The Gaming Den

Note: the interview in question is here.

ScottS wrote:Obviously he had an interest in hyping the product, but my main beefs with the guy are a) he shilled 4e in exactly the same passive-aggressive way as the rest of the team (e.g. counting arrows in your quiver is "tedious", but having every action in the game be based on exception-based status-effect-and-bonus-humping spellcasting is somehow liberating...), and b) he claimed that 4e was going to cure even more cancer by smuggling in some unspecified "indie-style" game mechanics (which I guess was supposed to mean the skill system, because leaving game functions poorly-defined so that players can word-associate off of the skill names and thereby BS using their cheesed-out skills as much as possible, is friggin' awesome state-of-the-art RPG gameplay...)

Yeah, the passive aggressive hyping of 4e was offensive. I don't know who decided that the way to get people to jump on the 4e band wagon was to attack 3e players, but everyone who talked about their work on 4e (including the shills who claimed to be playtesters but who were actually contributors - that was even more fucked up) basically stayed on message. And that message was insulting and fucked up. I have no idea who to blame for it. Might not even be a designer, but some set of talking points handed down from above.

Heinsoo is almost certainly responsible for the catastrophail that was the Minion rules. Because he did something almost exactly the same for Feng Shui, where it is a really cool and functional mechanic. But that is because Feng Shui basically has two levels of character in a standard fight: named characters and mooks. You aren't expected to really "level up" in that game, so there's never the cognitive dissonance of a monster being powerful or minionish from the perspective of different characters in supposedly the same world. So the fact that mooks always go down in one hit isn't a problem, because their power relative to the characters doesn't really change. With D&D's level system, and 4th edition's emphasis on DOT accounting, Minions going down in one hit was fucking stupid. But we can probably blame Heinsoo for the idea. And it was probably the big indie game idea he brought to the table (considering that he had already made it for an actual indie game).

The thing I think is really interesting about that particular interview is how much of the 4e methodology he wasn't signing up for in it. Slavicsek was going off about his inspiration that monsters didn't even fucking exist except during a couple of rounds of combat and didn't need to integrate with the world or have any story abilities. Mike Mearls was flipping around about how player characters didn't need to function like things in the world because they were special snowflakes. And Rob Heinsoo was saying:

Rob Heinsoo wrote:World of Warcraft doesn’t let you change the world you’re interacting with, nor does it let your DM craft their own game world and set stories in motion. D&D characters always seem much more like real people than WoW characters, and you’re likely to remember them as such.

Considering that and how the other designers complained that Rob Heinsoo was scaling damage up too much (the compromise release had damage scale too slowly), I actually would be interested in what 4e would have been like if Rob Heinsoo hadn't had to work with Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Bill Slavicsek, and James Wyatt. It almost certainly would have been a better game.

-Username17

And that message was insulting and fucked up. I have no idea who to blame for it. Might not even be a designer, but some set of talking points handed down from above.

IIRC, the guy in charge of marketing for 4e committed suicide soon after the release, so one might suggest he directed an insulting and fucked up campaign because he was already deeply depressed and felt alienated toward gamers.

Or maybe that was just a stupid rumour I fell for, who knows.

Considering that and how the other designers complained that Rob Heinsoo was scaling damage up too much (the compromise release had damage scale too slowly), I actually would be interested in what 4e would have been like if Rob Heinsoo hadn't had to work with Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Bill Slavicsek, and James Wyatt. It almost certainly would have been a better game.

D&D4e with higher damage, lower hit points, no skill challenges, and powers with explicit out-of-combat benefits?

tussock wrote:

And that message was insulting and fucked up. I have no idea who to blame for it. Might not even be a designer, but some set of talking points handed down from above.

IIRC, the guy in charge of marketing for 4e committed suicide soon after the release, so one might suggest he directed an insulting and fucked up campaign because he was already deeply depressed and felt alienated toward gamers.

Or maybe that was just a stupid rumour I fell for, who knows.

I think you're referring to Joseph Batten, which yeah, actually happened. It was a marital thing, and he successfully went after his wife first (boy, didn't this conversation just get depressing fast). I don't know what he actually did at WOTC, but I'm pretty sure he was in charge of the DDI fiasco.

Ah, apologies, the Gleemax abortion happened through the same time as the 4e promotion materials went live and I had them falsely joined in memory.

He was just writing their fancy new web portal, Gleemax, and integrating DDI and their MMOs into it. Or he was, until they promoted him out of the way and junked the whole project. Then, that.

Still, DDI's done well since then, for them, as a way to get people to pay a monthly fee for the books they already bought, and killing a perfectly successful magazine business and the SRD to "destroy Paizo". Wait, enough sadness.

tussock wrote:Still, DDI's done well since then, for them, as a way to get people to pay a monthly fee for the books they already bought, and killing a perfectly successful magazine business and the SRD to "destroy Paizo". Wait, enough sadness.

I think DDI has been successful because there's so much errata in 4e, most of it inane, that it's neigh impossible to be playing the same game as everyone else at the table without it.

DSMatticus wrote:

tussock wrote:IIRC, the guy in charge of marketing for 4e committed suicide soon after the release, so one might suggest he directed an insulting and fucked up campaign because he was already deeply depressed and felt alienated toward gamers.

Or maybe that was just a stupid rumour I fell for, who knows.

I think you're referring to Joseph Batten, which yeah, actually happened. It was a marital thing, and he successfully went after his wife first (boy, didn't this conversation just get depressing fast). I don't know what he actually did at WOTC, but I'm pretty sure he was in charge of the DDI fiasco.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... de01m.html

Yikes.

OgreBattle wrote: D&D4e with higher damage, lower hit points, no skill challenges, and powers with explicit out-of-combat benefits?

That's 3e on a good day.

tussock wrote:

And that message was insulting and fucked up. I have no idea who to blame for it. Might not even be a designer, but some set of talking points handed down from above.

IIRC, the guy in charge of marketing for 4e committed suicide soon after the release, so one might suggest he directed an insulting and fucked up campaign because he was already deeply depressed and felt alienated toward gamers.

Or maybe that was just a stupid rumour I fell for, who knows.

the guy in charge of GLEEMAX! under Randy Beuhler committed murder-suicide with his estranged wife (from Microsoft Games) shortly after it went live and everyone ont he forums tore GLEEMAX! a new asshole for being stupid thinking it was going to be the FACEBOOK, or MYSPACE for gamers..cause yeah other companies are going to want to jump on the HASBRO website with their products to give HASBRO more traffic...

whether the two are related or how much is something else.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rp ... icide.html

Previn wrote:I think DDI has been successful because there's so much errata in 4e, most of it inane, that it's neigh impossible to be playing the same game as everyone else at the table without it.

DDI was successful (or at least within 4E D&D's paradigm) even before the huge errata onslaught. No matter how you slice it, a lot of people just don't like the process of building a character. I've tried to do it since using DDI for a couple of 3E games and it's a pain in the ass once you've had something that catalogs a bunch of feats and powers, tells you where they came from, and will even calculate most of the numbers for you within a reasonable degree of precision.

DSMatticus wrote:

tussock wrote:

And that message was insulting and fucked up. I have no idea who to blame for it. Might not even be a designer, but some set of talking points handed down from above.

IIRC, the guy in charge of marketing for 4e committed suicide soon after the release, so one might suggest he directed an insulting and fucked up campaign because he was already deeply depressed and felt alienated toward gamers.

Or maybe that was just a stupid rumour I fell for, who knows.

I think you're referring to Joseph Batten, which yeah, actually happened. It was a marital thing, and he successfully went after his wife first (boy, didn't this conversation just get depressing fast). I don't know what he actually did at WOTC, but I'm pretty sure he was in charge of the DDI fiasco.

murder-suicide? wow. : (

Schwarzkopf wrote:murder-suicide? wow. : (

Joseph Batten, a senior project manager at Wizards of the Coast, killed his wife Melissa with a gun on July 28th, and then turned the gun on himself.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... 6/?pg=last

Gamer_Zer0 Jul 28, 2008 - 10:45AM wrote:Wizards of the Coast today announced the decision to discontinue its Gleemax social networking site in order to focus on digital initiatives for core brands Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons.

Gleemax Farewell

By Randy Buehler

The mistake that I made, however, was in trying to push us too far too fast. I still think the vision for Gleemax is awesome: creating a place on the web where hobby gamers (or lifestyle gamers or thinking gamers, or whatever you want to call us) can gather to talk about games, play games, and find people to play games with. But I’ve come to realize that the vision was too ambitious.

yeah i think Randy pushed someone a bit hard eh?

Mask_De_H wrote:Are Tweet and Heinsoo two of the competent (or at least not incompetent) 3.X designers?

There's also Penny Williams, who was one of the better editors they had. Even though we're hating on Monte Cook quite a bit, we're hating him in the same way that people hated on Gene Roddenberry for TNG. Rich Baker and David Noonan don't completely fail at life, because their names were on some of the better D&D/d20 Modern books. Not that it's a particularly large hurdle to clear for the latter.

shadzar wrote:

Schwarzkopf wrote:murder-suicide? wow. : (

Joseph Batten, a senior project manager at Wizards of the Coast, killed his wife Melissa with a gun on July 28th, and then turned the gun on himself.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... 6/?pg=last

Gamer_Zer0 Jul 28, 2008 - 10:45AM wrote:Wizards of the Coast today announced the decision to discontinue its Gleemax social networking site in order to focus on digital initiatives for core brands Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons.

Gleemax Farewell

By Randy Buehler

The mistake that I made, however, was in trying to push us too far too fast. I still think the vision for Gleemax is awesome: creating a place on the web where hobby gamers (or lifestyle gamers or thinking gamers, or whatever you want to call us) can gather to talk about games, play games, and find people to play games with. But I’ve come to realize that the vision was too ambitious.

yeah i think Randy pushed someone a bit hard eh?

Shadzar, the only reason I'm the only one who's going to point out the sheer tastelessness of making a bad pun about a tragedy that cost two people their lives is that I'm one of the few who hasn't blocked you. You really don't need to crack wise about that, it helps nothing and just results in less people reading your garbage.

I don't think discussing other people's suicides and murders is that classy, really - especially in the context of "Oh, so he was that kind of nuts, no wonder the game sucked". We should aim to have more style than ENWorld, surely.

Bihlbo wrote:Shadzar, the only reason I'm the only one who's going to point out the sheer tastelessness of making a bad pun about a tragedy that cost two people their lives is that I'm one of the few who hasn't blocked you. You really don't need to crack wise about that, it helps nothing and just results in less people reading your garbage.

there was no pun. you fail to realize that John was the person directly under Randy designing gleemax, and follow through randy's old blogs to see what was going on, and it wasnt long after the incident that randy and Mike Lescault (gamer_zero) left WotC with the next round of lay-offs.

the point of the quotes it to show that that morning the tragedy happened, and that later that day GLEEMAX! was cancelled.

the info was given for Schwarz to see here and follow the links that hadnt yet been fully given.

Randy refused to listen to the people that GLEEMAX! wasnt wanted and thought he knew best. so the earlier mention is to let people draw their own conclusions to why GLEEMAX! was ended, and again i provided original info with original dates on the matter, for people to draw their own conclussions.

i have no fucking clue where you got a pun from, since Randy was dogging them as was mentioned somewhere to rush GLEEMAX! out, as his OWN farewell notice states.

John wasnt without fault obviously, but Randy had a part to play in the tragedy as well.

so do what stupid like you does and infer things not present in a post as your irk is want to do, but you best keep your fucking mouth shut with stupid shit and false accusations on matters of these in the fucking fucking.

my post has two things, facts and sadness expressed. if this werent the internet i would have dragegd you fucking outside and beat the living fuck out of you for your insinuation that i was even making a fucking pun on anything!

shadzar wrote:yeah i think Randy pushed someone a bit hard eh?

shadzar wrote:John wasnt without fault obviously, but Randy had a part to play in the tragedy as well.

Wait the fuck a minute .... so, if I snap and go bat-shit fucking crazy, you're saying that I can (at least in part) blame it on my boss for making me meet tough deadlines? Are you fucking kidding me?!

just ..... FUCKITY-FUCK-FUCK!!!

Koumei wrote:I don't think discussing other people's suicides and murders is that classy, really - especially in the context of "Oh, so he was that kind of nuts, no wonder the game sucked". We should aim to have more style than ENWorld, surely.

I agree. This is completely unacceptable to discuss.

Mike Mearls hates roles, but puts them all over D&D.

I was forced to vote against WoTC including advice in their books, because their advice is universally stupid and terrible.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Mike Mearls hates roles, but puts them all over D&D.

I was forced to vote against WoTC including advice in their books, because their advice is universally stupid and terrible.

(Is the mutually assured threadshitting over? I hope so.)

If the game is built around universally stupid and terrible assumptions, having those assumptions out in the open is better than hiding them.

With regards to roles, "I have no use for roles. -- Mike Mearls" is a meaningless statement in a game that has (and will have) a class called FIGHTER that does nothing except FIGHTING.

hogarth wrote:

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Mike Mearls hates roles, but puts them all over D&D.

I was forced to vote against WoTC including advice in their books, because their advice is universally stupid and terrible.

(Is the mutually assured threadshitting over? I hope so.)

If the game is built around universally stupid and terrible assumptions, having those assumptions out in the open is better than hiding them.

With regards to roles, "I have no use for roles. -- Mike Mearls" is a meaningless statement in a game that has (and will have) a class called FIGHTER that does nothing except FIGHTING.

But that's not a role! After all, the Fighter can be a striker, a defender, or a controller. Fighting isn't a role, it's something everyone does! </mearls>

Mearls, paraphrased wrote:I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game.

...

You could argue that these rules skill challenges are doing their job if veteran DMs don't want or need to use them.

Really, he is flat out saying that noone using a part of the rules a while after the game has come out is a good thing. That the skill challenges work since everyone has already become good enough at DMing not to need the rules.

On the other hand, he does end with the idea that every class needs a short description of why the class is useful to have.

he is saying "roles" like leader should not be defined by the game, but the players. the players decide what part they play in the party, including the combats; not tha makers of the game.

the rest is humbled nonsense for:

2e DMG Foreward wrote:The rules are only guidelines.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

the thing with adventure design or rules itself will only lead to problems at the table, when this article is forgotten.

Player: but the game says to use an XP budget, you arent playing fair!
DM:

the PHBs and ALL player books, will need to state that the rules are only guidelines, and the DMs are the final arbiter of the rules, including how to interpret, and which ones to use.

only when players finally learn the DM makes the rules for your game, will people understand, otherwise mixed groups wont work together. the rules-lawyer problem will exist still, but now thanks to 3rd+ there are MANY more rules-lawyers that will prevent the "feel" of older edition play.

EDIT:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... /20070831a

Rob Heinsoo wrote:When Andy (Collins), James (Wyatt), and I put together the basic structure of 4th Edition, we started with the conviction that we would make sure every character class filled a crucial role in the player character group.

they already DID fill a role...the one they wanted the character to be...you just wanted to fill a combat role for the minis game that 4th edition i.. DDM 4th edition, NOT D&D 4th edition.

The worst is having 4e fans describe what roles are.

They just quote what designers wrote without understanding how it actually works.

I say, "What if I take option A instead of B, and do X in combat instead of Y, effectively changing my role in the party? All the powers do the same anyway"

The response is usually "you just don't understand/get it. Roles are defined by the class and you can't change it. The entire game is designed around combat roles."

@sigma: think Bruce is one of those fans you mention....

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... se_of_play

The great thing about 4th Edition is that the character choices provide players with several options.

yeah different words to write on a character sheet, if that is what you mean choices...after that everything is the same

The 3rd Edition rules, building on the concept of non-weapon proficiencies from 2nd Edition, introduced hard-coded options into every character class via skills.

hard coded isnt an option. learn the terminology you are using, better yet, learn the English language.

1st Edition characters used a core set of rules and a matrix for determining the success of attacks and saving throws, but for the most part, characters of one class didn’t necessarily access their abilities like characters of another class.

and that is what made classes distinct from each other.

With that brief overview in mind, now consider how many options a given class has when compared to the complexity of other classes within the same edition. In other words, compare the complexity of a fighter with a ranger or a wizard.

ok well a ranger is just a fighter played different. the named class ranger was never needed. so compare fighter and wizard? wizard of course is more complex because there are more laundry/grocery lists to deal with like spells. fighter jsut picks up nearby object and hits something with it in combat. both perform however the player wishes and with as much complexity as the player wishes outside of combat.

Ultimately, the philosophy on character complexity between older editions and 4E is starkly different—earlier editions gave some classes far fewer options than other classes.

and here we go with the bullshit from a small incompetent mind. you are talking about fake choices again, just the grocery list... these are NOT play options, but limits. for the most part it makes people not want to look outside the grocery list to impulse shop for an idea of something to do, or they feel like they cannot come up with something original to try or more exotic because everything seems to already be presented. these arent options.

you are talking about ONLY the character sheet, but fail to understand the complexity of a character comes form the player, not the grocery lists presented in the rules. the depth of the character is only limited by the depth of imagination of the player.

can a 1e fighter throw a table for an attack or for diplomacy? can a 4th? the answer is yes, yet neither have Table Throwing written anywhere in any sort of diplomatic rules. funny then how the character complexity is the same huh?

say what you mean...here i will fix it for you.

Ultimately, the philosophy on character sheet complexity

Which of these is most important to you? (Choose only one.)

really? a form with radio buttons that only allows ONE choice, and you are telling people to choose only one? do you think HTML4 doesnt have its rules that a browser must follow? oh BTW.. i can vote on ANY pole a million times if i choose, because I know how to get around the voting limits of the server...and your "Choose only one" doesnt in any way make me want to do it less. i just dont care too.

why the bit about the poll here as well? because these retards need to start learning the language they are using. they are incompetent about not only the game, but the web as well. i would hope the web design team has an editor and that includes not only code, but the test also like the polls, but seems both design fields, web and game, are sorely lacking in understanding what they are doing.

when you talk of character complexity make sure you are talking about the correct thing.

those grocery lists of NWPs/skills/feats/powers/etc are not complex, they are easy. what they are is complications.

simple <> complex

picking from the lists is still simple.

easy <> complicated

picking from the lists makes it less easy to complete the task, since shorter time is easier, you have complicated the process with taking longer and adding MORE decisions. but the decisions are still a simple multiple choice pick X number of them.

while complexity means intricate or complicated, the process itself isnt complex as they are NOT always connected parts. feats dont always affect spells. saying they are connected via the clas itself is stupid.

dont avoid the connotations of complicated when that is what you mean. if the design can surpass the fear of the word complicated and the connotations it brings with it, then you have done the job right. if the word complicated becomes a barrier from entry to the character creation...them maybe it means you need to make the process more easy to complete. pick from a list, will always be simple, but so many lists makes it not so easy.

compare making B/X "fighter", 1e, 3.x, 4.x

the process gets more an more complicated.

and i just love the definitions of some words....such as these two that are dependent on each other...modern dictionary failure...

complicate wrote:Make (something) more difficult or confusing by causing it to be more complex.

complexity wrote:The state or quality of being intricate or complicated.

EDIT: oooh the poll does use the proper word....

I want some classes to be more complicated than others.

of course i voted: I want the same number of options for my character, no matter which class I play

but my options come from the player, not the rules. ergo i want to be able to decide myself how to play not be limited by a grocery list of false choices.