pros" are not just guys lucky enough to get paid for writing game material; they Know Better than You. And that's a good thing, because supposedly writing D&D stuff has turned into something as expertise-dependent as designing computer operating systems or interplanetary rockets. Who designs "game engines" if not _engineers_? 

So, after the terrible Rust Monster Disaster of 2006 (Oh, the humanity!) they swore "never again." Too many 3E games were crashing and burning, endangering not only the players but hapless bystanders. How to prevent such tragedies due to human error? By designing the system to lock operators out of the loop at critical decision points. No more "patches" -- rewrite it from scratch.


----------



## Obergnom (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The "pros" are not just guys lucky enough to get paid for writing game material; they Know Better than You. And that's a good thing, because supposedly writing D&D stuff has turned into something as expertise-dependent as designing computer operating systems or interplanetary rockets. Who designs "game engines" if not _engineers_?




Maybe because I am a physicist or maybe because I am a big fan of Blizzards way of designing games. (Love Starcraft and Diablo 2 for being balanced), but I firmly belive that game design is a complicated craft, requireing solid math skills.
If anything, I think the designers should do better in the math department...


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Starcraft and Diablo are what they are. This is being advertised as _Dungeons & Dragons_. If 5E turns out to be Diablo 5, what are longtime D&D 4E players likely to say?

It doesn't really matter, unless what they say is, "Right on! I'm a big Diablo fan, so of course I think D&D should be as much like Diablo as possible."

And if Diablo 6 looks like, say, Ultima? Same deal with Diablo 5 fans.


----------



## Obergnom (Mar 15, 2009)

I was just giving examples of balanced games... actually you could add a lot of board games as both good or bad examples of "good" game design. I did not say they should make D&D like those games, just that I think balance is very important and require a lot of skill.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Players always had the option of starting characters at 4th level or retiring them at 14th.




Thank you for making this point.  

I knew something was missing from the sweet spot discussion and this is exactly it.  This option gave us flexibility with regard to starting PC power that is somewhat different with 4E.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates a concept of "what D&D is" already notably different from what it was originally designed to be.

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away _your_ concept as well. On what grounds could you complain? Who is in a position to define D&D?

The answer is "the trademark holder," if you have some vested interest in always buying the latest product labeled "D&D."

If instead you just really like 4E as a particular game, then accept that (A) you've got it; and (B) you won't be able to get it brand new by the same brand name after it's replaced by whatever 5E turns out to be.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 15, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


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




For me, it was not so much that they pointed out flaws in 3e, but that until the announcement of 4e, those "flaws" were pretty much being trumpeted as "features". Or at least, the designers simply pretended that nothing was amiss and continued to feed us the same broken (by their definition) material. 

Monsters not sufficiently differentiated? Didn't stop them from creating more high-cr npcs with tons of SLAs (in essence, spellcasters who simply look like fiends). Or tacking on save-or-die abilities. Or the other stuff that 4e denounced.

I dunno - it smacks somewhat of hypocrisy for me. You deliberately don't say anything bad about 3e when it was still financially viable, then when it suits your purpose to do so, you start criticizing every flaw you can find with 3e (be it real or perceived) just to make 4e seem superior by comparison.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 15, 2009)

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


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2009)

Treebore said:


> 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.




I'm going to guess you didn't play the thief in those editions, or the fighter, for that matter.

There is an inherent problem with the "imbalance" method game-design that drives me batty: once you figure out the "trick" the game looks a lot more narrow than those so called "bad options" allow. 

Kamikaze Midget I believe coined (or at least helped popularize) the term "accidental suck" which to me means "a trap that looks like a good option/alternative, but instead of adding any sort interesting twist, it just cripples your character to the point he is no longer doing what he's supposed to be good at". A ranger with Iron Will, Toughness and Survivor is a much weaker ranger than the one who took Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Weapon Focus: Longbow. The illusion of choice exists (look at all those feats!) but to the experienced player (and not even an uber-optimizer, just someone who can weed out bad choices from good) the game becomes narrow.

D&D has always had these hidden traps: thieves gain nothing at high level to begin to compensate for powerful magic like Heal, Teleport, or True Seeing. No fighter can deal the massive damage potential of Cone of Cold, Harm or Disintegrate (not to mention the one-hit kills anything of SoD spells). Wizards (and clerics to an extent) having suffered through levels of 1-spell a day, throwing daggers and maces, and "cleric heal me!" filling your actions finally get to cut loose and be powerful spellcasters. Still, the fun comes at someone else's expense; the fighter and thief are marginalized. 

Seriously, isn't better to keep the fighter having fun at high levels and the wizard having options at low levels? You know, so that the fighter doesn't dominate the low-level game and the wizards dominates the high-level game? 

The same is true of racial choices (really, unless you know you were hitting that level limit or desperately wanted to dual-class or play a paladin, why NOT elf or half-elf?) spell choices (who really picked affect normal fires over burning hands?) even skills (max ranks in Use Rope!) or feats (the aforementioned ranger). Oh, and don't EVEN get started in multi-classing; if your race/class combo allowed it, why NOT multi-class in AD&D? 

Is 4e perfect? Well, since it was written by men and not plumbed from the mind of a celestial being, I'd say no. Is it better tat ironing out some of those "accidental suck" elements and making the game choices wider? I say yes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 15, 2009)

> So, after the terrible Rust Monster Disaster of 2006 (Oh, the humanity!) they swore "never again." Too many 3E games were crashing and burning, endangering not only the players but hapless bystanders. How to prevent such tragedies due to human error? By designing the system to lock operators out of the loop at critical decision points.




It's weird to me that I'm usually halfway between the rock and the hard place on these conversations. 

Ol' Rusty needed fixing. In a game that depends on items for balance, a monster that can blast apart your items also blasts apart the balance. The balance is there for a reason -- to keep the PC's having fun with their characters, so no one just wants to seppukku and the game remains something that's as much fun for the item-hound as for the DM.

You can't prevent human error, but you can certainly make a monster ability more limited in scope, so as to facilitate actually using the dang thing without boning the party. 

I'm not necessarily a tremendous fan of how 4e does a lot of this adjusting, but I agree that it should have been done. My major issues with Heinsoo's positions are that he seems to believe the game he designed was the only game that could have been designed that would have met all his goals -- the way the 4e team chose was the only way that everyone could've had fun. That really isn't true. People had fun with the old school Rust Monster just fine. If you can figure out why that is, and design to THAT, you have a game that is fun. 

I mean, I'm no savant, but any DM who cancels his game because the wizard didn't show up is a DM who was being a dink -- the bottleneck was too tight, or the DM valued the wizard to highly, or whatever. That's not evidence for the wizard being over-powerful, that's evidence for the DMing advice of "never just have one way out of a situation" being not prominently enough emblazoned in the guide, perhaps.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates a concept of "what D&D is" already notably different from what it was originally designed to be.



Balance has always been a concern. The only thing that's changed are the methodologies used (and, I'd argue, their level of success, but that's another story...).


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

_"Seriously, isn't better to ..."_ recognize that "better" and "fun" are matters of opinion?

There are reasons the game was designed as it was, and elements (neglected in 3E and 4E) that contributed to the richness of the original design.

That design's success is _the_ reason 3E and 4E are called "D&D." So many people had (and continue to have) FUN playing those "worse" old games that the name can help sell new ones.

_An emphasis on "balance" usually indicates ... _was a carefully chosen phrase. There are different things getting balanced in different ways in very different games._

My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well._


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

I am perhaps learning to loathe the word "fun."


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Seriously, isn't better to keep the fighter having fun at high levels and the wizard having options at low levels? You know, so that the fighter doesn't dominate the low-level game and the wizards dominates the high-level game?




Treebore's presence already says NO, and I'm sure there's enough like-minded people out there  You probably will have seen these refuting statements (or some variation of) used in favour of the imbalanced game before:

1) I/my friend(s) played high level thieves/fighters, we still had fun and didn't feel marginalized.
2) We love playing as weak wizards at low levels, relying on smarts and cunning to evade death.
3) Casters don't dominate the game as much as you claim, they are limited by spell slots/rest/magic resistance, etc.

And seriously, they may not be wrong. I'm sure there's enough people out there who are fine with the imbalances and feel that it adds to their game rather than detracting from it. That's perfectly fine. I do wish that people who like the game this way would stop using the "balanced like a videogame" bit though, since videogames also suffer from the variance of the kind that Treebore likes, barring games featuring PvP


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

*"And seriously, they may not be wrong."*

People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D? Seriously?

From _Men & Magic_ (1974): 







> Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up.


----------



## Derren (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I am perhaps learning to loathe the word "fun."




"Fun" is still okay, but I learned to hate the word "cool" very early in the 4E marketing process (probably because for me "cool" means stupid people doing stupid things to earn the respect of other stupid people)



Keefe the Thief said:


> Since we´ve had the video game and board game comparisons already, could somebody
> - refer to New Coke
> and
> - say something about Magic the Gathering?
> The comments look incomplete without it.




I have something better.
4E is the new star trek film.
And this comic sums up the edition war nicely
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5783&Itemid=99


----------



## Treebore (Mar 15, 2009)

kibbitz said:


> Treebore's presence already says NO, and I'm sure there's enough like-minded people out there  You probably will have seen these refuting statements (or some variation of) used in favour of the imbalanced game before:
> 
> 1) I/my friend(s) played high level thieves/fighters, we still had fun and didn't feel marginalized.
> 2) We love playing as weak wizards at low levels, relying on smarts and cunning to evade death.
> ...




I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.

As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.

Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too. In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.

Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes! Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!

The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!

So yes, my tastes are different. I want to play a character that has a limited role, and slowly gets better and better at fulfilling that role. I want a fighter that hits, hits a lot, and deals out lots of damage when he hits. I want a mage who can become practically a god when he reaches 18th level, but starts out whimpy, and learns humility and to be smart about how he handles challenges thrown his way.

So yes, I don't like 4E because everyone starts out the same and progresses the same. A wizard shouldn't have so many hit points or such a decent AC. I don't want a wizard that has to roll a d20 in order for his spell to work just so the player has something to physically do each round and to save the DM from having to make the saving throws.

So yes, 4E D&D isn't a version of D&D that interests me very much, I am much happier playing what I play. I have stolen an idea or two from 4E, including allowing spell casters to be able to essentially doing a magic arrow attack each round that scales in power with level, and to make non magical healing to be more powerful, but not be as powerful as healing surges are.

I am glad for those who love 4E, its fun discovering a new game. Just for me, I am having more fun staying with what I already play.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 15, 2009)

Plissken said:


> Joy...more money to burn.



Yes, I like that, too. I mean, so many people worry about their edition not being supported any more or their edition failing and not being supported anymore that there is a definite wish to spend money on your game to get more useful material. 

It seems to me that everyone that plays a game for some time will want more material to use. To make his character more exciting. To create a more interesting world. To become a better DM. To try something new (without relearning an entire game). 

Anyone that will just be content with a game core rules probably is either very creative, uses other games supplements to support his game, or is just not playing it much. The first case should have little problem "fixing" any real or perceived weaknesses of a class. The second already decided to throw money at his game, he just can't do it directly. And the third will simply not perceive weaknesses and small imbalances as problematic enough to wreck his game. 

So, why not add some options that make a character more interesting? 3rd Edition had its 3.5, its Players Handbook II and Sword & Fist or Complete Arcane to improve character classes in various ways. Sometimes, overpowering them, sometimes just adding cool new options.

Shadowrun 3.0 introduced Bioware only in the Man & Machine sourcebook, and initiation was introduced with Magic in the Shadows. Without such stuff, one could say the came was incomplete and possibly even unbalanced. (though to be honest, I would never call SR 3 "balanced", and supplements didn't fix it either)

So finally, I have no objections to 4E "fixing" minor problems in supplements. I am not sure "Weapon Expertise" would belong to this (though I am leaning towards this), but a more interesting At-Will power for the Wizard is fine be me.

---

About 3E sucking. Yes, it sucked. Hard. So hard in fact, that it sucked me in around 2000 and I basically couldn't escape until 2008. 

---



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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."



It seems to me that there are just different experiences to be had in games, and in that "Observation" post of yours as well as in Heinsoos interview it seems nobody ever saw the entire picture.

I would say picking spells was part of the fun and challenge. Especially in 3E, you didn't really have to "guess" that much (that's more a problem of earlier editions I guess, though I tend to think 4E might have that one too for Wizards). The "fun" was had in optimzing your spell selection: "Who memorizes Dispel magic?" "Okay, we need a Bulls Strength for the Cleric, the Fighter and the Rogue." "We need 3 Resist Energy Spells at least." "Okay, than we need Fireball, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile". (At higher levels, you might pick more save or death spells.)
Of course all this management also created playability issues  - and I don't miss it. 



> 3e fighters had enough feats to do this.



And yet, it always seemed that the best route was to go the "boring" route. Just pick Weapon Focus and all its related follow-ups. Improved Trip was a good choice, I guess, and _maybe_ Improved Grapple if you expected to fight against humanoid (especially spellcasters). 
And if you didn't play a Fighter, but any other weapon guy, your options are pathetic. 



> 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?)



I am not surprised that they tried out other ideas. I think there are some "obvious" routes, too. For example, spellcasters could have more dailies and Martial characters more at-wills or encounters. I am not exactly surprised that this turned out to be imbalanced and not working all that well in the end.
I think we already see some of these elements - starting with the Core Rules, in fact.
1) Channel Divinity is an extra power for Clerics.
2) Stances
3) Dailies that can be sustained (and not just "heavy damage" dailies)
Beyond the Core Rules
4) Rages. In a way, "Stance Deluxe"



> We need more attrition, Coasties.



Are you certain? Your own game experience suggests that it doesn't work that well for you, if you always end the adventuring day after 2 encounters. (Why, oh why, do you not use that last action point in a third encounter?!  )
Or do you want "slower" attrition? (Because you can run through your characters dailies pretty fast?) 



> 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."



I think you re-state it the wrong way. It doesn't make sense for a new player to see that what made his character unique being gone after one fight, while the rest of the party can still do their shtick. Maybe it does make sense from a game world perspective, but it doesn't make sense from a play perspective. And worse, he might think that he should use his Quarterstaff and wade into melee - since everyone knows Wizards wield Staffs, right? - and find out that this is way too dangerous for him and he should stick to Crossbows and suck up that -4 penalty for shooting into melee.



> Players always had the option of starting characters at 4th level or retiring them at 14th.



How is a beginning player supposed to know he shouldn't start at level 1 if he doesn't want his character die accidentally? What previous experience in his life would suggest to him that that's the way to go in this game? All the countless video-games that have you start as 1st level character or as a guy that just holds a 9mm Pistol and works his way to 75th level or a Rocked Propelled Grenade. Or his experience as a kid, where he learned to walk before he could run, and where he learned to count to 10 before he learned to count to 100, where he learned to add before he learned to multiply, where he learned to divide before he learned how to derive functions? 

Of course, there is a simple way to do this - just write it in the PHB. "1st to 3rd level are not intended for use for beginning players". That would certainly make him consider starting at 4th level. 

But then, he had to face the fact that he has to pick 3 feats and 6 powers before he even understood anything about them. Maybe you'd change the advancement scheme and make sure that the 4th level choices are what the now 1st level choices are. But after you have started your game at 4th level and started to learn it there, would you ever go back to play it at 1st level? Maybe. But a lot would probably not, so for those that don't, you did just waste 3 levels of the character advancement. 
Where if you design 1st level so that characters start at 4th level, you don't waste anything, and you still start with the kind of satisfying gameplay people want, without removing the concept of character advancement and improvements.
Sure, someone that really needs this 1st level play experience of earlier editions is left out. You didn't spend time on stuff people do not need, but you left out stuff people might like. That's the decision to make, and you can go either route.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away your concept as well.



Maybe. But I don't care about the next edition until it is in the works.


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *"And seriously, they may not be wrong."*
> 
> People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D? Seriously?




I said that people might not be wrong for supporting any combination of the three statements I mentioned. Did I say _People might not be wrong when they say they have fun playing D&D?_? I reread my post before submitting and I just reread it, I'm not seeing myself say that. Because that would be at odds with my next two lines, about how other people seem to enjoy the imbalances and that it's perfectly fine.

As for the Men & Magic thing, what is the point that you're trying to make? I accept that it's designed that way, but if my friends and I enjoy everything except the difference in power between casters and non-casters, is there some reason why I should stick to that one line and not try to tweak power levels to our taste?


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Kibbitz: Are you and your friends offering your "tweaked" rules as the official D&D game?


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 15, 2009)

Treebore said:


> I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.
> 
> As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.
> 
> Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too. In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.




Good to hear, though the more I read this, and the rest of your post, I keep wondering if you should be quoting Remathilis instead, since my post followed into your comment doesn't seem near as relevant 



> Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes! Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!
> 
> The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!
> 
> So yes, my tastes are different. I want to play a character that has a limited role, and slowly gets better and better at fulfilling that role. I want a fighter that hits, hits a lot, and deals out lots of damage when he hits. I want a mage who can become practically a god when he reaches 18th level, but starts out whimpy, and learns humility and to be smart about how he handles challenges thrown his way.




While this may be presumptuous of me, I think a fair number of us, if not most, are fine with the limited role part. The point at which we differ, is how much and how far the role should develop, and the feel of the character at the end point should be appropriate. An example of such a difference would be the feel and state of non-casters vs casters edging to the boundary of being epic. For level 20 casters vs non-casters, some want their non-casters to still be human, just supremely skilled. Me, I want them to be super-human, on the same level as the feats that level 20 casters can performed, limited within their roles.



> So yes, I don't like 4E because everyone starts out the same and progresses the same. A wizard shouldn't have so many hit points or such a decent AC. I don't want a wizard that has to roll a d20 in order for his spell to work just so the player has something to physically do each round and to save the DM from having to make the saving throws.
> 
> So yes, 4E D&D isn't a version of D&D that interests me very much, I am much happier playing what I play. I have stolen an idea or two from 4E, including allowing spell casters to be able to essentially doing a magic arrow attack each round that scales in power with level, and to make non magical healing to be more powerful, but not be as powerful as healing surges are.
> 
> I am glad for those who love 4E, its fun discovering a new game. Just for me, I am having more fun staying with what I already play.




Which is perfectly fine, really! I actually don't like 4e, though for different reasons than yours.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 15, 2009)

Obergnom said:


> Maybe because I am a physicist or maybe because I am a big fan of Blizzards way of designing games. (Love Starcraft and Diablo 2 for being balanced), but I firmly belive that game design is a complicated craft, requireing solid math skills.
> If anything, I think the designers should do better in the math department...




When you are dealing with (establishing) relations among two "parts" or "sides" maths is the most relevant tool. 
But multi-player tabletop rpgs are much more complicated than this. I would suggest a more broad scientific apprehension. A bit(basics) of biology, a bit of math, a bit of law-legal science, a bit of sociology all help and have their part IMHO.


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Kibbitz: Are you and your friends offering your "tweaked" rules as the official D&D game?




1. No.
2. If I was in the position to do so, how would it affect this discussion further?
3. Please share what's on your mind instead. It would be much clearer and easier for us to discuss this than for me to guess at exactly what you're getting at from your questions and quotes.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> My point is that the next "edition" may sweep away _your_ concept as well.[/I]



So what if it does?  My books will continue to exist.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

a poster at Dragonsfoot said:
			
		

> Some of them may have never played a human PC before and might not realise that they can't see in the dark...




Silly, I thought. But then ...



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How is a beginning player supposed to know he shouldn't start at level 1 if he doesn't want his character die accidentally? What previous experience in his life would suggest to him that that's the way to go in this game? All the countless video-games that have you start as 1st level character or as a guy that just holds a 9mm Pistol and works his way to 75th level or a Rocked Propelled Grenade.




I don't think that video games have so reduced IQs over the past 30 years. And except for the occasional seriously role-played Samurai, character deaths in my experience have as _a rule_ been accidental!

If one assumes (as I do not) that beginners must get jacked-up characters, then why not provide that experience in an introductory Basic D&D instead of turning the main game into a truncated version?

I could more easily accept an argument from a wider societal shift to a culture of instant gratification if I saw this phenomenon prevailing across the RPG spectrum, but I do not. D&D appears to be "special" in this way.



> you still start with the kind of satisfying gameplay people want.



_Some_ people. Has anyone hard data on sales figures of the 3.0/3.5 PHB versus the Moldvay and Mentzer "red box" Basic sets? I know, 4E is jacked up even relative to 3E -- but it has not been out so long (for a decent sales comparison), and they have a lot in common with each other that's significantly different from the old editions.

We keep coming back to a notion of what's "satisfying" or fun based on the perceptions of a limited faction. And somehow that faction's fun requires eliminating what's fun to everyone else, whereas _the vice-versa does not hold true_.

Is this perhaps at least partly an RPGA thing? The Association is doing (from what I've seen) a fine job of bringing players to the game. However, the demands of its peculiar approach to play are hardly representative of the needs of home campaigns. I'm pretty sure that participants in those are more numerous, but suspect that the _convenience_ of RPGA as a source of input skews perceptions at WotC. There's that feedback loop again! Make it all 4E all the time, and you don't hear from 3E fans who don't think the emperor's new clothes are so splendid.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> So what if it does?  My books will continue to exist.



Bingo! That's a more *practical* attitude than being an "edition warrior" (said the less than utterly practical man).



			
				kibbitz said:
			
		

> If I was in the position to do so, how would it affect this discussion further?




Then I would urge you to consider yourself the keeper of a _cultural_ trust, with fiduciary duty to more than momentary commercial or personal interests. I would do that not out of any expectation of success but simply because it is in my nature.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 15, 2009)

Mudstrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> I would say picking spells was part of the fun and challenge. Especially in 3E, you didn't really have to "guess" that much (that's more a problem of earlier editions I guess, though I tend to think 4E might have that one too for Wizards). The "fun" was had in optimzing your spell selection: "Who memorizes Dispel magic?" "Okay, we need a Bulls Strength for the Cleric, the Fighter and the Rogue." "We need 3 Resist Energy Spells at least." "Okay, than we need Fireball, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile". (At higher levels, you might pick more save or death spells.)
> Of course all this management also created playability issues - and I don't miss it.




So, like with a lot of aspects of the game, it's safe to say that some people found it fun, and others did not ("blah blah blah I want to blow stuff up with fire!"). Assuming that it was fun lead to the powers system that we see -- everyone is Vancian, and every class as a huge wall of powers that have overwhelmingly similar mechanics with slight (but important) variations. That is not fun for everyone. 



> And yet, it always seemed that the best route was to go the "boring" route. Just pick Weapon Focus and all its related follow-ups. Improved Trip was a good choice, I guess, and _maybe_ Improved Grapple if you expected to fight against humanoid (especially spellcasters).
> And if you didn't play a Fighter, but any other weapon guy, your options are pathetic.




That's fair enough, but I don't think it's safe to assume that anyone (especially new players unfamiliar with RPGs) really want to go through the experience of sorting through elventy-million options just so that they can kick butt. Character creation (and power selection) is one of the HUGE barriers to entry that D&D has: the options and rules are overwhelming. For D&D to be an accessible game, character creation needs to boil down to "two choices and go" or something like that. 



> Are you certain? Your own game experience suggests that it doesn't work that well for you, if you always end the adventuring day after 2 encounters. (Why, oh why, do you not use that last action point in a third encounter?! )
> Or do you want "slower" attrition? (Because you can run through your characters dailies pretty fast?)




2 encounters is a good session.  Part of this is the slowness of combat, of course, but a lot of it is the rules telling the party that they should rest: "We're out of big guns, time to heal them up!" Which means that healing surges never even become an issue for my party. 

There's basically two directions I could see being fun to take:

#1: Embrace the "long combat" idea fully and only have 2 encounters, but increase the healing surge attrition so that it feels really like they are being drained of resources.

#2: Emrbace the attrition idea fully and speed up combats so that they can knock through it in 5 minutes and move on to the rest of the plot. If they HAVE to rest to recover before a big combat, they'll feel the burn.



> It doesn't make sense for a new player to see that what made his character unique being gone after one fight, while the rest of the party can still do their shtick. Maybe it does make sense from a game world perspective, but it doesn't make sense from a play perspective. And worse, he might think that he should use his Quarterstaff and wade into melee - since everyone knows Wizards wield Staffs, right? - and find out that this is way too dangerous for him and he should stick to Crossbows and suck up that -4 penalty for shooting into melee.




That's pretty fair, but in a low-magic game, there should probably be other ways of making  your character unique aside from magic.  D&D isn't going to be low magic, and that's fine, but it's not fair to assume that low-magic games aren't fun for new players because wizards can't do magic.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2009)

Treebore said:


> I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.




So have I. Thief/rogue has been my fav since 2nd edition (when I began). 



Treebore said:


> As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.




The broad assumption is that you have a game/DM who would allow such options to exist. I've played in games where DMs allowed my PCs political power, and I've played in games where the DM has not (not setting appropriate, emphasis on travel in the campaign, doesn't want the hassle od doing politics, just wants dungeons, etc). 

Secondly, I fail to see how its a balancing point. A thief gets his guild, a cleric his church, a wizard his tower, a fighter his stronghold. Whoopie. How does that affect the fact that my PC lags behind spellcasters when they also get followers? 



Treebore said:


> Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too. In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.




And if he didn't have those belts & girdles, what then? Or a magic sword and magic armor? Or an 18/% strength (the difference between a 17 and an 18/% is staggering, I never saw a fighter without an 18/%). A wizard could create his own armor (stoneskin, mage armor, shield) and weapons (name your evocation/transumation/conjuration/necromancy effect).



Treebore said:


> Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes! Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!




No. I want a PC whose role isn't trampled by the spellcaster. I want a game where the thief IS the de-facto scout/sneak, and NO other class could match it. D&D isn't that game; a 3rd level wizard with invisibility far outperforms a thief in sneaking. Knock is far better than open lock. If you REALLY wanted to be a good thief, just be a wizard and load up on those types of spells (and add a few attack spells to boot). 



Treebore said:


> The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!




I agree, those PCs who want "I can do everything!" characters play wizards! They can do everything; fight (tensers transformation), heal (synistodweomer), scout (imp. invisibility) talk (charm, friends) etc. 



Treebore said:


> So yes, my tastes are different. I want to play a character that has a limited role, and slowly gets better and better at fulfilling that role. I want a fighter that hits, hits a lot, and deals out lots of damage when he hits. I want a mage who can become practically a god when he reaches 18th level, but starts out whimpy, and learns humility and to be smart about how he handles challenges thrown his way.




Practically a god? Who would have PC envy when you have got one member of your party who borders on divinity and another whose claim to fame is "I can read languages with 95% accuracy!"

I too want a fighter that hits and does damage. I also don't want the mage to take the next round to reduce the foe to 0 hp because of one save or die, making my round to engage the creature a 1 round distraction.



Treebore said:


> So yes, I don't like 4E because everyone starts out the same and progresses the same. A wizard shouldn't have so many hit points or such a decent AC. I don't want a wizard that has to roll a d20 in order for his spell to work just so the player has something to physically do each round and to save the DM from having to make the saving throws.




So I roll or you roll. The difference? Oh, and a fighter still has a better AC and HP than a wizard in 4e. 



Treebore said:


> So yes, 4E D&D isn't a version of D&D that interests me very much, I am much happier playing what I play. I have stolen an idea or two from 4E, including allowing spell casters to be able to essentially doing a magic arrow attack each round that scales in power with level, and to make non magical healing to be more powerful, but not be as powerful as healing surges are.




Hey, take what you want. But don't make mages more powerful without giving something to the non-casters. You run C&C, how bout upping the rogue's HD to d8 and giving him the cleric's BtH? Or giving him sneak-attack dice that scale with level? Or making Knock a bonus to dex-checks to open locks rather than auto-open? 



Treebore said:


> I am glad for those who love 4E, its fun discovering a new game. Just for me, I am having more fun staying with what I already play.




More power to you man.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's fair enough, but I don't think it's safe to assume that anyone (especially new players unfamiliar with RPGs) really want to go through the experience of sorting through elventy-million options just so that they can kick butt. Character creation (and power selection) is one of the HUGE barriers to entry that D&D has: the options and rules are overwhelming. For D&D to be an accessible game, character creation needs to boil down to "two choices and go" or something like that.




Behold what Wotsee hath wrought: remaking D&D in the image of Magic: The Gathering.

TSR's D&D** (especially the Original and Basic sets) offered a limited menu of game-mechanical choices ... which thereby left the rest of character definition wide open. The notion that a greater burden of rules increases flexibility and range of options is just the opposite of the actual fact. It _does_ increase paperwork and number crunching, though!

I have yet to sit down and try "building" a 4E character. Some more experienced fellows have been glad to do that for me (just one example of the very friendly attitude I've encountered in my experience with 4E players via RPGA). If memory serves, the advice I've gotten is that it should take about 40 minutes.

3E seemed to me less like D&D than like Hero System, so I guess 4E is analogous to a Champions Lite. 

FWIW: I prefer to DM Original (like wearing long-worn denim jeans) and play 1st ed. AD&D. I could easily swap those positions, or take either with any of the other TSR editions. I have (and probably will) never DM 3E, though, and have found it more labor than love to referee 4E. I found my enjoyment of playing the latter greatly increased when I disabused myself of the notion that it was supposed to be D&D. YMMV, of course.

** 2E with all the supplemental "fixings" was something else, but there was always the "Players Option" of sticking with the PHB -- and the DM's option of leaving out Non Weapon Proficiencies and the like. As a rule, it's easier to complicate a simple and modular game than to simplify a complex and systematically integrated one.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 15, 2009)

I realize it's always been a popular term, but I didn't understand how many people actually meant "sacred cow" in a literal way. I think the idea that WotC has a duty to hew to some divine, bovine mandate is absurd. The older editions of the game will not cease to exist.

I think, as a newer player to the game, I have a different perspective of the game. I didn't have the experience to understand that Fighters should suck compared to Clerics and Wizards, as a matter of course. It did not make sense to me that spellcasters should use an entirely different system from everything else, that is not even very interesting thematically.

So yes, when I heard about what 4th edition was trying to do, I was excited that it seemed to match what I always wanted D&D to be. I guess that makes me a heretic to the divine bovinity, but to be honest, I don't have the kind of respect for those old bags of beef that others have. And it's fine if you do. As I said, the old editions will never go away, and it's good that others can still find enjoyment in them. We all have a version of D&D we can enjoy, so I see no reason to knock others for enjoying a different edition.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Behold what Wotsee hath wrought: remaking D&D in the image of Magic: The Gathering.
> 
> TSR's D&D** (especially the Original and Basic sets) offered a limited menu of game-mechanical choices ... which thereby left the rest of character definition wide open. The notion that a greater burden of rules increases flexibility and range of options is just the opposite of the actual fact. It _does_ increase paperwork and number crunching, though!




One of the things I think I like best about 4e is that at its heart the core of the game feels (to me) like it returns to the olden days of an easy/quick to use system.

There are a lot of expanded parts that add onto the core, but the core itself remains quick and easy. (With the expanded parts really only effecting those that use them when they use them.)


----------



## D'karr (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 3E seemed to me less like D&D than like Hero System, so I guess 4E is analogous to a Champions Lite.




You obviously got it wrong.  Haven't you heard.  4e is the new WoW.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I think, as a newer player to the game, I have a different perspective of the game.




That seems to me a pretty reasonable assumption.

One man's sacred cow is another man's spidergoat nuggets.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm not sure I even want to know what Spidergoat nuggets are.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 15, 2009)

> Ol' Rusty needed fixing. In a game that depends on items for balance, a monster that can blast apart your items also blasts apart the balance. The balance is there for a reason -- to keep the PC's having fun with their characters, so no one just wants to seppukku and the game remains something that's as much fun for the item-hound as for the DM.




Which explains the new rust monster. Now, everyone will be looking for one to feed their old equipment to, seeing as to how it gives you 100% residium for them. 

But it still seems kinda goofy to me.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

I don't get the WoW analogy -- but then, I've never seen anyone play WoW on a 300 baud dial-up.

Really, I'm not enough into video games to make good use of the comparison. I'm better versed in board games. There may be other fruitful analogies with _Advanced Squad Leader_ (e.g., "design for effect" and "exception-based rules") -- but what's significant to me is that comparing it with D&D is the old "apples and oranges."

I never encountered the view that one could enjoy _either_ D&D or Squad Leader (_or_ King Maker, _or_ Star Guard ... etc.), being forced to choose one and forever disavow and anathematize the other.


----------



## gribble (Mar 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Heinsoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.
2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any *single *character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 15, 2009)

gribble said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
> 1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.
> 2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any *single *character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.




I haven't noticed it with the dailies, well I DID, but my group got over that one after a bit. Dailies stopped seeming so important. They DO, however, still seem to cower away after they've used up their last healing surges. Sometimes they'll press on a little longer, but any damage with no healing surges left sends them into instant rest mode.

The number of encounters varies for me because the difficulty of the encounters varies for them as well.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Gribble & Scribble: I've got some mainly 3E/4E players in my OD&D game, and was not too surprised to find them acting as if _sleep_ were the only spell in their grimoires. Seeing that actually got me thinking about a funky "free casting" variant based on what was once (when I was but a hatchling "grognard") an actual reading of the original rules.

Anyway, what _was_ surprising, based on what I had read (but not seen) of 4E strategies, was that they did not call it a day after using those spells!

In fact, the biggest problem I've seen arising from application of a 4E education to a 0E environment is that (like cats up trees) the players don't seem to have a reverse gear. The DMs in a local home-brewed 4E campaign routinely come at least thrillingly close to TPKs just by counting on that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> D&D has always had these hidden traps: thieves gain nothing at high level to begin to compensate for powerful magic like Heal, Teleport, or True Seeing. No fighter can deal the massive damage potential of Cone of Cold, Harm or Disintegrate (not to mention the one-hit kills anything of SoD spells).




A couple of things come to mind here - firstly that in 3.5e Cone of Cold and Disintegrate (Fort save for 5d6?) were laughably poor in terms of causing damage compared to equivalent level rogues or fighters. Harm was still a damage king, but that's cleric for you.

In many ways even in early editions, at high level a party needed all the members to survive. Certainly more so in 3rd edition. So where is the difference with 4th edition roles? A party can still function when missing one of the roles (especially controller seems dispensible at the moment), but doesn't function as well by any means.

(BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think you re-state it the wrong way. It doesn't make sense for a new player to see that what made his character unique being gone after one fight, while the rest of the party can still do their shtick.




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


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

Re combat power: A lot depends on the fights you get into. In RPGA, unfortunately, that's basically just Hobson's choice.

A tag-team of "strikers" can really open up a can of whupass in the right situation!

Under less conducive conditions?  Not so much.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> (BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!




You didn't have the right (wrong?) players.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> (BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a SoD actually land on a target. Between spell resistance and high saves, throwing SoD spells was largely a case of wasting effort round after round!




I did. In 2e, I saw it enough to recall a lot of first-round kills (to be fair though, mundane poison was nearly as deadly, as was near-deaths like paralysis or petrification) to recall hording in save-boosting items (even if they didn't stack with your magical armor). In 3.0 I saw them A LOT because of the disparity of Save DCs to Weak-save progression. Thanks to the nerfing of Spell Focus/Greater, Fox Cunning, and other Int-boosters (or wis, or cha), It was less prevalent, but not enough to forget not seeing them. 

Remember, if you cast fireball 2 rounds in a row and one round the creature saves and next it fails, you've taken two rounds to deal 75% of your potential damage (or less, if the target has evasion/improved) which may/may not kill the foe. If you do the same with Finger of Death, you took two rounds to kill the creature. Period.


----------



## gribble (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Gribble & Scribble: I've got some mainly 3E/4E players in my OD&D game, and was not too surprised to find them acting as if _sleep_ were the only spell in their grimoires.



Don't get me wrong, it's not like the players use 1 or 2 dailies and then decide to call it a day, but more that after 2-3 encounters most dailies are gone. While a 4e character is perfectly feasible without dailies, we've found that the daily powers are the most fun (aka, result in the least grindy combat), and a lot of the pressure to push on comes not from character effectiveness concerns as much as "not fun to push on" concerns.

In 3e, when it was just the wizard and/or cleric, the non-spellcasters in the party would tend to shout them down, call them names and generally convince everyone to "push on" for one more encounter. 

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!


----------



## Branduil (Mar 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> 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? *
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

> It's more the lack of healing surges that seems to put a hard cap on effectiveness.



That's what (by a naive approximation) I thought. A guy was bellyaching about another foray, and I figured he had effectively 100+ (or something like that) HP left. Old-school, I'm glad to have 7.

But what really matters is _access_ to surges. When you've used your second wind, don't have a potion, and the clerics are down ... it can get pretty dicey!

For a single encounter, anyway.

In 4E, the diamond-bitted chainsaw or high explosive round that doesn't kill me can't hurt me for longer than an extended rest.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

gribble said:


> 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!




Definitely. Depletion of healing surges is the #1 trigger for a party resting.

There's a very interesting balance, however, between expending daily powers in combat and gaining new ones through milestones & magic items; after the second encounter the PCs gain an action point and can use their 2nd daily power from a magic item. If they have magic items with cool dailies, this starts to become very significant.

Cheers!


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Then I would urge you to consider yourself the keeper of a _cultural_ trust, with fiduciary duty to more than momentary commercial or personal interests. I would do that not out of any expectation of success but simply because it is in my nature.




Considering that, what then? We shouldn't make any changes ever or offer them as optional rules since there will always be people who are fine with the system as is? Or is it fine to make changes as long as the essence of D&D is intact?

But that leads to another problem. Assuming that the people involved do care about preserving the essence of D&D across new editions, we would probably see ourselves as changing it for the better and either making necessary sacrifices for it, or making changes that didn't affect the heart and soul of D&D. After all, D&D probably means different things to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be disagreeing on the power balance issue, among other things.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's _The Hobbit_, and Dennis L. McKiernan's _The Lord of the Rings_? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?

No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such an objection, so I can correct it!

On to other windmills.

Poor Rob. Where's the "Interview With Mike Mearls" thread?


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> kibbitz: R.A. Salvatore's _The Hobbit_, and Dennis L. McKiernan's _The Lord of the Rings_? Commissioned by the firm keeping Tolkien out of print?
> 
> No objection to optional rules (love 'em actually, the more the merrier!). Please point to where you think you've seen such, so I can correct it!




I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a rewrite or remake of a story to new editions but D&D has always been like this. Every iteration has had changes, so effectively you've had The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings written by anyone from R.A.Salvatore to J.K.Rowling (your choice of authors may vary depending on how you view the editions, of course!)

As for keeping Tolkien out of print, it's too bad but they own the material. They are a company first and a cultural entity second, so I can't fault them for doing what they feel is right for them commercially. At best, I can only question and voice my opinion as to whether their decision was wise.

Can't talk much about optional rules, I'm afraid. I buy RPGs but for D&D, I only own bits of the Boxed series (up to Companion, loved all of it) and 3rd (ugh.) I've not had the (dis?)pleasure of encountering OD&D but I didn't like 1st and 2nd edition personally, and 4th was to me about as bad as 3rd taste-wise, and worse layout/content-wise. So, I don't know D&D as well as some, or maybe even most of the people on this board.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 16, 2009)

As has  been stated earlier, I think there is a certain chutzpah to Mr. Heinsoo's statements regarding wrongbadfun in earlier editions of the game.

I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.  

Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."

Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.

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.


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 16, 2009)

3catcircus said:


> Magic items are in the PHB and players end up selecting from a chinese restaurant menu instead of thinking about how to play their characters - "I'll take this power for my daily and this one for my encounter..."
> 
> Contrast this with every previous edition of the game, where the DM controlled access to magic items and could, for example, run a campaign that would fit just as well in Harnworld as Greyhawk or Eebrron.




Your example is a tad confusing, since you seem to be talking about power selection rather than magic items, which is no different from casters picking out spells from their spell list. For the magic items being in the PHB, it makes me see it more as *improved* equipment now but I don't see how different it is in terms of access. The DM still controls access, about all you could say is that having in the PHB creates a sense of entitlement where the players could ask for specific equipment to fit their character concept. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you play.



> 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.




Never used those. My visions of my epic hero is more of a legendary doer of deeds, not a leader of men, so I don't agree that I should be doing all those things such as acquiring landholdings and attracting vassals. I do agree that more concrete rules could be present, at the very least for expanding your horizons as a player and/or DM if you're inclined.


----------



## darjr (Mar 16, 2009)

As a practical suggestion, healing can be augmented with a paladins 'lay on hands' and something like the healing weapon or bracers of respite or the battleforged shield. There are examples of healing in 4e that do not require the benefactor to spend a surge.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 16, 2009)

> 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.




D&D in some ways it seems, most obviously in 4e, has been boiled down to one thing:

Fantasy combat.

As if the only truly fun part of any D&D game from the red box on up was when you got to kill things with swords.

It's kind of gradually wound up crossing a line from being an important, fun, great part of the game, to being the whole (or 95%) of the game. 

There's a middle ground I think we passed somewhere between 2e and 3e. I've never had a huge desire to be a "leader of men," but that whole heroic arc has been set aside in favor of more fantasy combat. I think fantasy combat is great and I want my 20th level characters to still do it, but I don't really want that to be all my character does from level 1-20. It's kind related to of one of the famous complaints about MMORPG's: you go from killing rats in the sewers for Rat Tails to killing interdimensional demon-rats for demon-rat tails. The game doesn't change.

That's something that D&D has certainly lost over the years (2e didn't have much, and 3e didn't have anything really solid, and 4e doesn't go back there).


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

What the Kamikaze said.

Apparently, being a real mover and shaker is "not fun."

More, Sir?

Whaddaya want? A bonus to hit?

Ha ha har ha huck (choleric cough)

Shaddup an eatcher damage bonus, if ya kin ketch it!

But please, Sir! All I want is enough.

Checkers ain't enuff fer ye, eh? DUPLICITOUS DAZE! SLY SLIDE!

 Shout at me like that again, Sir, and I might incidentally discommode your codpiece.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 16, 2009)

Roman said:


> I am not sure it will generate so much debate simply because I didn't see anything particularly new about 4E's design philosophy in the article.






Odhanan said:


> 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.




Yet here we are on page Six! I agree with both of you that debate on this subject is not the most productive thing to talk about. Yet this keeps happening anyway. Hopefully, some people learned something from all of this.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 16, 2009)

I don't agree at all that D&D is only about combat nor do I agree that "old school" D&D had "good rules" to cover other things.  You want to talk "like a videogame" - when you hit x level (not when you earn it through gameplay), you get a stronghold based on class, y number of followers, generating z amount of gp...  It was entirely mechanistic.  I see this argument all the time from the "old school" who claim that, simultanesouly, D&D rules were about so much more than just combat and trash the notion of things like a craft system, social skills, skill challenges and other mechanics that serve to frame RP endeavors.  The two positions are entirely at odds.  The stronghold rules were an afterthought, not some complete, immersive, rich post-adventuring game system.  There weren't any rules for what you could do with those followers, no mass combat rules, no court intrigue rules.  

And I happen to think that was great.  I don't want rules for that stuff.  I need tools to handle players approaching challengese within that type of play (social mechanics, etc) but the rest is put into place by the DM.  That is still true today.  Yes, the rules themselves are about conflict resolution, and combat takes up most of that.  No, that doesn't mean the game itself is just about combat.  It's no more true that PCs couldn't negotiate with kings in 1e than it is true that PCs can't have a stronghold and followers in 4e.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 16, 2009)

I remember my 1e elven illusionist / thief had a thieves' guild when he hit the proper level in thief.  Why?  Because the PHB said so!  We never used our strongholds or followers, it was just another goody to add to the long list of goodies.

There should be good support for kingdom-running activities.  I would _love_ to see some of that.  It's not for everyone though - some people just want to have fun killing bigger & badder monsters.  And some DMs don't have the ability to make a poltical game entertaining, and D&D (any edition, save perhaps BEMCI which I'm less familiar with) hasn't been helping those DMs out.  The (A)D&D rules are concerned with exploration and combat, not politics.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> And I happen to think that was great.  I don't want rules for that stuff.  I need tools to handle players approaching challengese within that type of play (social mechanics, etc) but the rest is put into place by the DM.  That is still true today.  Yes, the rules themselves are about conflict resolution, and combat takes up most of that.  No, that doesn't mean the game itself is just about combat.  It's no more true that PCs couldn't negotiate with kings in 1e than it is true that PCs can't have a stronghold and followers in 4e.




Well said!

One of my 4e groups is currently in the process of buying a home base in Greyhawk and a couple of hirelings (a butler and a maid). They're negotiating with a friend's grandfather, a powerful merchant-prince, and where that leads I have no idea. 

The players having imagination is a wonderful thing.

To a very large extent, all of this lies under the purview of the individual DMs and players much more than any rulebook. The rules need to facilitate this more than they interfere. In 3e, I found they interfered too much. Your fighter couldn't be trained in the Diplomacy skill, and this was dreadful when you wanted him to become a ruler. Why does he need to cross-class again? The fact that 4e gets out of the way and permits this to occur easily is something I really enjoy about it.

Want to do something magical and non-combat that isn't in the rulebook? Invent a ritual for it. Something non-magical? It's most likely covered by a skill.

The exceptions to that -  Profession and Craft - were so hideously broken in 3e that you see why they no longer exist. (We're back to the handwaving we did in AD&D).

Cheers!


----------



## kibbitz (Mar 16, 2009)

Good to hear that it's working out better for you, MerricB! However, I think the presence of such rules is a good thing in the sense if only for exposure for players and DMs to other options. Or alternatively, we could just have sections in both the PHB and DMG explaining how to deal with this without specific rules for it? Would that be best? Should I fork this?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

I have to be honest, I do kind of hope that we get solid rules for operating an entire kingdom.

I also hope they're in an expansion book.  I'd HATE for them to be core.  Any decent treatment of them is going to need so much space that fitting them into the core rules would be impossible without neutering them.  Plus... they're kind of plot elements, not mechanical elements.  I mean, they have mechanical aspects, yes... but I can't help but think that operating a kingdom belongs in the optional expansion books instead of in the core rules, simply based on how often people operate kingdoms.  Maybe DMG2 or 3, or a book written specifically for this purpose.  Ideally the specific book.

What I'd specifically like to see would be:

1. Premade castles for those who don't want to make their own.

2. Detailed rules on making your own if you do.  I mean old school, detail every last window.  Don't try to sell me some dumb combat system tacked on to it, though.  I'm looking at you, Rules Cyclopedia.

3. DM ADVICE!  LOTS OF IT!  

3a. Specifically, ways to handle the inevitable disparities in attention that crop up when one PC is Pharoah, and the other is his best friend the ratcatcher's apprentice he met when he ranaway as a child.  I'm well aware that this is a solvable issue, please don't preach to me about that, that's why I'm asking for professionally written advice on the subject.  

3b. Also DM advice on ways to let the PCs get away from their obligations from time to time, and adventure a bit.

3c. Advice on using skill challenges to handle things like wars.  Large scale skill challenges.  As in, negotiate a military alliance with the Duke before the orcs arrive, one success.  Complete construction of the upgraded fortifications on time, one success.  Prevent the assassination of the captain of the guard, one success.  Fail to ambush the orc's siege weaponry while it was being transported by sea, one failure.  Sneak a strike force into the orc camp to BURN the siege weaponry, cancel that failure.  You get the idea.

What I'm not looking for, and actively hope not to find:

1. Rules that connect plot elements like being a prince or leading an army with PC level.  If your 12 year old level 1 PC is Pharoah and in command of a million soldiers and the greatest fleet the land has ever known, then that's that.  Don't try to tell me that I have to be level X before I can have a court magician.  That's a plot matter.

2. Rules that prevent me from handwaving micromanagement issues.  I suppose there's someone out there who wants to analyze crop growth and weather patterns and road capacity, and if those rules are to exist anywhere this would be the book for it, but please, PLEASE I want those to be ignorable by the rest of us.  I should be able to let a relatively casual, inexperienced player be a princess and in charge of an estate or even an entire realm, without sending her to princess-school first.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 16, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> See, that's something I don't like.  I don't like the idea that at some point, character advancement by level simply ends.




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.





3catcircus said:


> I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.




Interesting... I've found the system so easy to modify. A low magic campaign seems as easy as dropping the arcane power source, dropping magic items (except for artifacts in my opinion) adding a couple of bonuses at key levels... and that's it.

You can even drop the divine power source, and have a low magic, no priestly beings type campaign. All healing would be martial in nature.

Maybe even pop on an expanded wound system using the disease track if you want to get really gritty.



Cadfan said:


> I have to be honest, I do kind of hope that we get solid rules for operating an entire kingdom.
> 
> I also hope they're in an expansion book.




And again with how easy I feel it is to modify 4e without harming the "core" of the game... It just seems like things like this are just begging for 3pp to make some cash! 

You've already outlined a basic system. Run it all mainly on the skill challenge system.. Maybe even utilize the ritual/feat combo system a bit.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> You've already outlined a basic system. Run it all mainly on the skill challenge system.. Maybe even utilize the ritual/feat combo system a bit.



Heh, I could probably write the book myself, except that I've got no interest in trying to write a book that would be accepted by the sorts of people who want charts of historically realistic data on castle construction.  I'm better at tweaking rules mechanics to do unexpected things, crafting a "look and feel" of a game or plotline, and advising DMs on interacting with players, than I am at historically relevant detail.  More 4e DMG and Feng Shui RPG than GURPS.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 16, 2009)

Branduil said:


> I think, as a newer player to the game, I have a different perspective of the game. I didn't have the experience to understand that Fighters should suck compared to Clerics and Wizards, as a matter of course. It did not make sense to me that spellcasters should use an entirely different system from everything else, that is not even very interesting thematically.



Yes sir.


gribble said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
> 1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.



 If your players stop because they are out of dailies, its not a problem with the system, but with your players. Teach them that it's not always possible and that they can have plenty of fun without them. Or did you let them rest after every single combat in 3.x as well?



> 2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any *single *character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.



 I can only say that my experience differs a lot. Last time they were in combat, it was the 6th encounter that day - Sure, it was close but if your paragon players are running out of surges that fast, maybe they need to re-evaluate their tactics or something. All I can say is that not everyone has that problem at paragon level.




> 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.



For what it is worth, my  players did the same right when we started to play. If you make certain they are not allowed to rest, several things could happen. 1) They learn to better manage their dailies. 2) They become better at using their encounter powers. 3) They realize it doesn't have to be grindy without dailies. 4) They die 



> 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!



And this is a problem why? Very few monsters do this. It just makes draining creatures different.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

For what its worth, my players struggle to use up their daily powers.  Everyone except the Ranger has at least one daily that lasts the whole encounter, and many players have more than one.  There's just no point in stacking them all, even where we're allowed.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 16, 2009)

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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Branduil said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2009)

3catcircus said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2009)

Branduil said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2009)

gribble said:


> 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


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 16, 2009)

Treebore said:


> I have played fighters and thieves at high levels. In fact Thieves have always been my favorite class since OD&D.
> 
> As to why, I think its because I never played them as simply a class. I was able to become a Thieves Guild Master, or a mighty lord. How many games have others played in where games went in those directions? I am betting not many. I also bet even fewer went so far as to have a PC tap into the power they have as a Thieves Guild Master or mighty lord, or High Priest of a temple for that matter.




And you're still better off as a mage/thief (only 1 level behind thanks to AD&D's  design!). Because anything you can do, the mage can do better. 



> Plus I think many people don't get how powerful having their "to hit" increase is, particularly since it is such a fundamental power of the fighter class and related classes. My fighter could hit practically anything with ease, and do a lot of damage too.




Less than the fighter/mage, or cleric/mage or whatever. 1st edition adventures were dripping with wands, 



> In games where my fighter got his hands on Girdles/Belts of Giant Strength he was very god like and taking on creatures he wouldn't have even daredd take on at lower levels.




Magic item dependency is a good thing now? 




> Personally I think the problems come down to "player envy". Yes, my fighter kicks butt, but he doesn't have the cool powers of the mage or priest or Druid. Well then, play one of those classes!




In our group, no one played the fighter, or a single class. It was blatently apparent they sucked compared to a MC'd spellcaster, given how poorly the rules were designed. You'd be a level behind, in exchange for a massive powerup. Why be a fighter, when you could be a fighter/cleric, tossing around what amounted to save or die effects at 3rd level (hold person)?



> Too many players want the "I can do anything" character, well a fighter isn't meant to do everything, neither is a wizard. You want to do everything then you have to be both, but then your very limited in how fast you become powerful in both, and players cry about that!




You werent limited at all. You were a level behind (if that). 




> The reality is many players don't want to be limited, they want the "I can do everything!" character. They don't want balance, they want to be super cool and super powerful!




No, what many old school geeks really want is someone else to suck. Someone to play the fighter or thief, while they be the wizard or cleric. Otherwise they wouldnt piss and moan about balance. Why else would it matter if the fighter was just as useful as the wizard? God knows he'll still be comparatively useless out of combat compared to the guy who can teleport, scry, read minds, contact other planes, and in general, break any adventure given a day to load up the appropriate list of ever expanding superpowers.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 16, 2009)

gribble said:


> 2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any *single *character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.




I actually like the concept of healing surges, if not the execution. In 3rd edition, Wands of cure light wounds are so cheap that out of combat healing may as well be free past 5th level or so. If the players arent killed or ability drained/damaged, they may as well be healed to full and save everyone the trouble of rolling dice and tracking charges while the characters spend a minute poking each other with sticks.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


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




Liked it despite the frustrations? Absolutely. They were irrelevant to my appreciation of the game though - and I think that is the point I was trying to make. It was just the way that D&D 'was', and it neither improved nor harmed it.



(nb RuneQuest 2 was our favoured game of choice, once it came out we pretty much abandoned D&D completely for it, with some additional time spent enjoying bushido)


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 16, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


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



Probably because it hasn't been fun for an overwhelming majority of players?

For me (and my circle of roleplaying friends) it's been fun exactly ONCE.
After having started at level 1 once, we always started on higher levels after that. Sometimes as low as level 2, often higher. Note, that this wasn't just because the characters are pathetically weak at level 1 but also because there were no interesting monsters to fight at these low levels.

Imho, it was a correct decision to make the changes to level 1 characters in 4E. I'm just a bit disappointed they didn't include a section on level 0 characters in the 4E DMG for those few individuals out there who continue to enjoy playing farmers and their like.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 16, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> In our group, no one played the fighter, or a single class. It was blatently apparent they sucked compared to a MC'd spellcaster, given how poorly the rules were designed. You'd be a level behind, in exchange for a massive powerup. Why be a fighter, when you could be a fighter/cleric, tossing around what amounted to save or die effects at 3rd level (hold person)?




If your group consists of minmaxers I can see this.  Otherwise I have never seen this problem.







ehren37 said:


> No, what many old school geeks really want is someone else to suck. Someone to play the fighter or thief, while they be the wizard or cleric. Otherwise they wouldnt piss and moan about balance. Why else would it matter if the fighter was just as useful as the wizard? God knows he'll still be comparatively useless out of combat compared to the guy who can teleport, scry, read minds, contact other planes, and in general, break any adventure given a day to load up the appropriate list of ever expanding superpowers.




Your insight is astounding.  CLearly you are someone that has played with many groups of so called old schoolers to understand their secret.

Why would someone want to play the fighter?  Because they did in fact NOT 'suck'.  Most of my cahracters have been a fighting class mostly ranger.  This nonsense of the fighters being the weakest class comes from people that did not understand the balance factour of the wizard was his spells per day.  If you allowed rest periods like the 4e does, the wizard is never power downed.  But a wizard USED to require strategy.  You had to pick your spells carefully, and use them carefully or you would... uh oh!  Run out of spells!  

The fighter very often carried the party through these times.  But you would have to assume an actual 8 hour day instead of 10 minute days.  I never worried about that as a fighter.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 16, 2009)

3catcircus said:


> As has been stated earlier, I think there is a certain chutzpah to Mr. Heinsoo's statements regarding wrongbadfun in earlier editions of the game.
> 
> I've tried 4e and what I've found (so far) is that it makes it extremely difficult for a DM to be able to run a gritty, low-magic campaign.




D&D has NEVER been low magic. Unless you ban spellcaster classes from the players, they use magic more than they poop. Player wizards make any game a "high magic" game IMO. D&D magic is almost always a safe, known commodity. Aside from a few spellls, there's little chance of magic backfiring as I would expect in a low magic world. Its always been a poor system for this type of play.




> 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.




That stuff should really be in a supplement, IMO. Not everyone wants their game to become Axis and Allies at 10th level, and it shouldnt be the default assumption. I actually picked up MMS for this reason, but the player that is interested int hat sort of thing handles it between sessions, because the other 4 are bored to tears with that sort of thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Probably because it hasn't been fun for an overwhelming majority of players?
> 
> For me (and my circle of roleplaying friends) it's been fun exactly ONCE.
> After having started at level 1 once, we always started on higher levels after that. Sometimes as low as level 2, often higher. Note, that this wasn't just because the characters are pathetically weak at level 1 but also because there were no interesting monsters to fight at these low levels.
> ...




I think we just need more 1st level foes - and I don't mean more Kobolds or more Goblins, but different type of creatures.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 16, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> If your group consists of minmaxers I can see this. Otherwise I have never seen this problem.




Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords. 








> Your insight is astounding. CLearly you are someone that has played with many groups of so called old schoolers to understand their secret.
> 
> Why would someone want to play the fighter? Because they did in fact NOT 'suck'. Most of my cahracters have been a fighting class mostly ranger. This nonsense of the fighters being the weakest class comes from people that did not understand the balance factour of the wizard was his spells per day.




And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played  cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on. 

Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...


----------



## billd91 (Mar 16, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Remember, if you cast fireball 2 rounds in a row and one round the creature saves and next it fails, you've taken two rounds to deal 75% of your potential damage (or less, if the target has evasion/improved) which may/may not kill the foe. If you do the same with Finger of Death, you took two rounds to kill the creature. Period.




My experience has been more along the lines of Plane Sailing's. The caster players in my groups generally make a different calculation. 

If they hammer away with a couple of rounds of fireballs, they've done significant damage even if the creature is making its saves (barring evasion, but then they switch to rays if that's the case) which makes it easier to mop up by the fighters, rogues, druids, and monks. By comparison, if the save or die spells fail, the monster is typically at full or near full strength and the spell slots cast were wasted.

The way they set their expectations, they put a higher penalty on failing to have a significant effect for the resources expended, particularly when multiple layers of defense are involved (SR, saves) than the benefit of an immediate takedown.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> 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.




I think those assertions have backing, even from yourself -



> I think we all found it frustrating that wizards had limited shots




This was certainly my experience.  As a player I'd argue against starting at 1st level because of wizards and as a DM, I've had players wanting to play wizards outright refuse to start at 1st level.  People have complained about the weakness of low level wizards for decades and many have found it frustrating, as you say.  So I'm not sure how you acknowledge on the one hand that this was a frustrating problem and then say it wasn't a problem because that's the way it was for years.  I certainly think that a trained up wizard having to badly wield a crossbow is a problem.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 16, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played  cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.
> 
> Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...




That is a characterization I never saw in 20 years of 1e and 2e. Rather, the fighter-types and thieves were always on duty and were, in fact, the ones doing the heavy lifting consistently. The cleric backed the fighters up and the wizard tossed around large spikes of damage infrequently. And when they were out of mojo, they relied on wands and darts.

The party stopped to rest when the fighters were low on hit points and the clerics were out of healing... in other words, when the heavy lifters could no longer protect the rest of the party.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 16, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords.




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".

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.









ehren37 said:


> And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.
> 
> Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...




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.

The only time I ever played the way you describe was by playing the video game Baldur's Gate or Never Winter Nights.  On the table top, I did not have the same habits.  I fear too much of the video game strategy has encroached upon the table top game strategy.

I am not a grognard in that respect at all.  I am a hard core video game gamer.  I recognize though what makes a good video game does not make a good Table top game and Vice versa.


----------



## Sadrik (Mar 16, 2009)

Fun is not a bad word in and of itself, when used as a comparative such as this is _more fun than that_ it runs into the highly speculative. Rob appears to have done that.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

Using crossbow is not a problem when MUs are limited to daggers ...


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 16, 2009)

That was a great read. Why didn't they do something like this before the game was released? A lot of interesting info in there...


----------



## Storminator (Mar 16, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I certainly think that a trained up wizard having to badly wield a crossbow is a problem.




Crossbow?!? 

PS


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> See, that's something I don't like.  I don't like the idea that at some point, character advancement by level simply ends.






DaveMage 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.)



Now, now DaveMage.    You know as well as I do that in 1e there were level limitations.  Racial and Class level limitations.

How did a dwarf become an 10th level fighter? Or what level of Druid did I take after 14th level?

You might counter with "Then dual class!!" or "Multiclass!".  If I am not mistaken, multiclass was something you could only do at first level, and you had to be a non-human and there were only specific combinations available, and these were based upon your race.

With dual classing (humans only), you were denied the use of all your abilities and benefits when you changed classes (except HD and HP).  So, I spend 3 years of gaming and 14 levels to become the greatest druid in the gameworld and then (because if course, I didn't want to be saddled with level limitations. I only have 1,500,001 XP and the M-U can get 3,000,000+ and be 18th level!) I became a magic user. I now couldn't use ANY of the abilities of the Druid and if I did, all the XP for the adventure would be lost.

So how are these rules good?  My 9th level dwarven fighter is the best he can be. Ever.  I would much rather be able to be 20th level or 30th level.

I played and DMed 1st edition for a long time.  These rules always sucked. And almost every table I played at dropped the racial level limits not because we wanted the ceiling opened up to infinity, but because we wanted to ceiling raised to the same level for everyone.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2009)

gribble said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this! For all the talk of 4e solving the 10 minute adventuring day, I've found in practice it has actually made it a lot worse. A couple of reasons:
> 1) Rather than just wanting to rest when the wizard/cleric is out of spells, every class now has daily abilities. Typically, at least one PC is out of dailies after 2-3 fights.



This hasn't been the experience in the two 4e campaigns I have run. Our mid-level paragon game regularly had the PCs going 4-6 encounters at a time. Dailies weren't the deciding factor, surges were.



gribble said:


> 2) Healing surges are the killer (literally). At least in 3e, a party could reasonably continue on potions, scrolls and/or wands for quite a while... normally in the ballpark of 4-6 encounters per day before resting. But in 4e, once any *single* character is out of healing surges, the party pretty much has to take an extended rest. Pressing on at that point, without that character being able to heal at all during an encounter, is akin to that characters death sentence... I've found in our mid-late Paragon game that that point now seems be be about every 2-3 encounters.



This is the case for us, but we still go 4-6 encounters. Maybe the DM is throwing too many "hard" encounters and not enough "easy" and "normal" ones?


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 16, 2009)

Storminator said:


> Crossbow?!?
> 
> PS




Heh, yeah, too many years of 3e.  But the older options were even worse.  "Oh dear, I seem to have run out of spells, time to hike up my skirt and wade into the front lines with my 'trusty' quarterstaff."


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

*If Wizards Did Call of Cthulhu*

Library Use as a key skill? No way! Investigation is no fun; shootouts are fun!

It's no fun playing an author, journalist, lawyer, professor or historian/antiquarian. Let's replace those occupations with types like Doc Savage, the Shadow and Tarzan. 

It's no fair that cultists of the Great Old Ones get all the best magic. Add "good guy" Elder Gods.

Getting driven insane is no fun. Dump the Sanity rules.

One blast from a 12 gauge shotgun can kill a character? How can anyone have fun playing someone who can't take a couple of bursts from a tommy gun and keep going?

Some of the monsters are just too tough. If you can't kill Cthulhu, then what's the point?


----------



## Branduil (Mar 16, 2009)

I don't really get the point of your parody. D&D would suck if it used CoC rules. CoC would suck if it used D&D rules. The games appeal to different tastes.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *If Wizards Did Call of Cthulhu*



Unfair.

But I do like your summary of Spirit of the Century.


----------



## darjr (Mar 16, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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.




There are plenty of adventures in 4e, RPGA especially, that are entirely of this sort. Out of surges? Out of dailies? To bad. Go on or run away.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> ehren37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh come on.... just because a player doesn't like the fact that they are a less effective doesn't make them a min-maxer.

I have DMed many groups of VERY good roleplayers that have, on more than one occasion mentioned how much they felt behind the other players in the group (in 1e, 2e and 3e).  Even if I counter it with "Well, just think of all the roleplaying opportunities it will open up", they say "I would rather have some great roleplaying opportunities and also feel like I am contributing with my class abilities like the other guys."

Perfect balance may not be what some people like.  Maybe some like the major imbalances of class and race in 1e, but very, very few of the players I DMed in HS, college and afterwards were OK with it.

As stated before, why play a fighter when you can play a fighter-cleric?  Oh yea... because in 1e only non-humans can be multiclassed.  And a dwarf fighter cleric can be no higher than Ftr9/Cle8.  Oh wait, in 1e only NPC dwarves can be a cleric.

Most players I games with, without question, preferred balanced PCs over unbalanced ones.  Yes, its only my experience, but I've been DMing since 1978, so that's a lot of players.




Mournblade94 said:


> Your insight is astounding.  CLearly you are someone that has played with many groups of so called old schoolers to understand their secret.
> 
> Why would someone want to play the fighter?  Because they did in fact NOT 'suck'.  Most of my cahracters have been a fighting class mostly ranger.  This nonsense of the fighters being the weakest class comes from people that did not understand the balance factour of the wizard was his spells per day.  If you allowed rest periods like the 4e does, the wizard is never power downed.  But a wizard USED to require strategy.  You had to pick your spells carefully, and use them carefully or you would... uh oh!  Run out of spells!
> 
> The fighter very often carried the party through these times.  But you would have to assume an actual 8 hour day instead of 10 minute days.  I never worried about that as a fighter.



OK, so at 3rd level, when the magic user in 1e used up his two 1st and one 2nd level spell, he was bonking with his quarterstaff and no armor for the rest of the game session until the part rested.  In 1e, we rested a lot too. often 3-4 times a "day".  He/She didn't trundle along with the fighter and stand back hoping to roll a 19 or 20 to hit.  That did suck, and I had a few new players stop and ask to play a different character (or stop playing altogether) because they didn't quite grok the roleplaying part but felt useless as a character.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2009)

darjr said:


> There are plenty of adventures in 4e, RPGA especially, that are entirely of this sort. Out of surges? Out of dailies? To bad. Go on or run away.



Yep.  There are also plenty of 4e DMs that do this with their home games as well.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 16, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Now, now DaveMage.    You know as well as I do that in 1e there were level limitations.  Racial and Class level limitations.
> 
> How did a dwarf become an 10th level fighter? Or what level of Druid did I take after 14th level?
> 
> ...




Oh, I agree, demihuman level limitations sucked, which is why I always ignored them in 1E.    Humans, of course, had no level limits.

Thinking about it more though, even if epic rules were something simple, it would be better than a cap.  It could be like once you pass level 30, your class changes to "epic".  So a 31st level character could be a Fighter 30/Epic 1, but not a Fighter 31.  

A possible idea is that an epic character (in 3E terms) gains 5 hit points (modified by Con), an epic (or normal, if desired) feat, +1 to BAB and +1 to all saves.  The key is the feat, of course, which can allow a character to gain some abilities that they might otherwise do with a class.  Creative energy is now focused on available feats rather than available classes.  While going up a level at that point may not be as exciting as getting a level in a particular class, at least it doesn't put a cap on things, and yet still allows for some customability.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *If Wizards Did Call of Cthulhu*
> 
> It's no fair that cultists of the Great Old Ones get all the best magic. Add "good guy" Elder Gods.




So... what you're saying is that 4e is the August Derleth of D&D?


----------



## Treebore (Mar 16, 2009)

Just because WOTC capped the game at 30th level doesn't mean innovative DM's and their player groups won't be able to go beyond 30th level. It just means don't expect any company support for such games. Much like such support stopped at 20th level in 1E, 30th level in 2E, and 40th level in OD&D.

You could go beyond those levels, but you had to make up your own rules to do so. Same thing for 4E.

Besides, no one has unlimited potential, and certainly not the potential to become quasi deific, unless the DM wants their game to go there. So in 4E if you wish to go beyond 30th level you will have to make or adapt rules to run "god level" games.

Thats all the 30th level cap means, don't expect WOTC to support play past 30th level. 3 pp's will have to do that.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 16, 2009)

Branduil said:


> I don't really get the point of your parody. D&D would suck if it used CoC rules. CoC would suck if it used D&D rules. The games appeal to different tastes.




d20 Call of Cthulhu was a pretty good game. I prefer the BRP version, but the d20 version was well-received.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

> The games appeal to different tastes.



 Precisely. D&D appealed to certain tastes, and 4E appeals to different ones. The trouble comes from slapping the "D&D" name on it. Spirit of the Century is (from what little I've seen) a splendid game, but so is CoC -- and SotC is not CoC (or Daredevils, or Justice Inc., or anything but itself).


----------



## Spatula (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *If Wizards Did Call of Cthulhu*



[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Call-Cthulhu-Horror-Roleplaying-WotC/dp/0786926392/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237241999&sr=1-15"]They did.[/ame]


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Precisely. D&D appealed to certain tastes, and 4E appeals to different ones. The trouble comes from slapping the "D&D" name on it. Spirit of the Century is (from what little I've seen) a splendid game, but so is CoC -- and SotC is not CoC (or Daredevils, or Justice Inc., or anything but itself).




You could really make the case for AD&D not being D&D because of its divergences from oD&D (and there are some big ones).


----------



## ki11erDM (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> slapping the "D&D" name on it.





What?  Do you think they just slapped D&D on a card game or something?  Do you think the devs did such a half arse job that it should not been published?  /sigh


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Much like such support stopped at 20th level in 1E, 30th level in 2E, and 40th level in OD&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Thats all the 30th level cap means, don't expect WOTC to support play past 30th level. 3 pp's will have to do that.



While I agree with the sentiment of your post, my 1E players handbook has caps for levels for many classes and most races at much lower than 20th.

Monk, Druid and Assassin all had level caps and didn't support anything past their max and even said that the highest level hero in each of these was one of a kind.

Also races were severely capped for non-humans, most all well below 10th.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 16, 2009)

It's funny - I never played any of the classes in 1E that had level caps.  I guess I felt that it would be better to play the other classes _because they didn't have limits_!

Although back then, min/maxing was the *only* way to play for me.

(My 25th level cleric can beat up your sad, little, LIMITED, 14th level druid.    )


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> It's funny - I never played any of the classes in 1E that had level caps.  I guess I felt that it would be better to play the other classes _because they didn't have limits_!
> 
> Although back then, min/maxing was the *only* way to play for me.
> 
> (My 25th level cleric can beat up your sad, little, LIMITED, 14th level druid.    )




LOL.

My human magic-user was human for mostly the same reason. Only our DM decided that the level limits and racial limits were unfair and used as an NPC an unlimited Elven Paladin...

Cheers!


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Mar 16, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Thats all the 30th level cap means, don't expect WOTC to support play past 30th level. 3 pp's will have to do that.




True, but there's more to it. The higher level you go, the fewer people are playing the game, and supporting that level of play is less practical. So the intent of the epic destinies is to give a satisfying climax to the PCs career at that point instead of simply having the game peter out. It's there to give your character a great goal—one you choose for yourself—to achieve as part of your character's life story. Yes, it's ending support of gameplay, but the 30th-level "cap" alone doesn't paint the whole picture because there's a story motivation to hit that cap.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Precisely. D&D appealed to certain tastes, and 4E appeals to different ones.



I respectfully disagree.

The fact the some of us didn't like _certain aspects _of 3e doesn't mean we dislike D&D in general. Personally, I tried my best to tease as much fun as possible from the 3e version, but in the end the fun:work ratio was just too low. 

To be fair to 3e, it _did _bring my group back to the D&D brand after years of exploring other games. And while our gaming expectations moved past 3e, our love for the concept of D&D never did. 

Now with 4e, I find myself playing---and enjoying --- more D&D than I have since I was 15 years old.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 16, 2009)

WotC_Logan said:


> Yes, it's ending support of gameplay, but the 30th-level "cap" alone doesn't paint the whole picture because there's a story motivation to hit that cap.



And knowing that our characters story will reach a (simultaneous) climax is very exciting from a player's perspective. 

I don't think I have a single player who doesn't have some really awesome plans for their character's final, Epic fates.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 16, 2009)

WotC_Logan said:


> True, but there's more to it. The higher level you go, the fewer people are playing the game, and supporting that level of play is less practical. So the intent of the epic destinies is to give a satisfying climax to the PCs career at that point instead of simply having the game peter out. It's there to give your character a great goal—one you choose for yourself—to achieve as part of your character's life story. Yes, it's ending support of gameplay, but the 30th-level "cap" alone doesn't paint the whole picture because there's a story motivation to hit that cap.




I really appreciate the explanation; it's a very strong motivator in my opinion and can really drive good stories.

After all, didn't BECM D&D have a similar goal and cap?

Cheers!


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 16, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Oh come on.... just because a player doesn't like the fact that they are a less effective doesn't make them a min-maxer.
> 
> I have DMed many groups of VERY good roleplayers that have, on more than one occasion mentioned how much they felt behind the other players in the group (in 1e, 2e and 3e).  Even if I counter it with "Well, just think of all the roleplaying opportunities it will open up", they say "I would rather have some great roleplaying opportunities and also feel like I am contributing with my class abilities like the other guys."





I have been Dming since 1982, so I am behind you.  I never remember a single player feeling less effective because of their CLASS.  Maybe abilities, magic items, on occasion WIzard specialty class, but never due to class.  Oh yeah... It happened with one of my friends Billy Stacy for the 1st edition MONK.  Other than that, I have not experienced the compaint.



catsclaw227 said:


> Perfect balance may not be what some people like.  Maybe some like the major imbalances of class and race in 1e, but very, very few of the players I DMed in HS, college and afterwards were OK with it.
> 
> As stated before, why play a fighter when you can play a fighter-cleric?  Oh yea... because in 1e only non-humans can be multiclassed.  And a dwarf fighter cleric can be no higher than Ftr9/Cle8.  Oh wait, in 1e only NPC dwarves can be a cleric.




I never let humans multiclass in the 1st edition, but I completely did away with level restriction.  I thought that attempt at balance was ridiculous.  With that said, I DM'd plenty of straight class fighters, and plenty of Fighter/Cleric/MagicUsers.  It depended on what the player wanted.  Most players had a concept in mind before they rolled up the characters (not saying that yours did not.)

I have never as a fighter felt less effective.  In fact I was often the party leader.  I am mostly speaking of 3rd edition, anyway not 1st edition though my statements apply to that as well.  I stopped playing 1st edition when 3rd edition was released because I liked the system better.



catsclaw227 said:


> Most players I games with, without question, preferred balanced PCs over unbalanced ones.  Yes, its only my experience, but I've been DMing since 1978, so that's a lot of players.




The players I gamed with wanted balance with the opponents they would face.  I can't remember occasion when I got a player complaint about balance within classes.




catsclaw227 said:


> OK, so at 3rd level, when the magic user in 1e used up his two 1st and one 2nd level spell, he was bonking with his quarterstaff and no armor for the rest of the game session until the part rested.  In 1e, we rested a lot too. often 3-4 times a "day".  He/She didn't trundle along with the fighter and stand back hoping to roll a 19 or 20 to hit.  That did suck, and I had a few new players stop and ask to play a different character (or stop playing altogether) because they didn't quite grok the roleplaying part but felt useless as a character.




You will remember from those days, that was the cost of playing a mage.  Most players I had stuck to it.  SOme scrapped the character.  One of those mages actually lasted to be converted to a 3rd edition archmage.  It depended on what the player wanted.  I had some players that would only play high level mages, and some players that only wanted the flashboom mage.  Those were usually the minmaxers, and though (unless I am playing video game D&D like Baldurs Gate) is contrary to my play style, though I can still accomodate it.

Your experiences are valid, but I am not sure that most players from the old school would agree with Heinsoo's philosophy.  From the players I talk to in my social circle, and gaming store most have tried 4e and are reverting back to 3rd edition.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Precisely. D&D appealed to certain tastes, and 4E appeals to different ones. The trouble comes from slapping the "D&D" name on it.




What a load of garbage.

Whenever I read posts like this, I really wish WotC did have edition ninjas they could send out to confiscate people's books.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Precisely. D&D appealed to certain tastes, and 4E appeals to different ones. The trouble comes from slapping the "D&D" name on it. Spirit of the Century is (from what little I've seen) a splendid game, but so is CoC -- and SotC is not CoC (or Daredevils, or Justice Inc., or anything but itself).




But 4e is D&D.

It may not be what you think of as D&D, but to someone like me, it is more D&D than any previous edition. If we're going to mythologize D&D as some kind of abstract ideal, then it's just as valid for me to say that only 4e is true D&D as it is for you to claim a previous edition is.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

MerricB said:


> You could really make the case for AD&D not being D&D because of its divergences from oD&D (and there are some big ones).



As I recall, Gygax did basically that in Dragon magazine back in the day. He called them as different from each other as either was from competing RPGs. The "Advanced" part of the name was, I think, included throughout the rule books and other products as consistently as editors could ensure.

One difference between then and now is that the "Original Collectors Edition" remained in print.

How much can something change before it's considered something else? As a practical matter with a game, that's up to the players (who may well disagree). It can be a bit of trouble when not everyone agrees that the new thing is a fit replacement for the old. From the commercial standpoint, that might lose sales.

The existence of a d20 CoC game is not to my mind a bad thing, because it does not replace the classic game. In the latter context, I don't care which of the six(?) editions someone uses; the only big deal is that (IIRC) characters had more HP in the very first edition.

On the other hand, it matters quite a lot which "Traveller" game is to be played. There are several that have little in common except reference to the Third Imperium setting -- which did not appear in the original Traveller set! It makes a great difference whether one is playing, say, d20 System or GURPS. I'm not about to trade the "Classic" rules for either of those, but the new game from Mongoose is probably close enough for my taste (although I have no _reason_ to switch).

As for 4E appealing to different tastes, well, it was _designed_ to do so! Gygax did not set out to create a game that was not fun, and it did not become the tremendous success it did on the basis of players considering it not fun. People who didn't like AD&D bought and played other games (RuneQuest, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, etc.) instead.

When the same thing gets called a "feature" by one person and a "flaw" by another, they have different tastes. That's just a fact of life.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> As for 4E appealing to different tastes, well, it was _designed_ to do so! Gygax did not set out to create a game that was not fun, and it did not become the tremendous success it did on the basis of players considering it not fun. People who didn't like AD&D bought and played other games (RuneQuest, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, etc.) instead.




What if I enjoyed previous editions of D&D but enjoy 4e more? What if I thought previous editions were fun but thought they could be _more _fun?

You are treating each edition of d&d like a monolith. You either enjoy the system and every one of its aspects or you don't. That's not the way it works. I dislike Vancian magic but enjoy playing 2e and 3e. I could have enjoyed 2e and 3e even more with a different magic system (and I did switch to magic points along with UA). I enjoy 3e but dislike 3e grappling rules. I was happier with simpler grappling rules. Hell, I enjoy 4e but dislike the "padded sumo" effect of granting monsters so much HP.

4e is designed to appeal to different tastes regarding _particular aspects of the game_ _system_. It's not like the designers decided that fantasy roleplaying was no longer fun and decided to make a sports game with the same name. It is still a fantasy roleplaying system. The designers apparently believed that most of D&D fans would view the changes as improvements to their D&D experience. They believed that they were correcting flaws/annoyances in what was _otherwise a fun system_.

You can dislike the changes. You can argue that in fact most d&d players dislike the changes, or thought of the "flaws" instead as "features," but I don't know where you get off telling us that 4e is no longer D&D...because it obviously is to a lot of us here.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> OK, so at 3rd level, when the magic user in 1e used up his two 1st and one 2nd level spell, he was bonking with his quarterstaff and no armor for the rest of the game session until the part rested.  In 1e, we rested a lot too. often 3-4 times a "day".  He/She didn't trundle along with the fighter and stand back hoping to roll a 19 or 20 to hit.  That did suck, and I had a few new players stop and ask to play a different character (or stop playing altogether) because they didn't quite grok the roleplaying part but felt useless as a character.




By the book, rest was a _requirement_ -- and a lot more often than 3-4 times per game day! If you were recovering spells more than once per game day, then you were breaking the rules as written.

That's quite all right! You changed the rules to suit your taste, which is pretty easy to do with such a basically simple and modular game. A lot of folks simply _ignored_ mechanics they didn't like. It was _your_ game; that's what you were _supposed_ to do (although AD&D did not encourage it quite as enthusiastically as D&D did).

It might not have been worthwhile to try to house-rule AD&D into the game you wanted. I cannot see myself trying to approximate the AD&D experience by modifying 4E (although others might give it a go). If one finds oneself often compelled to change a rules-set because one considers it "broken," then it may be that one is playing the wrong game.

It's great that 4E pleases many people. It's not so great that it pisses off many people by being represented as a "better version of D&D" when they consider it perhaps not worse but _something else_. I like lasagna, but it's not what I want to get when I order fettucini carbonara.

Fortunately, the OGL means that there's Pathfinder for 3E fans, OSRIC for 1E fans, Labyrinth Lord for Moldvay Basic fans, and so on!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Gygax did not set out to create a game that was not fun, and it did not become the tremendous success it did on the basis of players considering it not fun. People who didn't like AD&D bought and played other games (RuneQuest, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, etc.) instead.
> 
> When the same thing gets called a "feature" by one person and a "flaw" by another, they have different tastes. That's just a fact of life.




I think there's a big difference between the entire game being "fun" and individual aspects of it being "not fun".

AD&D as a whole is an enjoyable game. I played it for many years, and occasionally return to it. However, that doesn't mean that there are aspects of it that detract from the whole. In general, players work around those aspects that they don't like.

I played magic-users back in the day (these days, on the rare occasions that I play, I'm more likely to play Clerics, Bards or... Wizards). 

My first experience as a magic-user was having my one offensive spell being... _shocking grasp_. In the days of AD&D, as a first level magic-user, it wasn't a good spell. Why did I have it? Because my DM had used the rules in the AD&D DMG for determining starting spells for my magic-user.

Yes, I had a spell that did 1d8+1 damage to one opponent, whom I had to hit first. No touch attacks back then! My best attack was actually _less_ effective than the fighter's meat and potatoes attack. He had a 17 strength, so was 2 better at hitting than me and did the same damage with his longsword.

Yes, I should have had the _sleep_ spell. For me to fulfill my role as a 1st-level magic-user, I needed that spell. I didn't have it because _the rules as written_ gave me a spell that was, ahem, sub-par. Call that fun? Because I didn't. (That magic-user died fighting an ogre in his first session).

A later session where I was playing a first-level magic-user under a DM who had slightly more clues about how to treat them, I had _sleep_ as my spell. And, wonder of wonders, in one of my first encounters I found a _wand of paralyzation _ with seven charges. Joy of joys! All of a sudden I wasn't useless any more! 

That magic-user finally reached 12th level in that AD&D campaign before it ended, and never really overshadowed the other members of the party, mainly because I didn't play it that way.

Cheers!


----------



## tmatk (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> .....
> It's great that 4E pleases many people. It's not so great that it pisses off many people by being represented as a "better version of D&D" when they consider it perhaps not worse but _something else_. I like lasagna, but it's not what I want to get when I order fettucini carbonara.
> .....




Seriously! I mean they design a new version and start telling us it's an improvement!?? What marketing genius thought that one up?!?! 



Sorry, I couldn't resist the sarcasm!  Do you really expect Wotc to not represent the new edition as better? They are trying to sell the thing!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> By the book, rest was a _requirement_ -- and a lot more often than 3-4 times per game day! If you were recovering spells more than once per game day, then you were breaking the rules as written.
> 
> That's quite all right! You changed the rules to suit your taste, which is pretty easy to do with such a basically simple and modular game. A lot of folks simply _ignored_ mechanics they didn't like. It was _your_ game; that's what you were _supposed_ to do (although AD&D did not encourage it quite as enthusiastically as D&D did).
> 
> It might not have been worthwhile to try to house-rule AD&D into the game you wanted. I cannot see myself trying to approximate the AD&D experience by modifying 4E (although others might give it a go). If one finds oneself often compelled to change a rules-set because one considers it "broken," then it may be that one is playing the wrong game.



Many of the people that I have played 1E AD&D with had oodles of house rules, from adding in mana, tweaking the magic items, removing racial limitations, changing multiclassing rules, mixing in Arduin Grimoire rules, changing monster stats, taking out weapon speed and weapon vs. armor class adjustments, weapon proficiencies, encumberance, how morale and "obedience" worked, etc...  Most had a LOT of house rules.

I don't remember one game that was played just by the 1E RAW.

Sometimes we would take the house rules to extremes, sometimes we would dial them back, but there were always house rules.



Mournblade94 said:


> I have been Dming since 1982, so I am behind you.  I never remember a single player feeling less effective because of their CLASS.  Maybe abilities, magic items, on occasion WIzard specialty class, but never due to class.  Oh yeah... It happened with one of my friends Billy Stacy for the 1st edition MONK.  Other than that, I have not experienced the compaint.



it wasn't so much class specifically, as it was a class choice compared to another player's class choice.  When one player was done with is single 2nd level spell, and had to throw a dagger (only to miss almost every time) the other player was gleefully pounding away or bonking with his mace or sneaking around hiding in shadows.  Even though the player acted like they didn't mind, just looking at their face while they had to play for 2 more hours ineffectively, wasn't very cool as a DM.  I used to fabricate situations to keep them engaged (which, according to the "Why the World Exists" sandbox guys is a big no-no.  Don't ever do anything that might alter the outcome of the game for the players!)




Mournblade94 said:


> I never let humans multiclass in the 1st edition, but I completely did away with level restriction.  I thought that attempt at balance was ridiculous.  With that said, I DM'd plenty of straight class fighters, and plenty of Fighter/Cleric/MagicUsers.  It depended on what the player wanted.  Most players had a concept in mind before they rolled up the characters (not saying that yours did not.)
> 
> I have never as a fighter felt less effective.  In fact I was often the party leader.  I am mostly speaking of 3rd edition, anyway not 1st edition though my statements apply to that as well.  I stopped playing 1st edition when 3rd edition was released because I liked the system better.



Fighters were great in 1E until they weren't nearly as powerful as the Magic User was at mid levels (10th or so)  Then it was a quick slide into being very substandard. 

OK, so one class is as good as or better than many other classes for the first 10 levels, but then is not nearly as effective afterwards.  ANother class is WAY underpowered at the lowest levels and then is almost godlike at higher levels compared to the other classes.  

I don't see the good in this.

I enjoyed 1E for many, many years.  But then, as I grew older, my tastes changed, my idea of what was enjoyable (simultaneously) for all players at the table changed and the number of house rules were feeling unwieldy.  It wasn't really even 1E anymore.



Mournblade94 said:


> The players I gamed with wanted balance with the opponents they would face.  I can't remember occasion when I got a player complaint about balance within classes.



As I said, it was more about how they compared to their fellow adventurers that mattered.  They didn't really know if they were balanced with the monsters or their opponents because so much of the game was hidden from players behind the screen in those early days.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

No, I am not at all surprised that WotC presents 4E as "better" than 3E; they've backed themselves into that corner by presenting it as a _replacement for_ 3E.

Chaosium had no need to present _Stormbringer_ as better than _RuneQuest_. It was possible (and indeed desirable from the business perspective) that people would be pleased to buy both, which indeed many did. The foreword to the 1993 _Elric!_ game noted that it is was not a rewrite of _Stormbringer_ but a new game, and that "information exists in [_Stormbringer_] and its supplements nowhere else available. Conversion of scenarios from it is mostly simple and quick; see pages 148-149."

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.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

oops


----------



## Branduil (Mar 17, 2009)

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


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 17, 2009)

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 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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. 



Ariosto said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2009)

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


----------



## Treebore (Mar 17, 2009)

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 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> 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.



catsclaw227 said:


> 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.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Rangers are no longer mystical, they are martial.




Interesting. In AD&D, Rangers were martial (only) until 8th level when they started getting a small number of druid and magic-user spells. I would keep this spirit by having a ranger take the Ritual Caster feat. 



> The wizard is nerfed, and the spells would not convert well




Yes. The Wizard is nerfed. Good.



> The fighter is pigeon holed into his defender role (Really?  Only Defender?  Since when?)




Fighter is a defender with parts of striker if they go 2-handed weapon and take the "lots of damage" exploits. They've never, ever been a leader or controller. The only area where I think they're weaker is as ranged combatants; most "fighter-archer" characters I would convert as straight rangers without difficulty.



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




Yes, the cleric is actually well-thought out rather than being Mr Healer. 

The Rogue... I fail to see how they've changed much since 3e. Sneaky and able to deal with traps? Check. Able to sneak attack? Check. Looks very much like a 3e rogue to me.



> 4e conversion is closer to homogenization.




There's a little truth in that as the number of options for certain characters have been reduced... although it becomes a lot less true once the expansion books are taken into account.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I have been Dming since 1982, so I am behind you.  I never remember a single player feeling less effective because of their CLASS.  Maybe abilities, magic items, on occasion WIzard specialty class, but never due to class.  Oh yeah... It happened with one of my friends Billy Stacy for the 1st edition MONK.  Other than that, I have not experienced the compaint.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?

Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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.



Then your experience is much different than mine.  Most of the gamers I know aren't internet gamers or forum readers.  Most are just guys and girls that play D&D and don't have the same level of fandom as a user that spends their time on D&D related boards.

And most of them like 4e D&D.  Sure, I know some that prefer older editions, but I would hardly say they are the majority.



Mournblade94 said:


> 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.



How do you define "simplified"?  I can still run a challenging and satisfying game in 4e, and rules allow for that.  Yes, the rules have streamlined some things and for some, well, that isn't what they wanted.  I can understand that.

I believe that they made some mechanics more elegant.  If by that definition, then yes they have been simplified.  If you mean "dumbed down", I respectfully disagree.




Mournblade94 said:


> 4e conversion is closer to homogenization.



Homogenization?  I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.  

homogeneity - the quality of being similar or comparable in kind or nature;
homogeneity - the quality of being of uniform throughout in composition or structure

The 4e classes are far from similar to each other. Even same roles within the same power source feel different.  Just ask a 4e Rogue player and a 4e Ranger player.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 17, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?
> 
> Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...




Well, that 15th level thief's multiclass equivalent is going to be more like a 11/11 thief/wizard (going by the 2e XP tables). He's got a x4 on his backstab instead of x5 of the single class, his thief skills are typically about 15-20 points lower, and has no armor options if he wants to be able to cast his spells. His hit points are lower. His saves are marginally better but that has more to do with thief saves being abysmal all through 1e/2e.
He's got a lot of potent choices but, like all multiclass characters, they're all filtered through a single character's actions.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 17, 2009)

kibbitz said:


> Your example is a tad confusing, since you seem to be talking about power selection rather than magic items, which is no different from casters picking out spells from their spell list. For the magic items being in the PHB, it makes me see it more as *improved* equipment now but I don't see how different it is in terms of access. The DM still controls access, about all you could say is that having in the PHB creates a sense of entitlement where the players could ask for specific equipment to fit their character concept. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you play.




It wasn't intended as indicating that I was attempting to tie magic items and powers together.  I was stating that those are two of the issues I have w/ 4e.  Magic items in the PHB lends a sense of entitlement to the players, that much is true - even if unintentional.  The difference is that in previous editions, players didn't even get to (unless they owned the DMG or the DM let them) read about the magic items - it was up to the DM or a module writer's whimsy as to what (if any magic items) they had access to.



ehren37 said:


> D&D has NEVER been low magic. Unless you ban spellcaster classes from the players, they use magic more than they poop. Player wizards make any game a "high magic" game IMO. D&D magic is almost always a safe, known commodity. Aside from a few spellls, there's little chance of magic backfiring as I would expect in a low magic world. Its always been a poor system for this type of play.




I dunno what pre-3e game you played in, but the DM had the ability to deny access to any and all magic items.  He had the ability to force the players to roll for their spells and you could have found a cool scroll in a dungeon and failed the check to learn or scribe it.  There was no implied message about what the DM had to let the players have for their PCs because none of the magic items were in the PHB. 




> That stuff should really be in a supplement, IMO. Not everyone wants their game to become Axis and Allies at 10th level, and it shouldnt be the default assumption. I actually picked up MMS for this reason, but the player that is interested int hat sort of thing handles it between sessions, because the other 4 are bored to tears with that sort of thing.




If you've never had the opportunity to engage in a political thriller type of adventure, you don't know what you are missing.  Sure, MMS:WE is a toolkit, but the PC/NPC interactions should be occurring in-game and, if done right, won't be boring to the other players.



ehren37 said:


> Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords.
> 
> And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played  cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.
> 
> Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...




And the problem with 4e is everything is so balanced, nothing distinguishes a fighter from a wizard.  They both have powers that they can use x/day or x/encounter.  The fighter does x damage - same as the wizard.  The only difference, it seems, is the name of the power being used.  

Yes, there were times where we didn't rest.  In cases where the DM wanted to create tension or a sense of urgency, wandering monster encounters ensured that there was no chance to rest.



ehren37 said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.




Whose opinion of a well-designed character?  I played a rogue-based twin knife wielder (and took some PrC levels).  Fit my character concept and did a decent amount of damage - but I wasn't trying for some stupid min-max munchkin.  It seems like the only thing you value is a munchkin who does ludicrous amounts of damage or who can't be hit by his opponents.  At that point, it becomes no fun for the other players as it becomes evident that the DM has to make an exception by having the baddies roll 20s to hit him or throw a way-overpowered creature into the mix.  



> 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.




Wrong.  Smart, focused players managed to survive without the use of magic - it all gets down to not having the wizard blow his load (of spells) all in the first two minutes (of the scene)...


----------



## MerricB (Mar 17, 2009)

3catcircus said:


> And the problem with 4e is everything is so balanced, nothing distinguishes a fighter from a wizard.  They both have powers that they can use x/day or x/encounter.  The fighter does x damage - same as the wizard.  The only difference, it seems, is the name of the power being used.




I'm sorry; this is just so ludicrously wrong I had to pull it out.

Have you actually _read_ or _played_ 4e? It sure looks like you haven't.

Could you please show me where in the 4e books the fighter can...

...cast a fireball with a 100 ft range that deals damage to everyone in a 35'x35' square.
...create a web with a 100 ft range that immobilizes everyone in a 25'x25' square.

It's like saying "the 1e magic-user can cast magic-missile. Magic missile deals damage. The 1e fighter swings a sword. The sword deals damage. Therefore the magic-user and fighter are the same."


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> 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.




In my experience, people who frequent message boards are the minority.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 big problem with converting from 3e to anything is the huge number of character options in 3e that other editions simply don't have.  How many classes are there?  How many PrCs?  Throw in multiclassing and there's too many possibilities to account for.

There's a certain amount of this trying to go from AD&D to 3e, too.  Multiclass characters were basically impossible to convert as-is and had to be morphed into some approximation.  A 6/6 F/MU in a mostly 7th level group became... what exactly in 3e?  Nothing approaching what the character was in AD&D.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 17, 2009)

Branduil said:


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



Because 4e has made fighting monsters more fun than pretending to be an elf.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 17, 2009)

Wow, it seems this turned into a "what i dont like about 4e thread." Who could have foreseen that?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 17, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Because 4e has made fighting monsters more fun than pretending to be an elf.




Glorious! Have some XP! 

I don't actually agree... well, I prefer pretending to be wizards than elves anyday... and I think 4e still has flaws with its combat... but it's a great comment that may actually be true for some people.

Cheers!


----------



## Branduil (Mar 17, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Because 4e has made fighting monsters more fun than pretending to be an elf.




Heh... is this the opposite of damning with faint praise? "Blessing with soft criticism"?


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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?




Conversion of modules is just as easy (if not easier) than it was before. Sure, you might run into a few issues with space, but NPC conversion? Please, it's 100 times easier, simply because the NPC's/Monsters only obey very few basic rules, and are not slaves to the HD/save/skill system.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 17, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Wow, it seems this turned into a "what i dont like about 4e thread." Who could have foreseen that?





I like 4E, its easier to convert to C&C than 3E is. Well, the modules are. So I like 4E modules, especially the Punjar modules by Goodman.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

Theoretically, easier conversion to C&C should also mean easier conversion to AD&D.

I should clarify that in the pre-3E context, I don't need familiarity with a particular edition. The rules are so similar that the differences between one and another are in my experience no more than the differences in house rules among campaigns using the same set as a basis.

More to the point, the actual data in a module can for the most part be used *directly*, with no actual "conversion" required.

Going backwards from 3E, I'll usually either swap in stats for kobolds or whatever from the "host" game or convert stats knowing, for instance, how AC works in 3E -- while ignoring the bulk of the "stat block" that is gibberish from a non-3E perspective. At higher levels, it becomes increasingly important to take some account of the 3E complications, and increasingly problematic to do so on a simple algorithmic basis.

I can see how the greater immediate utility of 4E stat blocks could ease the process. However, the simple resort of "swapping in" seems to me less likely to be so often satisfactory given the great variety among monsters of a given basic type. Also, instead of Hit Dice there are Hit Point listings that depart widely from expectations in the older games (but I wonder how well level corresponds).

I have not actually tried any 4E to AD&D conversions, but again my main point is how _relatively_ incomprehensible (or lacking, if going from pre-3E to 3E or 4E) a write-up for one is on a basis of familiarity only with the other.

Actual play in another edition introduces the host of differences that are the biggest selling point of new rule-books in the first place.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 17, 2009)

I've just looked at three pages of thinly veiled edition wars and some pretty snarky comments all round. Not very good going.

Either the thread gets back on track or it gets closed.

Thanks


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2009)

Even "on track" isn't the nicest place, since its kind of a flamewar for or against Heinsoo.

How about this: 

*It is the right and the duty and the job of a game designer to do things that this forum calls badwrongfunning people.* 

Any game designer that tried to make a game that was fun while simultaneously never communicating what he or she felt was NOT fun would, by definition, be a quisling and a failure.

And because every geek community is an echo of every other one, if you go into other genres and read fan discussion of design diaries, you see the same things you see in this thread.  Designers of popular games identifying what they felt were flaws in previous games of their own design or in genres they wrote.  Fans freaking out, and insisting that the items identified as flaws are actually good- they LIKE it if fighting games have at least one character that's too weak to use, because that gives them the pleasure of not picking it!  They LIKE it if a game that's theoretically pure strategy has a high APM tax expressed through click rate, because strategy games should be won through manual dexterity and physical endurance.  Etc.  And yet the designers ignore them, and change these features, and more often than not produce a better, more popular, more widely acclaimed product.

The only difference is that ENWorld is a forum that merges fans of many different RPGs, while most gaming forums tend to be game specific.  So ENWorld has adapted an ethic of non judgment.  Which works great when it comes to things like, "should a game detail every aspect of castle construction, or should it streamline it and make it take a few minutes at most, so that casual players can have an awesome castle without spending a lot of game time on the nuts and bolts?"  Because both sides have their advantages.

Unfortunately it means we have to take seriously arguments like, "I like it if my character is forced to be mechanically ineffective in comparison to other characters, because RPGs are open ended, and being screwed over by the game system encourages me think outside the box.  And my character has to be forced to suck, because I won't do it to myself voluntarily."  We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck."  

The benign turns into the controversial.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Even "on track" isn't the nicest place, since its kind of a flamewar for or against Heinsoo.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> ...




That's an interesting view, and I tend to you think you might be right.

Mustrum "Wonder how 3D Shooter forums would like my preference for round-based shooters?" Ridcully


----------



## Storminator (Mar 17, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Wow, it seems this turned into a "what i dont like about 4e thread." Who could have foreseen that?




Someone should have predicted this on page one...



PS


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 17, 2009)

> It is the right and the duty and the job of a game designer to do things that this forum calls badwrongfunning people.
> 
> Any game designer that tried to make a game that was fun while simultaneously never communicating what he or she felt was NOT fun would, by definition, be a quisling and a failure.




Not really. A game is designed to meet certain goals -- "fun" isn't really a good goal. It's nebulous and subjective and entirely marketing language; there's nothing concrete about "fun." You can't design a game to be "fun." You have to puzzle out what exact things people might really want out of the game. Those exact things you can talk about, without condemning other ways of playing.

It's easy to talk about individual goals without saying "doing it differently isn't any fun." You can say "We wanted to give the wizard something magical to do every round, because D&D is a game that magic plays an important part in" without saying "New people don't ever have fun in games where wizards run out of spells." The first is discussing the goals of the design, the second is BadWrongFun. I'm sure WotC KNOWS this. The designers all play other games that D&D can't hope to really do. Presumably, they have some fun doing so. 4e is not the only way to have fun playing a game, but it does (try to) meet certain goals. 

This isn't a flamewar against Heinsoo, it's an argument against "I know what's best for you and your game" condescension. Instead of telling me if I'm having fun or not, how about you tell me what ends you tried to accomplish with your design, and I'll tell *you* whether or not I want that in a game? 



> Unfortunately it means we have to take seriously arguments like, "I like it if my character is forced to be mechanically ineffective in comparison to other characters, because RPGs are open ended, and being screwed over by the game system encourages me think outside the box. And my character has to be forced to suck, because I won't do it to myself voluntarily." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck." We have to treat that as a playstyle difference, and act like Robert Heinsoo wasn't allowed to say "characters shouldn't be forced to suck."




Of course, that's not what anyone said. 

Presumably, WotC is designing their game for a wide audience -- at least as wide as ENWorld, possibly as wide as "anyone who thinks dragons are cool." Why should they take a position of judgment against what one group of D&D players finds or might find fun? 

They can talk about how their goals differ -- even WHY they differ, if you want -- but to argue that they are somehow inherently superior is goofy. And when someone says something as dumb as "No one has fun playing a wizard that runs out of spells," they entirely deserve to be called on their BS.

If that person were to say "We wanted wizards to always be able to do something magical, because magic has been important to D&D," then the fans could argue if magic had been important for them or not, but they wouldn't be able to say that the design was wrong. They might say that it didn't accomplish what they wanted, however, and that's a fairly useful conversation, because then we can discuss why that change might have been made, and how to change the dissenter's game to give them what they did want.

"You didn't have fun that way, anyway" is just shutting down conversation, as if there can be no argument, as if "Fun" is a trump card that wins all arguments and can silence all opposition.

"Oh, well, I guess if it's FUN, it has to be OK!'

That does not fly.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

~ I've made a general warning. Drop the arguments, or you'll get suspended - PS ~


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 17, 2009)

Kids these days. We were _glad_ to get a pointy stick *In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords*!


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?
> 
> Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...




Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.

Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Kids these days. We were _glad_ to get a pointy stick *In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords*!





HAH that was GOOD!  So true.

That was one of my favourite series ever.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Interesting. In AD&D, Rangers were martial (only) until 8th level when they started getting a small number of druid and magic-user spells. I would keep this spirit by having a ranger take the Ritual Caster feat.




Right.  But the class was built as a mystic class.  you were not mystic until 8th level or 7th in 3rd edition (I am mostly arguing pro 3rd edition here) but entering the class you knew there was a mystic component to it.  If anyone can take the ritual casting feat than it is not unique to the ranger.




MerricB said:


> Yes. The Wizard is nerfed. Good.




I don't see this as good, and I didn't always play the wizard, I favoured the ranger.  I could of dealt with a power down, but I think the balance actually shifted more to the martial classes. 



MerricB said:


> Fighter is a defender with parts of striker if they go 2-handed weapon and take the "lots of damage" exploits. They've never, ever been a leader or controller. The only area where I think they're weaker is as ranged combatants; most "fighter-archer" characters I would convert as straight rangers without difficulty.




I can deal with a fighter not being as good at ranged combat.  The leader role however, I saw more as a player role than a character role.  i often took on this 'leader' role, even as the wizard.  

if I had a heater shield and broadsword fighter I still could not convert them well.  There is difference between honest conversion, and redefining.  From 1st or 2nd edition to 3rd edition there was some redefining, just not as much as from any of these to 4e. 



MerricB said:


> Yes, the cleric is actually well-thought out rather than being Mr Healer.




I would have to agree with this statement, and the rogue did not change much as well.



MerricB said:


> There's a little truth in that as the number of options for certain characters have been reduced... although it becomes a lot less true once the expansion books are taken into account.




I did not like alot of the expansion books, so most of what I argue is with core in mind.  Pretty much I limited my campaigns to core, Forgotten Realms, and complete (class X) guides.  Incarnates, Monster characters, and Book of Nine swords I did not allow.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.
> 
> Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.




You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.

Still, that 11/12 gives up:
* 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill). 
* x4 instead of x5 backstab
* 1 potential hp/level (thief 1-6, thief/mage 2-5)
* Weaker save vs. Para/Pois/Death (10 vs. 11)
* Lower Thac0 (15 vs. 13)
* Ability to wear mundane armor (which was a wash, since not wearing armor raised certain thief skills and didn't stop you from using magical methods of AC improvement like spells of items). 

But gains
* 4 first, 4 second, 4 third, 3 fourth, and 3 fifth-level spells per day
* Access to wide variety of skill-boosting magic (invisibility, knock, spider climb), defensive magic (shield, armor, stoneskin) and offensive (magic missile, sleep, fireball) to boost, aid or augment skills.
* No penalty when using wizard scrolls (vs. 15% for a thief)
* Improved Saves vs. R/S/W (7 vs 8), Breath (11 vs. 13) and Spell (8 vs. 9).

Stays the same
* Petrify/Poly Save: (9)
* Thief Followers

Worth the Trade? Good. I'm glad we agree. There was no point to Single Class Thieves if multi-class options existed, and you don't need to be a min/maxer to know that 18 spells a day =/= 15% to all thief skills and an extra one dice on backstab.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Then your experience is much different than mine. Most of the gamers I know aren't internet gamers or forum readers. Most are just guys and girls that play D&D and don't have the same level of fandom as a user that spends their time on D&D related boards.




Fair enough. I only really started to pay attention to boards when 3rd edition was cancelled for 4e.



catsclaw227 said:


> And most of them like 4e D&D. Sure, I know some that prefer older editions, but I would hardly say they are the majority.




My experience is the opposite, even from the younger gamers in the group. The 4e is starting to bore them, and many of them are trying new systems. Specifically SAGA and M&M.



catsclaw227 said:


> How do you define "simplified"? I can still run a challenging and satisfying game in 4e, and rules allow for that. Yes, the rules have streamlined some things and for some, well, that isn't what they wanted. I can understand that.




I do not mean to say that adventures cannot be complex. I can make a complex adventure out of Marvel Superheroes TSR system.



catsclaw227 said:


> I believe that they made some mechanics more elegant. If by that definition, then yes they have been simplified. If you mean "dumbed down", I respectfully disagree.




There is probably no politically correct way to address this:

On the simulationist end it is not elegant. What you said above is how I honestly feel. To attract new gamers NOW however, things have to come very quick and very easy. If it so happens that method works for you that is fine.

Other editions were just as fun as this one, I just find these new definitions of fun from WOTC as off the mark. How could a product that was NOT fun have lasted from 1974-2008?



catsclaw227 said:


> Homogenization? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
> 
> homogeneity - the quality of being similar or comparable in kind or nature;
> homogeneity - the quality of being of uniform throughout in composition or structure
> ...




I see the classes, the tier levels, and the monsters as the same. I do not think there is ultimately that much difference between a rogue and a ranger. Ranger is more direct, but the rogue is sneakier. Tactics are different but output is still the same.

A fighter and a paladin... well good the fluff is different but they still rely on the aggro mechanic.

I am saying that 4e is a drastic enough change to make many people that were fine with 3rd edition and its easy mechanics, to see it as a different game altogether. In this area, the gamers I talk to seem to agree.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 17, 2009)

Darnmod warning...I had some good snark...(KM a better DM then JoT, really?...you can still get your ass hammered by kobolds in 4E, try it some time..ok, ok, I'll stop)

Anyways...I have met Rob once, great guy, and this interview is totally him. I love the opening quote: "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules." And I agree with pretty much everything, though I did find some of the dropped alternatives intriguing. I am still not convinced that they couldn't have pooled powers a little more or allowed some sharing across classes. But that is a detail.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 17, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.
> 
> Still, that 11/12 gives up:
> * 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill).
> ...




Thanks for the post, but I never even argued for or against this.  I said I never kept racial level caps in first edition D&D and someone decided to extrapolate this too, me thinking there was no benefit to multiclassing.  The thief comment was made by someone misunderstanding what I was saying.  Apparently though the post I addressed that in was deleted.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 17, 2009)

ariosto said:


> kids these days. We were _glad_ to get a pointy stick *in the dungeons of the slave lords*!




rofl

EDIT: I think that was a classic dungeon.  A question: How well does that dungeon convert to 3.5E?  To 4E?  Also: How would you map skill challenges onto this dungeon?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 17, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> rofl
> 
> EDIT: I think that was a classic dungeon.  A question: How well does that dungeon convert to 3.5E?  To 4E?




It is a classic dungeon. Converted to 3e, it works just fine. I tried it on my players and it played very much like 1e when it debuted. 
One difference was in dealing with spellcasters. Because there are some spellcasters who don't need to sleep to regain casting ability and some arcane casters who don't need spellbooks, I had to come up with a different way to gimp their spells. Fortunately, 3e had the perfect solution: ability damage. 
I had the captured spellcasters kept in a largly drugged state that inflicted Int, Wis, and Cha damage. They had recovered enough to have 11 in their prime casting stat and so had 0th and 1st level spells available. And they had the potential to find a scroll of lesser restoration to get one caster up to better power later on.
The mod played out like a dream.

For what it's worth, I don't see it playing out at all the same with 4e. Too much is inherent, usable with any weapon (including a fist), and available no matter what shape the PC is in. The whole module would require substantial conceptual rebuild.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2009)

billd91 said:


> For what it's worth, I don't see it playing out at all the same with 4e. Too much is inherent, usable with any weapon (including a fist), and available no matter what shape the PC is in. The whole module would require substantial conceptual rebuild.



The difference between using, say, a 3[w] attack with a +3 fullblade vs a fist is pretty damn dramatic.  Like -6 to hit, -12 damage dramatic, without getting into bonuses from feats.

The issue (as with your 3e version) is spellcasters, who don't really need anything except LOS to use most of their abilities.  The lack of their implement would hurt, but not nearly as much as weapon users would be penalized.


----------



## gribble (Mar 17, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> I actually like the concept of healing surges, if not the execution. In 3rd edition, Wands of cure light wounds are so cheap that out of combat healing may as well be free past 5th level or so.



Don't get me wrong, I agree 100%. I didn't like the fact that in 3e, once the party got access to wands of cure light wounds they basically always had full HP.

My point was in regards to the 10 minute adventuring day. A big deal was made about how 4e "solved" this problem, but IME it has only made it worse. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I do wish people who should know better (like Rob) would stop trumpeting this point. 

My experience has been that for anything other than very low level play (levels 1-4), the adventuring day in 4e is a lot shorter than it ever was in 3e.

I think the best solution I've seen to this problem so far has been in Trailblazer. It's a good compromise between the 4e and 3e system, IMO.


----------



## gribble (Mar 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> This is the case for us, but we still go 4-6 encounters. Maybe the DM is throwing too many "hard" encounters and not enough "easy" and "normal" ones?



We're running through the WotC adventures at the moment - almost finished P2. Now WotC isn't really great shakes when it comes to fun and interesting adventures, but one thing they do manage to do fairly well is designing challenging yet balanced encounters. So I find it hard to believe it's a problem with the encounter design.

Things hit new heights of absurdity with this weeks game. After one encounter (I won't say which, for sake of spoilers, but it involved wights), our parties defenders were both out of healing surges. So after one encounter, and with the majority of our dailies still in hand, we had to stop for the day.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 19, 2009)

MerricB said:


> I'm sorry; this is just so ludicrously wrong I had to pull it out.
> 
> Have you actually _read_ or _played_ 4e? It sure looks like you haven't.
> 
> ...




You are missing my point.  In 1e, the magic-user was the only class that _could_ cast magic missile.  Magic missile clearly worked differently than a fighter swinging a sword.  The M-U just had to have the spell memorized.  The fighter had to hit before any damage was dealt.

I've played 4e and found it to be mind-numbingly dull.  What every class can do with its powers reads like a copy of every other class.

Let's look at the four core classes from 4e:

Cleric:  Priest's Shield and Righteous Brand both do 1[W] + Str damage.  Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame both do damage (1d8, 1d6) + Wis modifier.

Fighter:  Cleave does 1[W] + Str, as does Reaping Strike.  Pretty much all of the fighter's powers do some multiple of x[W] damage.  Looks pretty similar to Priest's Shield and Righteous Brand.

Rogue:  Yep, they do x[W] damage, but with a Dex bonus instead of strength

Wizard:  Gee - they do d[x] + Int damage on most of their spells, just like many of the Cleric's powers except with an Int bonus instead of Wis.

The _only_ differences between the classes seems to be the secondary effects of each power and what attribute to use for bonus damage.  

Because they've made great pains to "balance" every class against every other class, they are all, to me, equally boring.  

1e/2e/BECMI/OD&D were quirky with seemingly arbitrary reasons for the differences in the way that each class executed their abilities, but those differences are the reason why it wasn't boring.

To express it a different way, would you want a pilot to operate a 737 or Airbus the same way he would an F-16?  After all, the airline pilot should have as much fun as the fighter pilot, right?  Different objectives, different ways of doing things - to the point that sometimes it makes no sense to have both of them operate exactly the same.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 19, 2009)

I think I've made it amply clear that (at least in "D&D" terms) I do not share Rob's design goals.

However, I am pretty impressed by how well he and the rest of the team designed the game to accomplish those goals.

I strongly suspect that if such issues as the "short adventuring day" are still significant, then that is probably due more to the assumptions and habitual strategies of players than to rigid game-mechanical factors.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 19, 2009)

3catcircus said:


> You are missing my point.  In 1e, the magic-user was the only class that _could_ cast magic missile.  Magic missile clearly worked differently than a fighter swinging a sword.  The M-U just had to have the spell memorized.  The fighter had to hit before any damage was dealt.



I think you are mistaking similarity in resolution mechanic for similarity in effect. A 1e fighter swinging a sword and a 1e magic-user casting _magic missile_ had different resolution mechanics, but they had essentially the same effect: damage is dealt.

4e attack powers may have similar resolution mechanics and may all deal similar amounts of damage, but their effects can be quite different.

Cleric at-will attacks help an ally in addition to dealing damage, by providing an attack bonus, an AC bonus, temporary hit points or a saving throw.

Fighter at-will attacks push opponents around, deal damage to a secondary opponent, or deal damage even on a miss.

Rogue at-will attacks allow the rogue to move before attacking, ignore the opponent's armor, and retaliate against an opponent's attack.

In addition to the iconic _magic missile_, wizard at-will attacks target multiple opponents, slow them, or temporarily create hazardous areas which will damage those who enter them.

Yes, all of these attacks can be used at will, they all require an attack roll, and they all deal damage. However, saying that they are all the same is like saying that since two people are both sitting at computers and typing on keyboards to produce words on screen, the contents of their posts must be the same.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 19, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I've just looked at three pages of thinly veiled edition wars and some pretty snarky comments all round. Not very good going.
> 
> Either the thread gets back on track or it gets closed.
> 
> Thanks



Closed it goes.


----------

