Here's a link to his latest Legends & Lore article. I want Bill Slavicsek back!
Hmm...This might be good news for Paizo, though.
Here's a link to his latest Legends & Lore article. I want Bill Slavicsek back!
Hmm...This might be good news for Paizo, though.
I see one issue that the idea of "rules module power units" or whatever you want to call them. It was mentioned that it'd be harder to write adventures and such as you have no idea what the baseline is. A poster responded it would be easy just by doing as they already do. They said (and I am heavily paraphrasing) "If your party is only 5th level take away a troll from encounter #3 but if 7th adda ghost. That becomes If your party is baseline+2 add a troll..." And I can see how if they are marganilized in a value system that could be done,and herein lies my problem,can you imagine the amount of playtesting needed to make that work? Think about this, you want to write for dungeon or your own 3rd party supplement (if you have those aspirations, I know alot of gamers who do) you already need to playtest all of your encounters so that they run well and are well put together. Now add in the need to test multiple versions of every encounter so you can be confident when you say "assuming X party configuration add Y to Z encounters". Otherwise it's a mess. Just my opinion... (Also I would hate to see that as a game, I mean a new one. Most "generic" games such as gurps, hero system, savage worlds, unisystem and the like do this already. If I want to play those I will. I play d&d for, well d&d.
I miss Heinsoo a lot more... on the upside, Richard Baker's got MM's old job, which I can only pray he'll have more influence over than Mike does now.
We can only hope.
I'll agree that it does not really sound very functional. Maybe they could implement it so that it works but I'm kind of doubtful.
Furthermore the gains in 'taking people off the treadmill' in terms of their increase in power does not really seem to actually apply. I mean saying 'if your players kick ass add two trolls' is just another way of getting things to stay on the treadmill...that treadmill is a good thing - its when the players break the treadmill that the real b%*@#ing and moaning begins.
In fact I think the whole idea of having a game system where DMs (hopefully with the players participation) start off by choosing which sets of rules are going to be in play is fundamentally flawed considering that we are currently using a far more elegant system. In effect at this point 4E has classes that range from the very basic to the quite complex. Furthermore those classes don't necessarily all adhere to the same class or role. Oh sure one could point out that there are no really simple magic wielders and there is something of a dearth of the truly complex classes but 4E is very modular and designing more complex or more basic classes is quite possible.
Ultimately if we are going to choose between catering complexity levels to either the individual players or the group as a whole its just wrong to go with the group as a whole. Everyone will have more fun if they can have characters that are as simple or complex as they would like them to be. Individual preference plays a strong role here and you loose far to much if your trying to peg this to the group as a whole.
Furthermore trying to manage a game based around such multiple complexity and power levels seems like a catastrophe in the making. The community fractures into what amounts to gaming ghetto's depending on each groups choices. Products need to be aimed at these different power levels and they either don't work for different options or they are full of caveats meant to make them what amounts to multiple adventures in one...and that assumes that encounters can even be easily designed so that they always work just fine with either one troll or three - that number of trolls never matters to the story being told. That is only possible by limiting what kinds of stories can be told which is a really, really, bad idea.
Yeah so...in retrospect I'm not a fan of where this line of reasoning seems to lead - especially because we seem to currently have an absolutely excellent framework for getting us more or less complex characters depending on players preference with 4E as it stands. We just need a few more options in the 'even more complex' end and a bit more diversity in the 'really easy to play' end.
I've found the articles something of a mixed bag.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the direction they are going in - or, at least, some of the theorized approaches would not be what I would look for in a game. But that does not, itself, mean I dislike the articles - I definitely like seeing these issues talked about, and having it happen so openly, giving such insights into the thought process behind design and game development.
And, even if the overall direction doesn't mesh with my own preferences, some of the ideas do appeal to me. I very much like the idea of a modular game, of one that has a very basic framework and different groups can adopt what level of complexity they choose.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I think what's most confusing about the L&L articles is that the implication of many of them seems to be that the game needs a significant overhaul to achieve the goals that Mearls is discussing - and if not an edition change, then what? A reorganization?
He's talking like he's leading up to something major, but as usual, there's no information forthcoming on WotC's plans for the future beyond some vague definitions of design philosophy in the Rule of Three columns. And the implication laid out in some of the L&L columns is that this isn't him fishing for customer feedback - that anything players say on the comments for the articles is too small and non-representative a sample size upon which to base meaningful decisions. On top of that, old material, such as monsters from MM1 and MM2, is being revamped to fall in line with errata.
The whole thing just looks like there's no real unified plan for D&D's future - or that the aims of various divisions of the company are at odds. Mearls seems to have good intentions, but I don't know how he's going to be able to make them realities with the resources he has available, and the strong trend toward a centralized, digital market for their product that is inherently at odds with the type of product he claims to want to make.
I don't know where it will all lead. I think the big 'future' for WOtC's plans lies with DDI, which looks to finally be emerging from the problems of the last year and starting to properly establish itself again.
I really believe that the future of D&D should be the DDI. I just sometimes wonder if WotC agrees with me. The things coming out of Mike Mearls mental thought process contantly seem to me to miss out on what it is the DDI brings to the table. IN fact most of the time they seem to be heading almost in the opposite direction.
I mean if we go into the 4E forum archives and pull up one of the handful of threads focused on what people like about 4E your going to see a big list of things that Mike Mearls seems to be moving away from. Examples are how awesome the play balance element is (and lamentations that it still could be improved on). Focus on how great it is to be able to design adventures reasonably quickly because, fundamentally the rule set runs on DM fiat with guidelines etc.
These are the things that make me an ardent fan of 4E and yet Mike Mearls consistently seems to miss out on them.
I agree that 4E has gone from good ideas with some weak application in the beginning to increasingly strong ideas backed by strong products. I think that is a wonderful element of the game - that it has improved so dramatically as time has gone by. The DDI has been instrumental in not only handling some of the more basic elements of this like reworking play balance as necessary - though I wish they would do even more in this regard, and improving the monsters. I mean I was pretty happy to see that they plan to bring the MM1 and MM2 up to the modern versions of the system but was less then pleased to learn that it'll be little more then a mechanical fix - especially when the idea of also boosting their base quality as monsters.
Ultimately I want more of this sort of thing - and while we are at it I want their monster builder to be brought up to snuff and there are a whole array of adventure and campaign tools they ought to make that they have not done yet. Reading Mike Mearls articles gives one the impression that they are at least contemplating the idea of winding the whole edition down in the next few years which makes me want to pull out my hair because it feels like they have only just really began to find their footing and their is still so much left to do with 4E.
In the end I think the very idea of a 5E really misses out on where we could, and I feel should, be going with the DDI. I believe that WotC should embrace the idea of a perpetually updating and constantly improving game. The DDI makes that model possible but its up to WotC to seize the idea and run with it.
Unfortunately I don't really trust most of the staff, Mike Mearls included, to go with this model. Monte Cook once wrote that working on a new edition of D&D is basically speaking the absolute best job in the entire industry. There really is nothing out there that tops that and I fear that we are in danger of getting a new edition not because its whats best for the game as a whole, which I think is a perpetual improvement model, but because WotC's front line staff are chomping at the bit to engage in the ultimate activity in the RPG industry - pure open ended game design with almost no limitations all on the company's dime.
2013 seems a logical time to release a new edition, with it being the 40th anniversary and all. I also think that a digital media, as WOTC has, is probably ideally suited for implementing such a modular rules system; you subscribe to different tiered rules system based on your needs.
|
The article does interest me. If they can create a new edition that is modular I'm all for it. That way both players and DMs can build the system to their liking. Sure it may require more work yet the end result is that both players and dms can run and play the game they want. If they can add that modulairty to the settings even better. Want to play pre FR Spellplague you can. If not you can play post spellplague too.
I've read the article and I don't like it. For one, it looks like it's going to require almost complete system mastery by the DM to know what his group can handle. That'll take time and a lot of trial and error (probably with multiple TPKs). And then it doesn't account for difference of players at the same table. Sure there are players who like to min/max or be tactically observant but there are some that don't. 4E did a great job of allowing players to be optimized while still catering to the average joe who just wants to roll some dice and RP.
The entire idea of having a "Core" system with branching sub-systems sounds interesting, but I assume it'll be much more complicated and complex and a DM will have to factor that in for each and every character. Just seems like waaay to much work for the DM to have know what EVERYONE is doing to make it play smooth enought to not allow a cake-walk or a TPK.
Then your going to have to get into the complexity of monster creation and if you think they should be allowed the Knobs/dials too. Do you ramp up monsters to meed the PCs needs or just add more "core" monsters??
It all sounds too contrived and looks to require system mastery for it to become good. I love D&D and I like diving into the thick of things, but all of the "Options" sounds like they're leading up to be "requirements" in terms of player powers. I've not known too many players to pass up options to make their characters stronger though the rules and you can be that A$$-hole DM that says "no, your gonna ruin our fun" or a DM that has to learn whole new sub-systems because 4 or 5 players all want them. And the problem therein is that they are all different. More maneuvers for fighter, more domains for clerics, more spells for the wizard, more tricks for the rogue will end up making broken combos not thought of by R&D.
It's only been 3 years since 4E's debut, I'm not ready for another edtiion until 2015 at the earliest *humph*.
|
Jeremy I was thinking about what you said about Mearls moving away from what you said seem to be popular with 4e. The more I think about that the more to me that makes sense. The reason i say that is this. If the thinking goes, ok these people we have like this. So we need to stay close enough to that to keep them happy and keep them as fans. Then we add or move in this direction(the way he is talking now) to bring in lapsed players back.
Honestly to me that is the vibe I get from reading his articles is that is the kind of thinking going on. While in theory I think a modular set of rules to cater to all kinds of play is a great idea. In practice I am not convinced it would work well at all. If they pull it off great, but the risk is great of making a huge mess too.
I am very interested to find out what if anything is said at Gencon this year by WotC.
I don't know where it will all lead. I think the big 'future' for WOtC's plans lies with DDI, which looks to finally be emerging from the problems of the last year and starting to properly establish itself again.
But all that said - the recent products themselves have been good. Themes in Dragon, and a return to having a robust assortment of articles. Heroes of Shadow and the Shadowfell boxed set. The absolutely fantastic Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. If this is the sort of stuff that we can get, even when WotC is just sticking with a 'holding pattern' and figuring out where to go next... I'm not too worried. Not at all.
I can't speak to the quality of the Shadowfell-themed supplements because I haven't seen them in use or read through the content, but I'll agree that MV: Nentir Vale is a really well-done product.
I'm still not finding much to be excited about on the DDI front, though. I bought a one-month sub at the start of July to get my HeroLab files updated, and while the new Character Builder seems to run a bit more smoothly than it did at launch, the new Monster Builder is still terribly disappointing compared to its previous incarnation. I pay very little attention to Dragon for the most part, but I'll admit that some of the content being released via Dungeon is quite good.
Perhaps this modular-styled system can be best achieved through DDI by allowing DMs to add or remove layers of game content with the click of a checkbox - and that does seem like the easiest way to make it happen. But I'm really leery of seeing D&D become something that people only do with computers and never with pen, paper, and books. I don't need more reasons not to leave my house! =]
|
|
It does make me a little concerned that D&D is losing it's way. I know D&D is the 'brand' but it appears that with the radical implementation of a 'new' system (i.e. 4e) that the flood gates are leaking a little in the area of 'playing with rules'. Over the years we old-timers have linked D&D = rules & rules = D&D. This is the main source of Edition-Wars. I would argue that 3e is as much a divergence as 4e from 'AD&D', but those who started with 3e would violently (at times) disagree with me. If, and this is a BIG IF, D&D is not doing as well as the share/stake-holders wish and this was the cause of 4e --> 4e Essentials --> D&D-modular, then I think they are making another mistake. Why 'another' you may say. This, WotC should have stuck with the 3e d20 system (ala Pathfinder). They HAD the brand and they HAD buy-in. 4e has always been a hard sell. 4e has caused Paizo to become what it has today. 3.5e sold, "4e" based on 3.5e is selling very well (aka Pathfinder). By changing the 'rules' of D&D again WotC take another step closer to making D&D just another fantasy RPG in a sea of fantasy RPG's on the market - why would I play D&D over say Savage Worlds? I 'personally' do NOT want a modular system, I'll play Chaosium's BRP if I wanted that. Clearly my opinion is anything other than supporting the current 4e/Essential line AS IS is a HUGE faux pas.
Musings,
S.
4e has caused Paizo to become what it has today.
I don't think Paizo would be as successful as it is today if they weren't able to compete against WotC using WotC's own ruleset, in addition to a lot of goodwill because they used to run the Dungeon and Dragon magazines.
Also, Lisa Stevens. If someone of her calibre would run WotC today, things might look different.
Alas, they are what they are and we can only hope that Mearls is removed before he can do any lasting damage.
I don't think Paizo would be as successful as it is today if they weren't able to compete against WotC using WotC's own ruleset, in addition to a lot of goodwill because they used to run the Dungeon and Dragon magazines.
I agree in general, but I don't think this is fully true. Paizo was already popular during the 3.5 era (when Paizo didn't create any rules) and just provided supplements (read: adventures) for WotC's own ruleset. 4e caused the actual competition part.
I agree with Stefan - 4e has caused Paizo to become what it is today.
we can only hope that Mearls is removed before he can do any lasting damage.
I'd like to hear more about this. What else has he suggested that's distasteful?
- 4e has caused Paizo to become what it is today.
Very very true. But a part of that is no fault of anyone except progress and consumer expectations. People expected WotC to come out with intriguing, interesting, yet balanced "new" rules for the current system. And when they did (see Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle) a portion of the fan base either A). Hated it or B). Loved it. Sure, ToB was a precursor to 4E's mechanics but I feel it was largely accepted and embraced by most of the consumers. This, I feel, is something they say had more room for expansion and thus the continuation and eventual production of 4E.
But honestly, what was WotC supposed to do? I've yet to hear a credible idea as to where they should've went as a RPG leader with the saturated market as it was. Do as PF did and churn out another d20/3E product? Yea, they would've received the same severe criticism as money grubbing, corporate bad-guys they got when the revised 3rd edition. Go with another edition all-together? Well we're seeing how thats playing out (some good, some bad things as of yet). But suffice to say, they were forced to make a decision and so they choose a divorce from the conventional rules D&D has always played by. I think they've done the best they could with the hand they were dealt.
I'd like to hear more about this. What else has he suggested that's distasteful?
Well the looming threat of yet another edition of D&D (only 3 or so years after 4E's debut). The add-on aspect thats seems like it makes the game way more convoluted than it needs to be. The fact that probably no one will play "basic" and opt for all the new rules, thus requiring the DM (and probably most players) to achieve System-Mastery.
The game design Mearls is suggesting seems to require a lot of guessing on the party's power to fuel game balance. Out of 4 or 5 player, you have two that go for broke rule-wise, get all the latest supplements whicn include feats, powers, items and thus are ahead of the other 2 (casual joes) who play because it's fun and they like storyline over combat. You then assume they can handle an encounter which they probably couldn't, requiring the powerful PCs to pull more weight than they might not afford. You have 1 or 2 rounds of bad rolls and "WHAM" TPK. Simple enough and no one saw it coming, espically the DM.
That doesn't sound like good game design (it does sound like v3.5 though :-P)
I don't really want to villify Mearls, either. I disagree with the method, but I know that deep down he's not looking to hurt the hobby or make a bad game--quite the opposite if you read what he writes. He genuinely thinks that a game can "heal the community," which is a very pretty thought, but not very realistic. The community will heal when all of the community gets the idea that it's okay to not like things, and elitism is bad for the hobby as a whole--not a second before.* He also wants to make a fun, playable game. He thinks fun and playable is AD&D. I think AD&D was fun and playable by the standards of 1980, but 30 years later it's a bit thin--of course that's just me and I encourage folks who enjoy it to keep on playing.
I agree with all of this. I just see the issue as being that where Mike Mearls seems to want to go, much of the time, does not seem to line up with what the DDI does really well and I think in this aspect it misses out on why so many 4E fans are in fact 4E fans.
The strengths of an evolving online rule set is elements like play balance and reworking elements of the game that are not performing up to par etc. As MK mentions above they have finally gotten pretty far along in shaking out the vast majority of the kinks in the system. The product is better then its ever been. I'd think it would make more sense to keep walking the path they are currently on and work to try and win back or win new fans based on the quality of the product itself.
The game design Mearls is suggesting seems to require a lot of guessing on the party's power to fuel game balance. Out of 4 or 5 player, you have two that go for broke rule-wise, get all the latest supplements whicn include feats, powers, items and thus are ahead of the other 2 (casual joes) who play because it's fun and they like storyline over combat. You then assume they can handle an encounter which they probably couldn't, requiring the powerful PCs to pull more weight than they might not afford. You have 1 or 2 rounds of bad rolls and "WHAM" TPK. Simple enough and no one saw it coming, espically the DM.
I did not really read system mastery in his article. It sounded more like you had super basic D&D and then you could add in a new level of complexity and get not so basic D&D. I actually think he's trying to make two games and call them one. One game is pretty much AD&D. No feats, straight forward builds, few character choices, everything is plug and play. If the group takes that choice then there are no feats in teh campaign ever. Then there is some kind of advanced choice that adds feats and themes and this and that.
Thing is I don't see how you mesh the two products...worse yet I think its straight out less effective at whatever the hell its trying to do then the current frame work which basically puts character complexity in the hands of the players and then tries to work hard to insure that each character, no matter how simple or complex, is balanced against the rest of the characters so that they can all always work together.
Beyond this I don't see how having two rule sets does more then artificially divide the market. Worse yet it would likely result in adventures that try and be both systems and that is a flawed way to write an adventure. If you treat all the components of an adventure as interchangeable, easily slotted in or out depending on the groups power level your so busy making combat encounters that can fit any party combination that your unlikely to be designing a really good story.
By choosing an arbitrary power point for all adventures you make it easy for DMs that diverge in a known manner from that power point to come in and modify the adventure to fit their needs. Meanwhile the writer of the adventure can stick with telling their story and parties that diverge from the expected norm must have DMs that go in and make the adjustments themselves. In this way the story is most likely to be a good one with its intents preserved.
4E took the flack for changing the direction of D&D, but WOTC needs to stick to its guns to carry through, and that takes leadership. Those that want play to a game system based on the OGL as an extension of 3.5 are set if you accept Pathfinder, and have fun playing it. But I don't want 4E to get caught in the trap of reverting back to earlier versions of the game. So in that sense the success of Pathfinder may cause WOTC to have second thoughts, or make bad decisions, but that goes back to my first sentence. There is enough flexibility in 4E to bring in some ideas or flavor from older editions, without going back to old design philosophies. But at the same time I understand it is easier to be an armchair quarterback, versus being in the middle of the game development, so I can only hope future versions of D&D cater to my tastes and keep the core 4E design principles intact.
I did not really read system mastery in his article. It sounded more like you had super basic D&D and then you could add in a new level of complexity and get not so basic D&D. I actually think he's trying to make two games and call them one. One game is pretty much AD&D. No feats, straight forward builds, few character choices, everything is plug and play. If the group takes that choice then there are no feats in teh campaign ever. Then there is some kind of advanced choice that adds feats and themes and this and that.
Right, and as a DM your probably going to have to be aware and know how those advanced choices will effect your campaign, adventure, encounter, etc. As a DM, you'll also have to factor those against player's who don't get into that level of complexity. A Ranger who uses many Immediate Reaction/ Minor Action attacks is going to perform much much higher than a Warlock who relies on his Eldritch Blast and Curse damage (assmuing something like Immediate Reaction/Minor Action attacks are "Advanced Rules"). All it means is that a DM should be prepared for both kinds of players at his table, and that means a good knowledge of how those advanced systems work and how it'll effect the outcome of the game.
To put it in other edition terms, it'd be akin to allowing Classes, feats, maneuvers, and stances from the Tome of Battle for one player while the Rogue is happy with the PHB options. One will most assuredly out-perform the other in many many areas. That sort of stuff just throws adventures off or turns players off in the long run.
Thing is I don't see how you mesh the two products...worse yet I think its straight out less effective at whatever the hell its trying to do then the current frame work which basically puts character complexity in the hands of the players and then tries to work hard to insure that each character, no matter how simple or complex, is balanced against the rest of the characters so that they can all always work together.Beyond this I don't see how having two rule sets does more then artificially divide the market. Worse yet it would likely result in adventures that try and be both systems and that is a flawed way to write an adventure. If you treat all the components of an adventure as interchangeable, easily slotted in or out depending on the groups power level your so busy making combat encounters that can fit any party combination that your unlikely...
Agreed. You'd then have people wanting more "Basic" stuff while the others would want more "Advanced" stuff, all the while arguing which is better (much like how people argue how great the Warlord is compared to pretty much evey other leader, lol).
|
|
I removed "Mike Mearls" from the title of the thread. That's getting uncomfortably close to insulting someone who doesn't actually participate here, but works for a respected company in this industry. Discuss the article, not the person who wrote it.
+100
Mike like Bill is NOT WotC - like all companies, CEO's (or whatever) may lead but consensus rules. 4e D&D is a corporate decision. I don't really know much about Mike, but the talk previously regards to Bill was annoying - Alternity ruled!!!
S.
I'm not sure how well a truly modular rules system would work. In the later days of AD&D 2nd ed there was DM's Option, Player's Option, Skills and Powers, and slightly revised versions of the core books. Add to that house rules(which can't really be avoided) and a smattering of held over 1st ed concepts. A friend of mine and I joined a new group around that time, and over the course of six months we had three different DMs run three mini-campaigns. All of us were veteran players, but we were all lost in each other's game due to all the rules variants. It was aggravating more often than not having to essentially learn a new rules system for each campaign.
I can understand why the general concept of a modular and easily customized rules set sounds good. It should please the largest number of people and players, but it also has the potential to cause mass aggravation and confusion.
Right, and as a DM your probably going to have to be aware and know how those advanced choices will effect your campaign, adventure, encounter, etc. As a DM, you'll also have to factor those against player's who don't get into that level of complexity. A Ranger who uses many Immediate Reaction/ Minor Action attacks is going to perform much much higher than a Warlock who relies on his Eldritch Blast and Curse damage (assmuing something like Immediate Reaction/Minor Action attacks are "Advanced Rules"). All it means is that a DM should be prepared for both kinds of players at his table, and that means a good knowledge of how those advanced systems work and how it'll effect the outcome of the game.
To put it in other edition terms, it'd be akin to allowing Classes, feats, maneuvers, and stances from the Tome of Battle for one player while the Rogue is happy with the PHB options. One will most assuredly out-perform the other in many many areas. That sort of stuff just throws adventures off or turns players off in the long run.
I don't think this i what the article is proposing. We have this, somewhat currently. If your the DM you need to understand all the rules, especially if you have a mix of characters from some of the more basic essentials builds to some of the more complex pre-essentials material.
But that is not what I think Mike Mearls is proposing here - I think he is proposing a system where, at the outset of the campaign one chooses the complexity level. If this campaign does not have opportunity attacks, feats, or immediate interrupts then the DM does not need to understand those rules at all. If they are all kept in the advanced rules booklet and the DM and players are only playing with the basic rules booklet then there is no requirement for the DM to ever crack the advanced rules book. No rule in that book will ever appear in this campaigns game because this campaign only uses the basic game rules.
MK covers this when he points out that Gamma World is a very basic version of 4E. If my group never plays 4E and only plays Gamma World I don't actually need to know many of the 4E rules because they don't appear in Gamma World. I don't even need to own the 4E rule books.
I'm not sure how well a truly modular rules system would work. In the later days of AD&D 2nd ed there was DM's Option, Player's Option, Skills and Powers, and slightly revised versions of the core books. Add to that house rules(which can't really be avoided) and a smattering of held over 1st ed concepts. A friend of mine and I joined a new group around that time, and over the course of six months we had three different DMs run three mini-campaigns. All of us were veteran players, but we were all lost in each other's game due to all the rules variants. It was aggravating more often than not having to essentially learn a new rules system for each campaign.
I can understand why the general concept of a modular and easily customized rules set sounds good. It should please the largest number of people and players, but it also has the potential to cause mass aggravation and confusion.
I agree with this as well. I've often had more trouble teaching players that where very familiar with 3.5 4E then I have had with players that have some experience basic experience with RPGs but not experience with any of the modern versions of D&D. Tryng to remember which rules are not in play or who the current system deals with certain situations that have been changed repeatedly can be difficult. I mean I had to look up 4E charging again Wednesday night because I thought there was a penalty to defences with a charge (there is no penalty) simply because I remembering something from 3.5 in a 4E subsystem that I personally don't use much.
I don't think this i what the article is proposing. We have this, somewhat currently. If your the DM you need to understand all the rules, especially if you have a mix of characters from some of the more basic essentials builds to some of the more complex pre-essentials material.
I think the roles of the classes make up for any confusion between Essentials/non-Essential classes or options that a DM might need to know. As long as all the roles are filled, it won't hinder or hurt encounters I might run because they're still all the same (besides class mechancis). I won't have to change the XP value for my encounters becaus there's a Warlord or a Slayer in the group. The basic design priciple is still there, regardless of player's options.
But that is not what I think Mike Mearls is proposing here - I think he is proposing a system where, at the outset of the campaign one chooses the complexity level. If this campaign does not have opportunity attacks, feats, or immediate interrupts then the DM does not need to understand those rules at all. If they are all kept in the advanced rules booklet and the DM and players are only playing with the basic rules booklet then there is no requirement for the DM to ever crack the advanced rules book. No rule in that book will ever appear in this campaigns game because this campaign only uses the basic game rules.
Reducing player options has never been a good idea, regardless of Editions. It's a staple reason they removed Level Adjustments and stat penalties. And then your going to have players who purchase both the Basic and Advanced rules because a lot of players love complexity or character options that could fit a better niche. With possibility of a difference between Basic and Advanced rules, your going to put a player in the category of "Either/Or". Either it's a basic game and your Advanced rules have no place OR it's an Advanced game and your going to have to get the rules to keep up with the party. And if you get both, your going to have to ask each time you enter a new group or campaign "You using Basic or Advanced?" which sorta sucks IMO. Most likely your going to have players who might love both (basic stuff and advanced stuff) and then what? Your only going to cater to one portion of your group while the other is required to simplify their character for the sake of basic designes nad non-complexity.
MK covers this when he points out that Gamma World is a very basic version of 4E. If my group never plays 4E and only plays Gamma World I don't actually need to know many of the 4E rules because they don't appear in Gamma World. I don't even need to own the 4E rule books.
I've not had the opportuinity to play Gamma World, but I'm going by the assumption that the basic ideas of 4E are there (ie. Dex vs. Reflex, healing surges, combined skills) but that there are differences with other things such as items and equipment, character advances, and so forth. But I don't think this style would be good for the whole of D&D. This approach might be useful to specific campaign settings or a Sub-Game altogether but not to the game as a whole (meaning D&D in general, where all the rules should be applied). I like character immersment and options galore. But 4E works well for those who don't too.
The concept of a system with 2 different levels of play sounds good, and can be done, but if done wrong, causes a lot of problems. As much as I personally don't care for many of the design philosophies behind 4E, compromising them to make a 2 tier system would be the death of the brand being on top. Like it or not, that model is what they have to work with, and kicking it to the curb this quickly would cause them no ends of trouble.
I'd think it would make more sense to keep walking the path they are currently on and work to try and win back or win new fans based on the quality of the product itself.
Which is unrealistic and very unlikely to happen - if the goal really is to win fans in a significant way over their current growth. (At this point, 4e is 4e - it either has its fans for the type of game 4e provides, or it doesn't, beyond natural growth.)
I'd think it would make more sense to keep walking the path they are currently on and work to try and win back or win new fans based on the quality of the product itself.Which is unrealistic and very unlikely to happen - if the goal really is to win fans in a significant way over their current growth. (At this point, 4e is 4e - it either has its fans for the type of game 4e provides, or it doesn't, beyond natural growth.)
Disagree. Quality is a selling point and its a point that WotC has lost customers over. If they manage to maintain a very high level of quality - and they are pretty much in the ball park at this point and keep shaking out any remaining foibles in the system they have a good chance of winning over converts.
This is especially true in that WotC is only just beginning to really come to grips with just how good this system can be out of combat. Give us some high quality mystery based campaign arcs with good story and interesting plot twists and that will win over some fans. In part because this is one of the elements that we have not seen much of so far. In effect we have all these fans for the kind of game 4E provides that believe that 4E provides combat heavy complex table top miniature fights. Which it does, but its not all that it can be used for. One can make excellent combat light adventures with it or make a mix...with the caveat that you can't easily strip out the complex table top combats once they do show up so players need to like that element.
Sure there are issues with the fact that a lot of people have already made their choices and it does not matter what WotC does some people will never buy another WotC product no matter how good it is. But those fans are downright lost to WotC and starting again from scratch, with the likely inherent drop in quality as the designers try and grapple with the intricacies of a new system will not get such fans back. Instead WotC needs to showcase how well 4E can run a variety of adventure types. Which they have started to do at this point. The adventures over the last few months have features freelancers who have started to really push the bar on what an adventure can be all about.
This is a good thing for their brand, if they can get the quality of the adventures to be at or near the level of the last few years of the print version of Dungeon, get 4E DMs excited to talk about and run these adventures that enthusiasm will win them fans.
The more books WotC puts out with the kind of quality of the Darksun Campaign Guide the better for their brand over all. Particularly since there is some evidence that there is a pretty sizable chunk of the market that plays a variety of RPGs, many of whom may even play both PF and 4E. Good products and an excellent game will convince such players to keep on plunking down to play 4E over the long haul and therefore keep them spending on the books while keeping their DDI subscription paid up.
At the end of the day quality sells given enough time for the fact that the quality is there to seep through the community. A small publisher sometimes faces an issue where they have a great product but no one knows about it but that is not likely to be WotCs problem.
I'd think it would make more sense to keep walking the path they are currently on and work to try and win back or win new fans based on the quality of the product itself.Which is unrealistic and very unlikely to happen - if the goal really is to win fans in a significant way over their current growth. (At this point, 4e is 4e - it either has its fans for the type of game 4e provides, or it doesn't, beyond natural growth.)
Unless, you know, people get bored with other versions of D&D and wanna give 4e a try. Not saying it's good practice to rely on that hope, but I've known first hand that it does happen. And I agree with Jeremy that keeping to the course is the best policy.
Going away from the current 4E model (pre- and post-essentials) would be a disaster for WotC. Not only because you would NOT impress would be returners that see this as yet another attempt to gain back trust but you lose the trust you already DO have with the current 4E fan-base. It would also look really bad as the company flip-flops in it's R&D. They'd seem like they couldn't decide which way to go and looks stagnant or worse, impotent.
By saying with 4E for quite some time, they can gain strength through the trust in their current design. They pull in new people with avenues like the Red Box, D&D Day, and D&D Encounters. By giving more fuel to ther current design, you keep your current fans happy which in turn buy more stuff and keep their DDI subscription going.
What they need to do is open a Forum for fan-ideas (and no, I don't mean DDi submissions). Getting an idea what the fans want is a great way of releasing content that we'll pay for.
They need to get more creative with Dragon magazine, bring more options for players that isn't 5 pages of fluff backed by 1 feat (notice the "Surely you Joust" article). Articles that give classes with little content more love (see "Zealots of the Black Flame" article).
And they need better adventures. Plain and simple, going the Disney-World route (good buys beat bad guys = happy time) is just not a interesting formula. I know they're catering to younger fans, and they don't want to cross paths with ultra-consertaive parents who look at D&D like some sort of cult but then they need to give rating to adventures to show which ones have adult themes and which ones don't.
Fascinating. I suspect you will be disappointed, then, as a new edition will long since arrive before this hypothetical "quality sells given enough time for the fact that the quality is there to seep through the community".
No surprise, though, that 4e fans would say "stay the course with 4e" (self-interest and all that). I don't think that's bad, either - but don't do so on the idea that it's going to cause a material increase in fans over and above their current growth (because it simply won't).
Unless, you know, people get bored with other versions of D&D and wanna give 4e a try.
That's the natural growth I already mentioned. I agree with what you're saying, but it will just continue to contribute to their current growth rate.
At this time, their current growth rate is what it's going to be for this current edition - it won't materially change. If WotC is happy about it - great! Stay the course. If they're not, continuing to stick with 4e won't result in the increases they would be happy with. (Note that I'm not saying that WotC is unhappy with current growth rates - only WotC knows what rates are acceptable to them. They may very well be very pleased with 4e's performance. I'm only talking about hypotheticals - 'if/then'.)
(And yes, I am a "bean counter" in real life, so I know what I'm talking about.)
But interesting positions, definitely.
(And I actually agree with you two - staying the course on 4e is probably WotC's best course of action, at this point in time and in the near future. Keeping current customers is always less expensive than trying to win new ones on a large scale, no question. I was only responding to Jeremy's "and work to try and win back or win new fans based on the quality of the product itself". That won't be happening in any material way, if that is truly their goal, which I'm not convinced it is right now.)
Fascinating. I suspect you will be disappointed, then, as a new edition will long since arrive before this hypothetical "quality sells given enough time for the fact that the quality is there to seep through the community".
Thing is we don't know when a new edition is coming out. Its not even clear that WotC knows when or if a new edition is coming out. So its not clear if they have enough time or not. Furthermore they do have a product being honed that might well give them a good deal more exposure then normal - the Game Table. Finally I think you to readily discount the large chunk of the fanbase that plays a bunch of different RPGs and who are already generally being exposed to 4E and simply scew their gaming dollars toward the products that excite them - which can be 4E products if their quality is up to snuff but will be something else if it is not.
....Finally I think you to readily discount the large chunk of the fanbase that plays a bunch of different RPGs and who are already generally being exposed to 4E and simply scew their gaming dollars toward the products that excite them - which can be 4E products if their quality is up to snuff but will be something else if it is not.
This stands out to ring very true. A good reason why Paizo doesn't see any of my $$ is because I've already got it for free on their own site. I love Golarion, and I guess I could spend some money on their fluff (which is crazy good IMO) but I just don't play it enought to warrent that sort of cash. And I can just as easily make up my own stuff, use their adventures as is, and use ther PFSRD site for all the info, spells, classes, and feats. And if it's not there, I'll just hop over to my intense v3.5 library which will take up the slack.
Thing is we don't know when a new edition is coming out. Its not even clear that WotC knows when or if a new edition is coming out. So its not clear if they have enough time or not.
Well, no, of course it's not clear. :/ That would be saying one knows the future. Thus my use of the word "suspect". It's all I can do! :D
Finally I think you to readily discount the large chunk of the fanbase that plays a bunch of different RPGs and who are already generally being exposed to 4E and simply scew their gaming dollars toward the products that excite them - which can be 4E products if their quality is up to snuff but will be something else if it is not.
I do. If they haven't done it by now, they won't do so materially in the future. Natural growth, as people who like different games spread their dollars around, notwithstanding.
Q: Where are the Legends and Lore articles heading?A: Mearls: I’m just a manager, I don’t actually design stuff anymore (unless something has gone wrong).
Mearls has visions of Runepriest players gathering outside theWotC building with protest signs (James – “Both of them!”). Mearls is the guy on top of the mountain – what’s the big picture? They’re a research and development department – where COULD they go? Their job is to look at the other paths they haven’t taken yet, but on the other hand you can’t just push people into the new path – they might hate that. There’s something else to talk about before the session ends (not 5th Edition or anything like that).
They need to look at what people want and what will excite them in D&D. We can either say “Here’s what we hear you want. ” Or “Here’s something we think you’ll like – surprise!” Doing plastic surgery on a 6 month old you’re babysitting will get a bad reaction; doing their laundry or cleaning the house will get a better reaction as a surprise.
With Legends and Lore, he reads the feedback. He re-read every 1 star review of PH1 and also every 5 star review. Acknowledges Pathfinder, that some people could possibly be excited about D&D, but they’re over there in a different room.
2nd Edition didn’t speak to how Mearls played D&D – he liked dungeon crawls. He liked 3rd Edition. He worries that they lectured people with 4th Edition and said, “Here’s how it is now and you’re going to like it. ” D&D has to serve the “creators” (us), and if they’re missing on it we won’t just passively consume it.
We expect more because we’re creators – we’re much more intellectually engaged with our game than most people are with their games. They can’t dictate to us – they need a dialogue. They need to get back to that trust. If players hate what WotC publishes we’ll stop buying it.
Gygax: “Make sure the DMs don’t figure out that they don’t need us.” Yep. With Legends and Lore, they’re trying to get that trust back. Let us know they’re listening.
Some editing by me to get rid of the 'wall of text feel'. Had to read it a couple of times to decipher it. Not sure its really working in terms of gaining trust - seems to just fuel 5E speculation...though since it is clear that the very soonest they could announce 5E know would be august of next 2012 they have some months when that speculation will probably slow down.
...synospsis of stuff by Mike Mearls...That would be from the GenCon 2011 day three D&D new products seminar?
Yes. Just the answer to the question regarding the Legend Lore articles of course.
Part of the problem with trying to be a brand that listens is that its easy if your small and gets harder as you get larger. I mean I read the Legend Lore articles and am more likely to comment on them here - where a small community might read and respond to the articles. I consider posting in the comments section below the articles but there are usually already 37 pages of people saying stuff. Feeling that my voice will just get lost in the general roar I usually don't even bother. Its hard to tell what Mike Mearls is even supposed to make of the feedback in general - there is so much of it and its full of so many different, often contradictory, information that it seems difficult to really sort it all out.
I have to say I like what I am hearing from Mike Mearls in these articles so far. Having not been following 4E, I just came across them recently by chance and have promptly read all of them. The hypothetical game he is describing definitely sounds promising for my tastes. I tend to like simulationism (not in everything, but in general yes), so an option to choose my own level of complexity in a game would be really nice.
Having said that, I am skeptical about the ability of WotC to pull off such a project successfully. Although the company has top-notch design talent, a game good at everything might well turn out to be a game good at nothing. I am certainly not saying it is impossible to do it well (and I would love to see it work), but it is such an ambitious project that the risk of failure is high.
If WotC is working on the 5th edition in that vein, their aim would probably be to reunify the community fractured by the edition change. Any edition change causes some fracturing, but it seems the 3e->4e change caused a particularly large rift with a comparatively huge number of D&D players decoupling from the newest edition of the game. I started playing D&D with the second edition and certainly don't recall nearly as massive a split and one lasting for so long in the 2e->3e change. Of course, it would be a business risk to attempt to do that, since:
1) The currently lapsed D&D players might not come back with a new edition for a multitude of reasons (e.g. availability of well-supported and popular alternatives, possible design choices calculated to address their perceived grievances with 4E might misunderstand their actual grievances, ...)
2) Current 4e players might not switch to a new edition that dramatically departs from 4e design assumptions and philosophies, although that is probably the only way to draw back players not enamored with 4e. Alternatively, they might simply not want to change editions so soon after 4e was released.
Success of WotC's playerbase recapture strategy is, therefore, by no means assured, but judging from the articles so far, Paizo ought to be at least somewhat worried. If WotC does manage to execute the ambitious modular D&D design with excellence and in a manner that appeals to currently forlorn former D&D players without alienating their current 4E users in the process, this could spell trouble for Paizo's Pathfinder line. It could well begin hemorrhaging players to a new 5e. This is all just speculation for now and WotC might have no intention of doing this or it could fail in the attempt, but Paizo ought to consider what could happen in such a scenario.
Disagree. Quality is a selling point and its a point that WotC has lost customers over. If they manage to maintain a very high level of quality - and they are pretty much in the ball park at this point and keep shaking out any remaining foibles in the system they have a good chance of winning over converts.
...
Sure there are issues with the fact that a lot of people have already made their choices and it does not matter what WotC does some people will never buy another WotC product no matter how good it is. But those fans are downright lost to WotC and starting again from scratch, with the likely inherent drop in quality as the designers try and grapple with the intricacies of a new system will not get such fans back. Instead WotC needs to showcase how well 4E...
I have to agree with Arnwyn. A few exceptions notwithstanding, "quality" is a selling point pretty much only among the already existing fanbase. I placed quality in that sentence in inverted commas, because the very definition of quality in RPGs is unclear and to a large extent dependent on preference. For example, no amount of quality, in the sense of production values and such, would get me to purchase a 4E product, because I am inherently not interested in a game with the design philosophies on which 4E rests. In that sense, you could say that 4E is almost inherently of 'low quality' subjectively for me, even as it might be 'high quality' for somebody who likes its design philosophies. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted what you meant by quality?
Personally, I don't think many people have permanently given up on WotC. For example, it is true that I would not buy a 4E product, because it clashes with my preferred design philosophies. However, I would have no problem purchasing future WotC products (e.g. 5E D&D) that meshed well with my design philosophy and generally appealed to me.
If WotC is working on the 5th edition in that vein, their aim would probably be to reunify the community fractured by the edition change. Any edition change causes some fracturing, but it seems the 3e->4e change caused a particularly large rift with a comparatively huge number of D&D players decoupling from the newest edition of the game. I started playing D&D with the second edition and certainly don't recall nearly as massive a split and one lasting for so long in the 2e->3e change. Of course, it would be a business risk to attempt to do that, since:
The difference there is that the shift from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was a massive upgrade in terms of playability while still being recognizable as the same game. Even a person coming from 1st edition would recognize that 3rd edition was D&D and have little difficulty picking up character creation and gameplay.
But 4th edition didn't feel so much like an upgrade as it did a completely different game altogether, one created by focus groups to cash in on the popularity of World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs. That's not what I wanted to play.
The difference there is that the shift from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was a massive upgrade in terms of playability while still being recognizable as the same game. Even a person coming from 1st edition would recognize that 3rd edition was D&D and have little difficulty picking up character creation and gameplay.
But 4th edition didn't feel so much like an upgrade as it did a completely different game altogether, one created by focus groups to cash in on the popularity of World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs. That's not what I wanted to play.
Eh, this is somewhat true but there are still strong elements that mark 4E as D&D. For one, rolling a d20 for most effects such as Attacking and Skills. You roll a d20 higher than the DC remains in 4E (a new concept in 3rd edition). Iconic character classes and races in the 1st PHB and commonly known spells with such classes (Cure light Wounds, Magic Missile, Dispel Magic, Fly, Turn Undead) still allowed players to know that class favorities are still there.
I believe that there are two culprits here that are responsible for making 4E more "gamish" or like a TT RPG form of WoW. One is the color-coding and block format of spells/powers. This, I feel, gave the visual impression that your not selecting a spell from some dusty old tome, but from an option-tree screen from a game like WoW. Along those lines, spells and powers have a very strong "use this power like so.." description and mechanics and I think players (in the beginning anyways) felt that it was the only way to use such powers. I know a few that felt like these powers could only be used in such In-the-Box terms instead of using them in non-combative situations.
The second big culprit was the heavy usage of squares and miniatures. The first is the bigger contributor since the game uses squares for everything from movement to spells an attack powers. Because of this, many people feel that it has to be used with Miniatures and converting the squares back to feet was a major pain. Funny thing is, I've had to convert the feet to squares for the past decade and a half so I never really felt bothered by this. It helps those that use battlemats and miniatures (something I love and heavily endorse). Of cousre miniatures have been used heavily in D&D for quite some time, but now, people feel that with how certain classes work (out of turn attacks, heavy movement based spells, etc.) that it's manditory for miniatuers and tokens.
These two factors, in addition to lack of charts and certain class quips like clerics restricted to chainmail, no proficiency with shields OR generally like the fact Classes were assigned "roles", fed more to the feeling that you needed a balanced party to go adventuring. It's my impression that people tend to not like being shoe-horned into a role or job. That their character is more complicated than that and more abstract than a bag of features and HPs.
But here the thing, these people also want mechanical manifestations of their quirks or abstractness. They liked having feats or class skills that define their character further even if these would rarely come up at the table. To them, well you can't play the flute unless you have ranks in Perform (Wind Instruments) even if all I wanted to say was "Hey, I'm in the tavern playing the flute for fun." This is where it turns into Simulationist vs. Narritive roleplay. Simulationists require cause and effect through mechanics and rolling dice. This helps put some verisimilitude to their role-playing. Narratives feel that the rules and mechanics are only useful or important when you want to accomplish something that directly effects an outcome, a change in events, or some sort of character gain. To the Narritives, if someone wants to play a flute in the Bar, be my guest. If that player then want to earn some coin for playing the flute, well he'd then have to roll. I could also get into class balance, but I'll save that rant for another day.
Anyways..
This distinctive shift in paradigm (simulationism to narritive) has been the main cause, IMO, for the schism in the community. Sure WotC had goofed on a lot of their marketing and the rise of Paizo was at a great time, it gave gamers a choice of who to support. But the shift in the game's design and how players respond to that change is still the main reason why people like one over the other.
Counterpoint - 3e was not "simulationist" in the slightest. The idea that it was came not from 3e but from 4e as a means to divide the two editions by those who disliked 4e.
Counterpoint - 3e was not "simulationist" in the slightest. The idea that it was came not from 3e but from 4e as a means to divide the two editions by those who disliked 4e.It was "simultationist" in that it simulated a game world where laws of reality were vastly disparate from what is genuinely real. It (of course) was very good at simulating itself, and in doing so in such a way that one need not necessarily role play, but could quite easily roll the dice for everything and allow the game to simulate how your character would/could respond.
No, it wasn't. It didn't really simulate anything. The mechanics are routinely abstracted towards gamist ideas rather then simulationistic ones. There's plenty of examples. Daily mechanics? Saving throws?
HP? HP is a big one. I'd go so far as to say that you can't have a "simulationist" game that uses D&D-style HP; it's far, far too much of a gamist mechanic.
"Simulate how your character would respond" simply means that 3e encouraged actor stance. And it did! Unless you were a spell caster, at which point it encouraged much more heavily author's stance. This is the primary difference: in 3e, author stance was only for spellcasters. In 4e, all classes can share author stance.
That does not mean there was no roleplaying, that one could not roleplay, or that you would have to break rules to roleplay, just that the system made it exceedingly easy not to.
It has nothing to do with roleplaying. You can roleplay in a narrative game or a simulationist game. You can roleplay in author stance or actor stance.
It has to do with the misguided idea that 3e "simulated" anything other then "3e."
Besides, the whole GNS theory is passe; not even the Forge uses it anymore. These days I only see it come out...why, in threads just like this. To "prove" that 3e is better then 4e.