WotC have got to be kidding me...


4th Edition

351 to 400 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I'm very much a 'say yes' brand of DM, but I think there are still plenty of times when it will be appropriate to say 'no'. In one of my last 3.5 game, I ran an oriental adventures themed setting. One player at one part wanted to play an ancestral spirit, and it fit well in the campaign, so they got to bring in an aasimar paladin with some special rules. Another character became a tiefling as they sacrifically allowed themselved to be tainted by dark magics to save others.

But if a character wanted to play an orc or goblin - creatures that, in the setting, were irredeemably evil creatures of the Shadowlands - the answer would have been 'No'. Now, if they had wanted to play some evil Oni trickster spirit that infiltrated the group in disguise - that could work.

See, this is what I would have termed a "Yes, but..." situation. If the PC expresses an interest in playing a monstrous race, the infiltrating trickster monster is a perfect way to make that happen (although it does raise concerns of party conflict, which can cause serious problems for your group). I would have no problem allowing them to use the mechanics of Monster Race X and reflavoring to be a trickster oni, or what have you. Rokugani oni come in so many flavors that you don't stand much of a chance of breaking suspension of disbelief with this, either.


Strange....I always wonder why people think WOTC has an aggressive publishing schedule.

Have people forgotten how much STUFF TSR used to pump out?

A poster on enworld actually put it into a graphical format...

Graph of published D&D material

WOTC is on the LOW end of producing material for D&D. They put out one book a month and an adventure about once every 2 months.

To me, that doesn't seem aggressive especially compared to the heyday of TSR in 2e when you literally had a new product every WEEK...

Liberty's Edge

When io comes to new material I have laways felt free to say yes and no depending if I want it in my game. A DM has enough to worry about,. He/She is under no obligation to allow anything and everything from a new book. When you join a game you agree to what the DM allows or disallows. Saying "well you should find a way to work it in" is not a valid line of reasoning for me. I have allowed stuff from newer books and disallowed stuff from them too. Being a DM means sometimes saying no. Even if it makesa player unhappy. That is one of the reasons of being a DM in the first place. To make sure the players have fun yet at the same time make the tough decisions when you need to. Otherwise if you just allow everything your players starting thinking your a pushover and will try to force everything they want on you. I have seen too many good games go under and DM give up ever running something because they were not able to say no.


Isolated the Graph Bleaches mentions (i.e. a direct link)

graph of D&D products by year

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

That chart is amazing. For three years in the early 90's it looks like TSR was releasing a D&D boxed set every month!

To the point of "allowing a player to enjoy the game on his terms" or "making the player happy": if that were one of our goals, no PC would ever die. (Well, exceptions being made for players who deliberately sacrifice their characters.)

My introduction to RPGs happened when I was a freshman in college. There was a gathering of a bunch of gamers in a dorm lounge, and all the referees who were looking for players took a turn explaining their campaigns. I think that initial exposure has colored my perceptions. I see a GM as someone offering a product, and the players choosing whether or not to devote time and energy into the campaign. Convention program books have only reinforced this paradigm over the years.

I suppose that if I began D&D with a bunch of people who were already my friends, I would have formed an attitude closer to "the DM is first among equals". But I didn't.


memorax wrote:

When io comes to new material I have laways felt free to say yes and no depending if I want it in my game. A DM has enough to worry about,. He/She is under no obligation to allow anything and everything from a new book. When you join a game you agree to what the DM allows or disallows. Saying "well you should find a way to work it in" is not a valid line of reasoning for me. I have allowed stuff from newer books and disallowed stuff from them too. Being a DM means sometimes saying no. Even if it makesa player unhappy. That is one of the reasons of being a DM in the first place. To make sure the players have fun yet at the same time make the tough decisions when you need to. Otherwise if you just allow everything your players starting thinking your a pushover and will try to force everything they want on you. I have seen too many good games go under and DM give up ever running something because they were not able to say no.

This seems to argue that the DM has to say no or he becomes a pushover. The link is tenuous at best. Sure there are DMs that are so desperate to keep their players happy that they'll agree to anything but that is really a completely separate issue - such DMs routinely pile magic items on their players far beyond the rules as well desperately trying to appease them. This whole line of reasoning essentially hearkens to the problems of a DM with no real power - an interesting issue to be sure but not the topic at hand except in the most peripheral way.


memorax wrote:

When io comes to new material I have laways felt free to say yes and no depending if I want it in my game. A DM has enough to worry about,. He/She is under no obligation to allow anything and everything from a new book. When you join a game you agree to what the DM allows or disallows. Saying "well you should find a way to work it in" is not a valid line of reasoning for me. I have allowed stuff from newer books and disallowed stuff from them too. Being a DM means sometimes saying no. Even if it makesa player unhappy. That is one of the reasons of being a DM in the first place. To make sure the players have fun yet at the same time make the tough decisions when you need to. Otherwise if you just allow everything your players starting thinking your a pushover and will try to force everything they want on you. I have seen too many good games go under and DM give up ever running something because they were not able to say no.

I've never felt like a pushover DM, ever, and I make a pretty regular habit of saying "Yes." This leads me to believe that there isn't actually a connection between saying "No," and keeping your game intact. A DM is not a drill sergeant. He is not a company boss. He is a guy playing a game just like everyone else at the table, except that instead of controlling a character he controls the environment and determines the basic outline of the story.

Lines like "Being a DM means sometimes saying no, even if it makes a player unhappy," make DMs sound like embattled parents rather than people playing a game with friends.


Chris Mortika wrote:

That chart is amazing. For three years in the early 90's it looks like TSR was releasing a D&D boxed set every month!

Yeah, it is pretty cool (thanks Jeremy for isolating the graph). Echohawk on the thread has other graps and one of them includes first-run (no reprints and or collector sets) NOVELS as well.

Not only did TSR release roughly 80 RPG products in 95, they released 40!!! First run novels as well.

Now THAT, that's an aggressive release schedule. You literally have to buy/read 10 products (novels and RPGs) per month to keep pace.

WOTC (and Paizo for that matter) are so far away from that type of schedule that any argument about "saturation/over-producing" needs to put into context.


Tharen the Damned wrote:
onesickgnome wrote:
Playing an RPG is about being the Hero, good or bad. And so to be a hero we need rule sets that reflect that.

I see playing an RPG is about becoming a hero.

And that is a big difference to playing a hero. But YMMV

onesickgnome wrote:
Why play Nug the Cobbler when you could step into the role of Lancelot, or Hurcules?

Because it is cool to start out as a cobbler advance against all odds to become a hero. Neither lancelot nor Hercules have any personality that I find remotely interesting. They are strong, brave intelligent etc. the only flaw I know of is that Lance has the hots for his King's wife. I find this boring. On the other Hand, plying a young cobbler who takes up hi grandfathers sword with dreams of becoming a knight one day. Now, that is something I can relate to.

onesickgnome wrote:
If you want to play a character as Mundane as Nug, than so be it just dont cry to me when Smuag eats your shoe cobbling arse.

And who was the one who got in and out of this Dragon's lair? A Superhero? Nope, a fat, middleaged Hobbit.

Also if you take a look at the Warhammer FRPG, you will see that it is indeed mostly cobblers, ratcatchers and roadwardens who adventure and save the day. Not Knights in shining armor.
So there are RPGs out there who still do the "normal guy becomes a hero" approach.

All find and dandy but the momment Nug stops cobbling to kill a dragon he is no longer a Cobbler. He is now a adventurer. It changes a person, just like it Changes a fat middle aged hobbit.

No one would sit around a table rolling crafting checks for three hours to make shoes.

Eric

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


I've never felt like a pushover DM, ever, and I make a pretty regular habit of saying "Yes." This leads me to believe that there isn't actually a connection between saying "No," and keeping your game intact.

An I am not saying that saying yes makes yourself or anyone a pushover DM. Just that one has to be careful to how often one says it otherwise the players expect it too often. Depending on who you play with and how firm a DM is willing to be it can lead to a game falling apart. When you allow everything wheter it fits into a game world or not can lead to the DM runninng out of ideas on how to challenge a party. or having trouble fitting something in. It's better off to refuse something then allow it and then take it away. It amkes matter worse. Maybe I have been in a few bad games but I have seen it happen before.

Scott Betts wrote:


A DM is not a drill sergeant. He is not a company boss. He is a guy playing a game just like everyone else at the table, except that instead of controlling a character he controls the environment and determines the basic outline of the story.

He is not all of the above. He is someone who has to run the game, make the game world, make sure it runs smoothly and have to decide what is allowed or disallowed. Sometimes he has to make the tough decisions. Such as disallowing something. Asking a player to no longer come to the game. Or if the player is behaving badly to ask him to behave. Or do you all have the equivalent of saints as players in your games.

Scott Betts wrote:


Lines like "Being a DM means sometimes saying no, even if it makes a player unhappy," make DMs sound like embattled parents rather than people playing a game with friends.

Depnding on how players act and behave sometimes they are. What do you think players do not want the best of everything when they join a game or during game. Of course they do. You job to have to tell them no and yes to what you allow. You must have the world best players then Do they not act up. Behave badly. More power to you if you have never had problem players. Being a DM is not all fun and games a some in this thread make it out to be.

In the end I am not saying a DM has to be a tyrant with an iron fist. Neither does he have smile and just agree to everything either. A combination of both is needed. Too controlling and players stop showing and you have no game. To lenient and the players do not take you seriously expect you to give them everythig.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

onesickgnome wrote:

All find and dandy but the momment Nug stops cobbling to kill a dragon he is no longer a Cobbler. He is now a adventurer. It changes a person, just like it Changes a fat middle aged hobbit.

No one would sit around a table rolling crafting checks for three hours to make shoes.

No, he's a cobbler on an adventure. Most characters in WFRP who survive the early days will move on from their initial, mundane professions to take actual adventuring professions. Think of it as like 3e prestige classes, only all of the classes are like that and the prereqs are low.


Scott Betts wrote:
See, this is what I would have termed a "Yes, but..." situation. If the PC expresses an interest in playing a monstrous race, the infiltrating trickster monster is a perfect way to make that happen (although it does raise concerns of party conflict, which can cause serious problems for your group). I would have no problem allowing them to use the mechanics of Monster Race X and reflavoring to be a trickster oni, or what have you. Rokugani oni come in so many flavors that you don't stand much of a chance of breaking suspension of disbelief with this, either.

Sure, but if a player wants to play an Orc Barbarian, letting them play a Trickster Oni is no more a compromise than letting tham play a Human Wizard - they are completely different character concepts. My point was mainly that while yes, you can compromise to allow for unusual characters, there tends to be limits on that. If the player just wants a nonhuman character, that is something that could be figured out - but if someone is set on an Orc Barbarian, that just isn't going to be an option.

You could, perhaps, work something out via reflavoring. And I do appreciate the use of reflavoring in many areas. But once you are completely rewriting races and classes, and essentially tossing out the underlying assumptions of the rules themselves... well, it isn't necessarily a bad approach, and I think anyone who wants to use such a style can certainly do so. But I don't think anyone should be required to do so, either. And while a DM should work with a player to make sure they are happy with their character, a player's enjoyment of the game shouldn't be limited to a single character option, regardless of how that option impacts the DMs own enjoyment of the game.


Chris Mortika wrote:
To the point of "allowing a player to enjoy the game on his terms" or "making the player happy": if that were one of our goals, no PC would ever die. (Well, exceptions being made for players who deliberately sacrifice their characters.)

Interestingly, a friend of mine is running a game using a system that has very swingy mechanics - and, hence, death can happen very easily. He has a standing policy that it is up to the player whether they actually die, though - if they feel it would be a stupid death, they are just knocked out. If they feel it is appropriate, they die. Thus far, several players have refused to accept ignoble deaths, some have accepted ones that occured in key battles - and some of them also willingly charged into certain plot death when it was appropriate, and then made new characters.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


Lines like "Being a DM means sometimes saying no, even if it makes a player unhappy," make DMs sound like embattled parents rather than people playing a game with friends.

While it is true that no DM should have to feel like some parental figure over, your players alternatively shouldn't have to act like children. A game where both the player and the GM understand that each has a desire for the game world and can be committed to fulfilling the game desires of each means that the player and DM both can understand a "yes" or "no" answer to any subject matter than arises and enjoy the game still.

A game that is played where one or the other cannot still enjoy the game as a result isn't a game that I would like to play in. I've played in games like this, as I said in posts above, we do not play with those kinds of GM or Players anymore.

If instead you are playing with a group of just children, I can understand the "Yes always" mentality. Many adult groups, however, have an idea of the fantasy setting they are playing in and can accomodate each other with yes or no answers.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


"No, you can't do this because it doesn't fit in my world," is almost always a poor solution. Make it fit.

I guess I should use an example. In 3.5e along comes one of my players wanting to play a Forsaken from the World of Warcraft RPG book. I read the book that night and next session came back with a "no". To insert into a blank area of my campaign world free-willed "good" undead PC's just wasn't possible or desired. You jokingly mentioned mecha-robots (or something close) wasn't going to be an issue, yet some 3-party company may do this (or the equivalent) - if so would you still be "yes, but.."?

The issue I have is that even with current 4e rules you can end up with a party that just doesn't fit race-wise. Goblins, Drow, Minotaurs all a massive headache to try to shoe-horn into a "points of light" style campaign. Previously Drizzit was a freak of Drow nature, now it appears there are only about 4 actual evil Drow left in the Underdark - the rest have discovered 2-Scimitars and Goodness!

I think "Yes, but..." and "No, but..." are equally important for the running of a game. Both have "but" (meaning the DM/Player will discuss the matter) but doesn't immediately predispose that the DM will be the one doing all the compromising.

S.


A Man In Black wrote:
onesickgnome wrote:

All find and dandy but the momment Nug stops cobbling to kill a dragon he is no longer a Cobbler. He is now a adventurer. It changes a person, just like it Changes a fat middle aged hobbit.

No one would sit around a table rolling crafting checks for three hours to make shoes.

No, he's a cobbler on an adventure. Most characters in WFRP who survive the early days will move on from their initial, mundane professions to take actual adventuring professions. Think of it as like 3e prestige classes, only all of the classes are like that and the prereqs are low.

And I agree, I love the WFRP system. But those base roles in WFRP never gain any experiance or develop further if they never adventure. I remeber loving the role of Ratcatcher I stayed in that role far pass its prime, didnt care had to much fun playing Garick the Rat Slayer.

I despise Nurgle.......

Eric


i don't understand why anyone would think that too many books is a bad thing. those that are filled with cool stuff will sell, those that aren't will fail. i bought tons of books for 3 and 3.5, and will for pathfinder. i like the no holds barred- come one come all third party invitation. i would also like to know if the diesel powered book hauler comes with the 20 sided fuzzy dice option.

Liberty's Edge

onesickgnome wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
onesickgnome wrote:

All find and dandy but the momment Nug stops cobbling to kill a dragon he is no longer a Cobbler. He is now a adventurer. It changes a person, just like it Changes a fat middle aged hobbit.

No one would sit around a table rolling crafting checks for three hours to make shoes.

No, he's a cobbler on an adventure. Most characters in WFRP who survive the early days will move on from their initial, mundane professions to take actual adventuring professions. Think of it as like 3e prestige classes, only all of the classes are like that and the prereqs are low.

And I agree, I love the WFRP system. But those base roles in WFRP never gain any experiance or develop further if they never adventure. I remeber loving the role of Ratcatcher I stayed in that role far pass its prime, didnt care had to much fun playing Garick the Rat Slayer.

I despise Nurgle.......

Eric

WHFRP, now there is a game opposite D&D. Heroes lose bits (like hands) and catch diseases. The second edition WHFRP did also have "book bloat", but I would rate the content a lot higher than WotC material. BUT WotC is looking at a completely different audience so not really comparable. WHFRP also has a very well developed world - in fact I suggest the most in depth fantasy world currently still "in play".

I liked the first edition best for WHFRP, too many darn spell casters in the 2nd edition.

S.

Liberty's Edge

Rhubarb wrote:
i don't understand why anyone would think that too many books is a bad thing. those that are filled with cool stuff will sell, those that aren't will fail.

Its when they've exhausted all of the ideas that are good early on and begin to dump crud onto the market that everyone will begin agreeing that those books are now filled with failures. Ideas may be new or exciting, but rarely are they both.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Planar travel can bite me. In 24 years of DMing I have never inflicted planar travel on PC's. Sigil can take itself off and have itself shot IMHO. Planar travel for me is right up there with the "Holodeck" in that shockingly appalling of a show they called Star Trek - The Next Generation. "Right, the story's buggered. What we need is an out for this dumb-arsed plot." Enter the Holodeck..

Wasn't the holodeck a creation of the old animated Star Trek with Kirk and that cat chick?

Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Planar travel can bite me. In 24 years of DMing I have never inflicted planar travel on PC's. Sigil can take itself off and have itself shot IMHO. Planar travel for me is right up there with the "Holodeck" in that shockingly appalling of a show they called Star Trek - The Next Generation. "Right, the story's buggered. What we need is an out for this dumb-arsed plot." Enter the Holodeck..
Wasn't the holodeck a creation of the old animated Star Trek with Kirk and that cat chick?

Actually I believe it was the the brain child of some cheap writers and some even cheaper vodka. However please treat what I just said as hearsay.

Thanks,
S.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Studpuffin wrote:
Its when they've exhausted all of the ideas that are good early on and begin to dump crud onto the market that everyone will begin agreeing that those books are now filled with failures. Ideas may be new or exciting, but rarely are they both.

That isn't "dumping" or "bloat", that's creative exhaustion. And you don't even see a consistent decline in book quality with WotC; contrast Defenders of the Faith, Complete Divine, and Complete Champion.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:


That isn't "dumping" or "bloat", that's creative exhaustion. And you don't even see a consistent decline in book quality with WotC; contrast Defenders of the Faith, Complete Divine, and Complete Champion.

Really contrast them? Well that's hard to do in the case of Defenders of the Faith and Complete Divine, as the latter is really just a rehash of the former updated to 3.5 standard...

I'll agree with you on Complete Champion, it did read as if someone mentally exhausted had written it. >:P Just kidding.

I didn't call it bloat though, that's not at all what I thought it was. Complete Champion seemed like a perfectly valid attempt, but the designers found themselves out of good ideas that hadn't been already explored in other sources. Its the perfect example of what I was talking about, actually. Scoundrel and Mage were okay, but Champion really did seem like all the good ideas had disappeared.

I'm actually of the opinion that many of the later books like the Fiendish Codex(es) were pretty neat. In no way shape or form do I call this bloat. Its exactly that, exhaustion of mass quantities of new and good ideas. It inevitably happens, as we're all only human.


Studpuffin wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


That isn't "dumping" or "bloat", that's creative exhaustion. And you don't even see a consistent decline in book quality with WotC; contrast Defenders of the Faith, Complete Divine, and Complete Champion.

Really contrast them? Well that's hard to do in the case of Defenders of the Faith and Complete Divine, as the latter is really just a rehash of the former updated to 3.5 standard...

I'll agree with you on Complete Champion, it did read as if someone mentally exhausted had written it. >:P Just kidding.

I didn't call it bloat though, that's not at all what I thought it was. Complete Champion seemed like a perfectly valid attempt, but the designers found themselves out of good ideas that hadn't been already explored in other sources. Its the perfect example of what I was talking about, actually. Scoundrel and Mage were okay, but Champion really did seem like all the good ideas had disappeared.

I'm actually of the opinion that many of the later books like the Fiendish Codex(es) were pretty neat. In no way shape or form do I call this bloat. Its exactly that, exhaustion of mass quantities of new and good ideas. It inevitably happens, as we're all only human.

I have to wonder if much of the problem is more on the consumer side then the producer side. For me it began to really stop mattering how good the product was - I had had enough and was no longer buying 'game enhancers'. I did however keep up with some of the fluff. Both Fiendish Codex's were awesome but I'd had it up to 'here' with the new classes and feats - more feats were already in play then we could reasonably track (our compiled and condensed feat list ran more then 30 pages) and it basically did not matter how awesome a new class was - even without the books it was perfectly clear that it would take upwards of two centuries to play all the interesting ideas already in play so new ideas just did not matter at this point.

Essentially I think I was vetoing new material because new material would add work (add them to the feat list, add characters class options and races to the world etc.) while the benefits of even more options on top of the overabundance already on offer approached zero - even my players were not interested as it would just mean more stuff they'd have to keep track of.

As an analogy imagine an all you can eat buffet that stretches down a road full of awesomely tasty things to eat. Presume that everyone always starts in a line on the same side. Now I can make my customers very happy if I keep adding things to the other end of this buffet - up to a point. Once the buffet stretches for more then a mile I get almost no value out of adding more awesomely tasty things to the end of the buffet - no one ever gets to the end because they all eat their fill on the way.

Now I think the DDI will be much loved by WotC in this regard because it allows them to stretch the line further - everything is well organized so new options add less work to the gaming group making their inclusion seem less of a nuisance and the focused aim of the books means that they will probably appeal to their target audience longer (I'd bet that Magic Item Compendium was one of their better selling late books). How much further they can stretch things remains to be seen.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
stuff

Very well put.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Essentially I think I was vetoing new material because new material would add work

This problem seems to arise with my group consistently, regardless of GM/DM. As new material is put out, our GMs do not tend to keep up with it. One guy in our group has a rule that if he doesn't own the book, that nothing from those books can be used (lucky for us he doesn't GM much).

I won't allow some players to take Leadership in some campaigns just because of the amount of work they'd like to do conflicts with the amount of time I have available to work with them. The more work I have to do with new mechanics, the less time I have to build an enjoyable game with the maybe ten hours a week I have to devote to game building.

It was nice to keep up with the fluff, but that is the other end of the GMing spectrum of things to learn. Sometimes having a fluff munchkin at the table is worse than having a mechanics munchkin. As a GM I don't really care if <Raistlin, Drizzt, Mordenkainen, Elminster, Lord Robilar, insert random high level NPC> isn't true to character in the books that I haven't had time to read. They're not the point of the adventure, my player's characters are. If said player wants to play as one of them, well, we'll see.

As for your analogy of buffet, there is really only so much you can digest before you have to leave the line and be sated with what you have. How many things will you have passed up because they didn't look good either, or didn't look fresh enough? Really it pays to take some time and look for what you want in a given book before you purchase it. I've left many a book on the shelf because it wasn't what I wanted. As a consumer I was still ready to purchase the books coming out, but refused to buy the ones that I didn't think would be used at the gaming table ever. Unfortunately for me, I still purchased some books that have never been used at the table (Dungeonscape, Cityscape, and Libris Mortis have yet to be used and they were full of neat things).


Its odd that folks are debating Wotc in this way....they are the same company that created "bloat" for 3.5. Who's to say they won't do it again...seems the patern is that as an edition winds down more bloat is created...maybe to build revenue for a new edition?

Its so odd that folks debate what Wotc did during 3.5 and what they are doing now....Same Company owned by the same folks....

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Indeed, onesickgnome.

Any economic model for a game company requires a regular infusion of money. Where does this money come from?

One of the goals of the BECMI edition of D&D was to grow the market and reach younger and younger gamers. New customers = new cash. I don't see Wizards coming out with an EZ-Play, kid's version of the game, or trying to crack any other new customer base.

So, the company needs to persuade you that you're not yet having enough fun with the game, that if you buy this new thing here, your game will be much better.

One model is to get just DMs to buy new stuff, by publishing a lot of adventures and DM-tool sets. This would seem to be Paizo's strategy, up until the Pathfinder rule-set release.

Another model is to get all the players to buy new stuff. What kind of new stuff do you want to see? New campaign settings? New toys (items, powers, paths) for characters? (Which I guess is what people are calling "rules bloat".)


Chris Mortika wrote:


One of the goals of the BECMI edition of D&D was to grow the market and reach younger and younger gamers. New customers = new cash. I don't see Wizards coming out with an EZ-Play, kid's version of the game, or trying to crack any other new customer base.

Not sure what has or has not been done in this regards but it strikes me as not being that tough to do. The why the characters actually run is pretty straight forward and with everything your character can really do being on the power cards its pretty easy to run the character in a kind of basic mode.

The complexity is really in the skill system, the conditions, and stuff your character can do that is not part of the power system like flanking (combat advantage) or cover rules.

I don't believe that WotC will ever make a full fledged stripped down version of the game because that would divide their market. It is, however probably quite possible to take the system and mak a product that starts off by giving out classes and races that don't have any complex parts to the character at hand - run a few encounters and then very deliberately introduce complexity a bit at a time. So none of the initial monsters have any condition type powers and no skills are needed initially. After three or so encounters like that design a all new encounters to show off new material - do it so that each encounter shows off one or two new ideas and reinforces one or two introduced ideas that was seen in a previous encounter.

In other words I think they could do a kind of 'introductory' adventure path specifically created so as to ease new players into the game. Include lots of side bars etc. in the product for the DM to explain what each encounter is going to introduce and fill it with page references so that if the DM is new as well they will be told up front what rules they need to have read up on to run the encounter. Here I assume that the fledgling DM understands that part of his/her job will be to do lots of reading before each game session.

That said such a carefully created product might well be a good idea in the abstract but I have to wonder if it really sells well enough to justify its existence. Quite possibly demoing Dungeon Delves at any kind of public event that will take them is actually a better way of 'spreading the word' then making a product designed for new players.

This is especially so because I personally am about to bring in some new players but have no intention really of using this sort of method - I just figure I'll play the game with them - explain things as I go along and they'll pick it up after the same sorts of things happen over and over again. I'll start their characters off with a stash of extra healing potions - that'll help keep them alive during the period of the game were they constantly forget to do things like flank and routinely make the worst possible choice (i.e I'll start the game off rigged, obscenely so, in their favour).


HHHHMMMMM

It seems like the OGL did more to "Spilt" the gamer base than any other marketing ploy used under the D&D flagship.

It has emboldened the "Old School" movement by making it "legal" to produce 1e material (OSRIC) and even created a way for folks to go even more "Old School" with games like Labryith Lord.

Paizo has used the OGL to continue producing material for 3.5, and seems to be building a small following of third party publishers.

It would seem the King (AKA D&D) has given up his throne for Democracy and Capitalism.....

I wonder what the far reaching long term effects the OGL will have on the Gaming world....

Eric

Liberty's Edge

onesickgnome wrote:

Its odd that folks are debating Wotc in this way....they are the same company that created "bloat" for 3.5. Who's to say they won't do it again...seems the patern is that as an edition winds down more bloat is created...maybe to build revenue for a new edition?

Its so odd that folks debate what Wotc did during 3.5 and what they are doing now....Same Company owned by the same folks....

Oh WotC are certainly doing this again, not with splat books this time but rather with "core books". BUT and it's a big butt, WotC came up with the DDI Character Gen and Compendium this effectively makes book-bloat have little or no effect on the game. No hunting rulebooks with was the bane of 3.5e. The Character Gen simply allows the DM to say sub-set X or Y for source material and away the PC's go. So strangely enough I'm less concerned about book-bloat in 4e than I am about book-bloat in say Pathfinder. As for 3.5e well it just became a joke. Hearsay but someone posted about 3,500 feats available spread over a universe of books. Like anything when information becomes too large of a volume unless it is databased it becomes next to useless.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
onesickgnome wrote:

Its odd that folks are debating Wotc in this way....they are the same company that created "bloat" for 3.5. Who's to say they won't do it again...seems the patern is that as an edition winds down more bloat is created...maybe to build revenue for a new edition?

Its so odd that folks debate what Wotc did during 3.5 and what they are doing now....Same Company owned by the same folks....

Oh WotC are certainly doing this again, not with splat books this time but rather with "core books". BUT and it's a big butt, WotC came up with the DDI Character Gen and Compendium this effectively makes book-bloat have little or no effect on the game. No hunting rulebooks with was the bane of 3.5e. The Character Gen simply allows the DM to say sub-set X or Y for source material and away the PC's go. So strangely enough I'm less concerned about book-bloat in 4e than I am about book-bloat in say Pathfinder. As for 3.5e well it just became a joke. Hearsay but someone posted about 3,500 feats available spread over a universe of books. Like anything when information becomes too large of a volume unless it is databased it becomes next to useless.

S.

It would seem I have got to get that DDI thing...

But even with it 3500 feats wouldn't be desired by me. That many feats can lead to unforeseen issues of balance and how they interact with each other. Still to my mind 3.5's greatest issue was quality, some of those books just didn't have the quality of others. I am not experinced enough with 4e to render an informed opnion on their quality.

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:

It would seem I have got to get that DDI thing...

But even with it 3500 feats wouldn't be desired by me. That many feats can lead to unforeseen issues of balance and how they interact with each other. Still to my mind 3.5's greatest issue was quality, some of those books just didn't have the quality of others. I am not experinced enough with 4e to render an informed opnion on their quality.

Now I'm not a 4e "fanboy", but DDI has it at least got me playing 4e and not complaining the sky is falling since 3.5e was stopped. It is well worth the money - considering ONE account will do your entire gaming group - and is less than the cost of a single trip to Mac'ers each for a years subscription!

I agree completely that 3.5e died the death of thousand feats, er I mean cuts and that some were deeper than others. 3.5e "needed" Pathfinder to happen. WotC in some ways should be thanked for shooting the HUGE white elephant standing in the corner and giving the excellent Paizo writers a crack at fixing it. All WotC were doing was breaking it further with each "addition".

4e as I think was covered somewhere is a "buy the books you like" (actually none required unless you are DM) and get a DDI subscription for the group sort of game. The character gen makes DMing and keeping control of your game easy (yes easy to say no...). We have a DM who says hard covered books IN print only. A few little check boxes later and the software makes sure our characters conform to this AND prints out everything we need to play our character - all that's left is adding in the imagination.

Happy gaming,
S.


Thurgon wrote:


It would seem I have got to get that DDI thing...

But even with it 3500 feats wouldn't be desired by me. That many feats can lead to unforeseen issues of balance and how they interact with each other. Still to my mind 3.5's greatest issue was quality, some of those books just didn't have the quality of others. I am not experinced enough with 4e to render an informed opnion on their quality.

The play balance aspect probably won't be too big an issue - WotC just put out a huge eratta about three weeks ago and some very large percentage of the changes were for play balance reasons. Thy have been extremely good at going back and nerfing (or occasionally boosting) things that seem to potent or are simply to potent if combo's in a certain way. All errata fixes apply to the DDI which means the next time the players print out their character sheets (usually every level) the fixes will take effect.

With you I do have a concern - the changes you need to make are about staying true to a low magic environment. I've not really fiddled with the DDI (I'm a player at the moment and am one of the people who just goes and borrows one of my friends accounts when I want to update my character) but you don't really want to outlaw specific books or Dragon Magazines or what not - you want to outlaw magic orientated feats and powers and whole classes - I'm not sure how time consuming doing that is but for you it may be quite the large job. That said you can probably get most of the way there by simply telling your players that certain keywords are off limits - magic abilities pretty much always come with a keyword associated with them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Stefan Hill wrote:


Now I'm not a 4e "fanboy", but DDI has it at least got me playing 4e and not complaining the sky is falling since 3.5e was stopped. It is well worth the money - considering ONE account will do your entire gaming group - and is less than the cost of a single trip to Mac'ers each for a years subscription!

I'd be more thrilled with how awesome the DDI has made playing 4E if it was Macintosh compatible. And yes, I know the arguements, blah, I knew what I was getting into when I went Mac, blah, I should get a virtual machine, mustn't grumble.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this no Mac thing is the source of the alienation I still feel from 4E, despite being in a rather enjoyable Sunday game every week.

Liberty's Edge

Drakli wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


Now I'm not a 4e "fanboy", but DDI has it at least got me playing 4e and not complaining the sky is falling since 3.5e was stopped. It is well worth the money - considering ONE account will do your entire gaming group - and is less than the cost of a single trip to Mac'ers each for a years subscription!

I'd be more thrilled with how awesome the DDI has made playing 4E if it was Macintosh compatible. And yes, I know the arguements, blah, I knew what I was getting into when I went Mac, blah, I should get a virtual machine, mustn't grumble.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this no Mac thing is the source of the alienation I still feel from 4E, despite being in a rather enjoyable Sunday game every week.

Oh I think WotC should make a MAC and Linux version of their wonderful software. It's not like the software appears to be hugely advanced making use of multiple high end graphics cards and 9.1 sound. I guess we keep pressuring them and seeing if they will do such a thing. Of course the Linux community will be up in arms about it not being open source - but frankly screw them, sometimes if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Simple.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Drakli wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


Now I'm not a 4e "fanboy", but DDI has it at least got me playing 4e and not complaining the sky is falling since 3.5e was stopped. It is well worth the money - considering ONE account will do your entire gaming group - and is less than the cost of a single trip to Mac'ers each for a years subscription!

I'd be more thrilled with how awesome the DDI has made playing 4E if it was Macintosh compatible. And yes, I know the arguements, blah, I knew what I was getting into when I went Mac, blah, I should get a virtual machine, mustn't grumble.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this no Mac thing is the source of the alienation I still feel from 4E, despite being in a rather enjoyable Sunday game every week.

Oh I think WotC should make a MAC and Linux version of their wonderful software. It's not like the software appears to be hugely advanced making use of multiple high end graphics cards and 9.1 sound. I guess we keep pressuring them and seeing if they will do such a thing. Of course the Linux community will be up in arms about it not being open source - but frankly screw them, sometimes if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Simple.

S.

I'm not sure that continued pressure will do it. From a business perspective, they would need assurances that the additional DDI subscriptions they'd receive from adding Mac support would justify the expense of porting the program suite over to a Mac-supported language. No one really knows how many people who are not currently subscribed would choose to subscribe were Macs supported. Given that it is very possible to run the programs on a Mac emulating Windows, they would need some significant assurances that putting in the time to make the suite Mac-compatible would be worth it.


I'm a mac user, but have a DDI subscription, and still haven't bothered to buy Parallels or any other emulator, so that's one mac user who is already paying for a subscription (just not getting the full benefit).

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


I'm not sure that continued pressure will do it. From a business perspective, they would need assurances that the additional DDI subscriptions they'd receive from adding Mac support would justify the expense of porting the program suite over to a Mac-supported language. No one really knows how many people who are not currently subscribed would choose to subscribe were Macs supported. Given that it is very possible to run the programs on a Mac emulating Windows, they would need some significant assurances that putting in the time to make the suite Mac-compatible would be worth it.

Making the huge assumption that WotC isn't about to go toes up and is actually making money, such a port could be seen as a good will gesture rather than only a bottom line dollar decision. Mac do sell well to the education sector (including students) and as it has been previously shown that RPG players are more likely to be from such a background it would seem not too an alien of an idea. Linux of course is the play thing of the geek, likewise is D&D. You are course correct it will cost money and perhaps the returns don't justify the attempt.

S.


Drakli wrote:


And yes, I know the arguements, blah, I knew what I was getting into when I went Mac, blah, I should get a virtual machine, mustn't grumble.

Well, it's not like Mac doesn't support MOST of the software out there. This is a niche software in a niche area..

I have tried Windows emulators, but my Mac is quite old and it runs rather slow and clunky... so I went ahead and ordered a really cheap laptop instead.. so DDI actually got me to buy a PC.. if my players don't wanna play 4th ed now, I'd better find myself some other players.... ;)


Stefan Hill wrote:
Drakli wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


Now I'm not a 4e "fanboy", but DDI has it at least got me playing 4e and not complaining the sky is falling since 3.5e was stopped. It is well worth the money - considering ONE account will do your entire gaming group - and is less than the cost of a single trip to Mac'ers each for a years subscription!

I'd be more thrilled with how awesome the DDI has made playing 4E if it was Macintosh compatible. And yes, I know the arguements, blah, I knew what I was getting into when I went Mac, blah, I should get a virtual machine, mustn't grumble.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this no Mac thing is the source of the alienation I still feel from 4E, despite being in a rather enjoyable Sunday game every week.

Oh I think WotC should make a MAC and Linux version of their wonderful software. It's not like the software appears to be hugely advanced making use of multiple high end graphics cards and 9.1 sound. I guess we keep pressuring them and seeing if they will do such a thing. Of course the Linux community will be up in arms about it not being open source - but frankly screw them, sometimes if you want something nice you have to pay for it. Simple.

S.

Thanks for that, as a Linux user. Just a slight correction, 'open source' doesn't necessarily mean 'free' in terms of price, it means free in terms of being able to alter and examine the code as a user of the software and do with it whatever you want. Many Linux software packages do cost a pretty penny.

Silver Crusade

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I'm a mac user, but have a DDI subscription, and still haven't bothered to buy Parallels or any other emulator, so that's one mac user who is already paying for a subscription (just not getting the full benefit).

Buying the emulator is one thing, and if that's all I had to do, I would have done it by now.

Buying Windows is the part the rubs me the wrong way. And when you add the two together, that's a good $200 worth of additional software, minimum.

Like you, though, I am enabling WotC's Windows-only platform by carrying a subscription anyway.

One of these days I'll suck it up and buy the software. Anyone know a cheaper way to buy Windows than just getting the cheapest version of Windows 7 off their website?


part of me has been tempted to get a cheaper PC just so I can run some of that software.


Stefan Hill wrote:


Making the huge assumption that WotC isn't about to go toes up and is actually making money, such a port could be seen as a good will gesture rather than only a bottom line dollar decision. Mac do sell well to the education sector (including students) and as it has been previously shown that RPG players are more likely to be from such a background it would seem not too an alien of an idea. Linux of course is the play thing of the geek, likewise is D&D. You are course correct it will cost money and perhaps the returns don't justify the attempt.

S.

The problem is that the same thing that makes it possibly not a very good investment from a money perspective also makes it not a very good plan for a good will gesture. Save the Mac Users is really not as compelling as Save the Wales. The majority of their users will just shrug while a small minority will be happy - but if the numbers are small enough WotC lost money in any case. If your going to blow mony on good will gestures you want to do stuff that most of your costumer base will think is good and will associate. So D&D product gets sent gratis to the Middle East fairly often because WotC wants that 'supporting our troops' image with the rest of teh customer base.

The problem with Mac users is that 'everyone knows' that they are artsy farsty red wine swilling guys who speak with a faux French accent they picked up during a summer trip to Montreal - who'd want to protect that?


Callum Finlayson wrote:

And next to the Book o' Tieflings is:

*snip*

The single redeeming feature of that description is that they didn't misspell the word "cool".

*blink* *blink*

Ok, I actually checked the site and read the book's description, and I still refuse to believe that you're not joking. I'm going to sit here and just imagine that you hacked the Wizards site after making your post here.

It's just better that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I did take a test drive of a Windows-program-run-on-a-Mac product, CrossOver I think it was. I used it to try and download and run the D&D Character Builder Demo, but it failed because I didn't have Microsoft X or somesuch other program. Kind of a frustrating false start.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


The play balance aspect probably won't be too big an issue - WotC just put out a huge eratta about three weeks ago and some very large percentage of the changes were for play balance reasons. Thy have been extremely good at going back and nerfing (or occasionally boosting) things that seem to potent or are simply to potent if combo's in a certain way. All errata fixes apply to the DDI which means the next time the players print out their character sheets (usually every level) the fixes will take effect.

See that is where the DDI helps me in places the books couldn't. I rarely go out to their website to look up eratta, rarely. So I can easily miss rebalance issues they fix with it. But the DDI you say will include this errata and therefore help me keep it all of decent quality. Like I said I really liked 3.5, but the splat storm and the vastly different power of certain books made it tough to allow splat in without lots of time on the DMs part to make sure whatever a player wants doesn't break his game. If the DDI helps 4e and the DM avoid that issue then I really must say I like that. It helps then if a player goes and buys a book I haven't seen well it's all in the DDI and any balance changes needed are there as well.

Silly question but has anyone heard anything about WotC re-releasing previous editions in any format? I recall when they pulled the PDF there was talk about them looking for a more secure method to re-release that stuff. Have they made any progress, are they even saying anything about it? Mostly I just want more 1e stuff so I can stop using my 30 year old books, they really wont last forever with constant use though they have lasted 30 years, well not the UA that book has to be the worst binding ever. I have two copies one mostly disintigrated and the other in an air tight plasitc bag....


Celestial Healer wrote:


One of these days I'll suck it up and buy the software. Anyone know a cheaper way to buy Windows than just getting the cheapest version of Windows 7 off their website?

Yes, you do not need windows 7 and DEFINITELY do not need to pay 'full price' for it. I am running 7 on my main machine but have xp running on my Macbook Pro in bootcamp. If you know someone with a .edu email address (or are that someone) http://www.win741.com/ You can get 7 Home Premium for 30$ as a download that you burn. They seem to realize that students are likely to not be concerned about copyright restrictions, or have 200$ to spend. I know there are non-student deals below 100$ or there were when I last looked.

And of course there are all kinds of thing available on the internet, some unsafe and of dubious legality/morality but I doubt you needed me to tell you that.


Thurgon wrote:


See that is where the DDI helps me in places the books couldn't. I rarely go out to their website to look up eratta, rarely. So I can easily miss rebalance issues they fix with it. But the DDI you say will include this errata and therefore help me keep it all of decent quality.

Precisely. The last few times they have put up errata they have updated the DDI at the same time. Now that does not necessarily every thing you feel is unbalanced will be fixed as play balance is a bit subjective and I suspect that they are still working on a policy of 'when in doubt don't do errata' but for those things everyone seems to agree are unbalanced there is errata and it does appear on the DDI.

Thurgon wrote:


Like I said I really liked 3.5, but the splat storm and the vastly different power of certain books made it tough to allow splat in without lots of time on the DMs part to make sure whatever a player wants doesn't break his game. If the DDI helps 4e and the DM avoid that issue then I really must say I like that. It helps then if a player goes and buys a book I haven't seen well it's all in the DDI and any balance changes needed are there as well.

Silly question but has anyone heard anything about WotC re-releasing previous editions in any format? I recall when they pulled the PDF there was talk about them looking for a more secure method to re-release that stuff. Have they made any progress, are they even saying anything about it? Mostly I just want more 1e stuff so I can stop using my 30 year old books, they really wont last forever with constant use though they have lasted 30 years, well not the UA that book has to be the worst binding ever. I have two copies one mostly disintigrated and the other in an air tight plasitc bag....

They have not said anything...don't hold your breath. I suspect that this is so far down the priority list that it'll never actually happen.


I'll add my two cents here. I don't mind that WotC is putting out some splat books for the different races. Here's why:
A) new books on the shelves mean more visibility, more things for shoppers to flip through
B) new books means new options, which with 4E even if I don't buy them but I do have a DDI subscription, my character builder will give them to me as options
C) new books means more revenue without which WotC produces no books at all
D) new books give opportunities for new writers and artists to get their work out there

That said, given my budget, my current lack of a 4E game and the mountain of products of all editions I have at the moment, I probably won't be picking these up - but I have no problem with others doing so.

L

351 to 400 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / WotC have got to be kidding me... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.