That reminds me of a thread I saw over at Wizards back in late '06 where someone had a friend(who had a friend who know's a guy, yadda yadda yadda) claiming that WotC was working on 4e, and everybody flamed him saying he was crazy. A WotC rep even stepped into the thread saying it was all false and there was no 4e, not even in development.
The following year the official announcement was made. I lol'ed.
We know 5e is on it's way, no sense in getting paranoid about when. Just play the game you enjoy playing, and when something else comes along, give it a fair shake or just stick with what you enjoy.
Eh, I love 4e but the marking mechanic is very much a "taunt" MMO ability. Lose a lil bit of plausibility, but for me makes the game a bit more enjoyable and the defenders able to do their job.It is actually somewhat interesting that 4E marking is much more of a 'soft control' than standard MMO marking - it encourages enemies to attack the defender, but does not force them to. Whereas in 3.5, we actually did have a class (Knight), and I think some feats as well, which straight up forced enemies to attack the character in a much more standard MMO fashion.
The mechanic was clunky, but it was absolutely a "taunt" mechanic. I built a Knight once with a massively high AC, and the rest of my resources went to increasing the DC for that ability. I would charge into areas, for the enemy to attack me, and the mages would just pick them off unimpeded.
Overall, a lot of the clunkiness came from taking the fight out of the DM's hands by forcing the enemies to attack the Knight. This works great with a video game AI, not so much with a living, thinking DM.
|
One thing though that Wotc cannot do is deny they are working on 5E because they said the same with 4E. They should be honest and admit to working on a new edition. Otherwise no one will beleive them.
....what.
"You can't deny something because no one will believe you, so you should admit to doing it regardless of if you are doing it"?
|
One thing though that Wotc cannot do is deny they are working on 5E because they said the same with 4E. They should be honest and admit to working on a new edition. Otherwise no one will beleive them.....what.
"You can't deny something because no one will believe you, so you should admit to doing it regardless of if you are doing it"?
Well that's how marketing works.
First were Mearls columns where he mused about design in no much relevance to the current 4E developments.
Then we have Monte on, and I suppose Monte will be doing the same for half a year or so.
Then will come a subtle hint there and another there, and then at GenCon '12 comes the big announcement.
That's pretty much how it worked with 4E's foreshadowing, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it any different now.
Building anticipation for new product can be done in several ways - Paizo, for example, didn't bother with the "subtle" part and just dropped the "Bulmahn Bomb" in March 2008 with PF Alpha.
Well if you choose to ignore my previous post from before that is on you. I have better than quotes I have first hand conversation. You can conveniently ignore it however if you like.
I think the point is that you haven't given us any specifics of even that first-hand knowledge. What did they actually say? "We are making these specific changes to the game to mirror WoW and replace our audience with video gamers."? Or was it more along the lines of, "Yeah, we know MMOs are a big deal, we are paying attention to them and will probably try to appeal to the MMO crowd."?
Or even just, "Yeah, online games are a big thing, we are taking note and plan to have 4E do more stuff with online tools and making online tabletop gaming easy and accessible."
Again, just saying, "This stuff is video-gamey" is devoid of meaning. Saying that WotC told you that they were using "video game sensibilities", without saying what that actually means, is pretty much useless.
The one thing that I can see coming from MMO's for sure is per encounter powers. That is clearly taken from the MMO recharge mechanic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I think it is an interesting mechanic.
The one thing that I can see coming from MMO's for sure is per encounter powers. That is clearly taken from the MMO recharge mechanic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I think it is an interesting mechanic.
Actually, I think MMOs took the power/spell mechanic (of previous editoins) and put a re-charge time on them to better fit the consistant battle standard that are found in that sort of play. Think about it, if your playing a character in an MMO setting where your walking around and adventuring all the time, NO one wants to stop and rest. Even when you weren't playing an MMO, you still had a recharge time for your "daily" powers in the form of Resting (ie. hitting the fire-place button on the heads-up-display).
4E just took the same idea (powers need time to rest themselves) and said hey, no one wants to be required to rest ALL the time to be able to continue the adventure. Instead, lets make certain aspects usable one a fight or maybe even twice a fight. These can be good mechanics but not game-shattering or encounter changing in scope. That way, when we make powers you have to rest up for, they can really be great in effect.
So basically it's WotC realizing that classes with per/anything mechanics work better when that mechanic is used more often even if it's less powerful. Not "technically" an MMO idea since the entire design theory of it surpasses MMOs to begin with.
The one thing that I can see coming from MMO's for sure is per encounter powers. That is clearly taken from the MMO recharge mechanic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I think it is an interesting mechanic.Actually, I think MMOs took the power/spell mechanic (of previous editoins) and put a re-charge time on them to better fit the consistant battle standard that are found in that sort of play. Think about it, if your playing a character in an MMO setting where your walking around and adventuring all the time, NO one wants to stop and rest. Even when you weren't playing an MMO, you still had a recharge time for your "daily" powers in the form of Resting (ie. hitting the fire-place button on the heads-up-display).
4E just took the same idea (powers need time to rest themselves) and said hey, no one wants to be required to rest ALL the time to be able to continue the adventure. Instead, lets make certain aspects usable one a fight or maybe even twice a fight. These can be good mechanics but not game-shattering or encounter changing in scope. That way, when we make powers you have to rest up for, they can really be great in effect.
So basically it's WotC realizing that classes with per/anything mechanics work better when that mechanic is used more often even if it's less powerful. Not "technically" an MMO idea since the entire design theory of it surpasses MMOs to begin with.
Agreed, the ideas of the mechanics are all stolen back and forth and modified. At least part of the original mechanics for D&D were taken from the old tabletop war games, and then modified to fit the game as it evolved. Then computer games came along and took a bunch of ideas from D&D and evolved those in to their mechanics. It doesn't mean that the 4e developer who plays WoW didn't say I really like they way recharge powers work how do we do it in D&D. In the same way the developers of 3e said I really like how M:tG uses these keywords, we should do that.
My "Venture" video game cartridge for Atari 2600 clearly borrowed ideas from the original D&D, so there ya go. The table-top game came first, and both have borrowed from each other over the past 30 years.
Are the constant video game/table top comparisons even relevant at this point?
My "Venture" video game cartridge for Atari 2600 clearly borrowed ideas from the original D&D, so there ya go. The table-top game came first, and both have borrowed from each other over the past 30 years.
Are the constant video game/table top comparisons even relevant at this point?
I just think it is interesting how all of the rules get passed back and forth and altered for the medium. Of course I would also never say that 4e or 3e feels like a video game.
Agreed, the ideas of the mechanics are all stolen back and forth and modified. At least part of the original mechanics for D&D were taken from the old tabletop war games, and then modified to fit the game as it evolved. Then computer games came along and took a bunch of ideas from D&D and evolved those in to their mechanics. It doesn't mean that the 4e developer who plays WoW didn't say I really like they way recharge powers work how do we do it in D&D. In the same way the developers of 3e said I really like how M:tG uses these keywords, we should do that.
So we're both saying that MMOs/video games have mechanics derived from TTRPGs. And TTRPGs have taken ideas from MMOs/video games. And that both are not only accepted models for engineering ideas and generating design but have helped each other in their own specific fields.
I for one, have never really cared about cross-overs in design from one genre to another. IF 4E took elements from MMOs (which I feel certain aspects were, like how powers look in 4E) that doesn't limit the game what-so-ever. It doesn't make it less of a table-top RPG or limit how people can roleplaying using those mechanics.
I think it boils down to when people make those comparisons with the attempt to discredit a particular system or explain that using those ideas are somehow inferior to previous editions is where people get angry.
Agreed, the ideas of the mechanics are all stolen back and forth and modified. At least part of the original mechanics for D&D were taken from the old tabletop war games, and then modified to fit the game as it evolved. Then computer games came along and took a bunch of ideas from D&D and evolved those in to their mechanics. It doesn't mean that the 4e developer who plays WoW didn't say I really like they way recharge powers work how do we do it in D&D. In the same way the developers of 3e said I really like how M:tG uses these keywords, we should do that.
So we're both saying that MMOs/video games have mechanics derived from TTRPGs. And TTRPGs have taken ideas from MMOs/video games. And that both are not only accepted models for engineering ideas and generating design but have helped each other in their own specific fields.
I for one, have never really cared about cross-overs in design from one genre to another. IF 4E took elements from MMOs (which I feel certain aspects were, like how powers look in 4E) that doesn't limit the game what-so-ever. It doesn't make it less of a table-top RPG or limit how people can roleplaying using those mechanics.
I think it boils down to when people make those comparisons with the attempt to discredit a particular system or explain that using those ideas are somehow inferior to previous editions is where people get angry.
Yea, I don't get the need to belittle the game you don't like. If you don't like it don't play it. I don't like Monopoly, that doesn't mean some else won't enjoy it.
Another thing I find interesting from a rules design is the way the end of a ruleset influences the next. At the end of 2e there was a lot of demand for consistent rules, so we see monster rules that work the same as PC rules. Then at the end of 3e there was a lot of demand for simplification of encounter design, so the monsters and PCs don't have to use the same rules. So it could be fun to see where the demand is for change at the end of 4e to get an idea of where 5e will go.
Monte Cook interview, go go way back machine!
Not that there's much to see now that I've read it ><
http://web.archive.org/web/20080509154742/http://www.datadeco.com/nbofeats/
Oooh. Interesting to see the full interview. The full-length novel he was apparently working on back then doesn't seem to have surfaced yet, though...
I found his take on the difference between the launch of 3.0 and 4e to be very interesting and quite accurate.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Monte Cook interview, go go way back machine!
Not that there's much to see now that I've read it ><
http://web.archive.org/web/20080509154742/http://www.datadeco.com/nbofeats/
Oooh. Interesting to see the full interview. The full-length novel he was apparently working on back then doesn't seem to have surfaced yet, though...
I've been eagerly awaiting that novel for quite a while. At Gencon this year, I asked him about it, and while I don't recall his answer exactly enough to quote, he said there would be news about his fiction "soon". Don't know if he meant this year, or early next year, or what, but I'm still looking forward to it.
That reminds me of a thread I saw over at Wizards back in late '06 where someone had a friend(who had a friend who know's a guy, yadda yadda yadda) claiming that WotC was working on 4e, and everybody flamed him saying he was crazy. A WotC rep even stepped into the thread saying it was all false and there was no 4e, not even in development.
I seem to recall this being a myth that was debunked. Anyone have any better information on this?
I seem to recall this being a myth that was debunked. Anyone have any better information on this?
That there was a 4E? No, that turned out to be true a couple of years later.
:-)
|
|
The one thing that I can see coming from MMO's for sure is per encounter powers. That is clearly taken from the MMO recharge mechanic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I think it is an interesting mechanic.
Item sets. There was a trivial amount of this among artifacts, but it became the standard when 4e was released. (Along with eliminating Stat items). If I hadn't put all my old gaming mags in storage, I would go through the 4e preview for more examples. WotC was fairly blatant about the design influence in the 4e preview seminars and such, but I'm not sure how much of that made it into print.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me of a thread I saw over at Wizards back in late '06 where someone had a friend(who had a friend who know's a guy, yadda yadda yadda) claiming that WotC was working on 4e, and everybody flamed him saying he was crazy. A WotC rep even stepped into the thread saying it was all false and there was no 4e, not even in development.I seem to recall this being a myth that was debunked. Anyone have any better information on this?
I recall they even made a April's Fool out of it:
Announcement: 4dventure 4th edition is coming! No, no, April's Fool! hahaha!
Turns out we were fooled by thinking we were fooled, and not in a funny way IMO.
[edit] While I think this marketing stunt was bad taste, this is not an editorial on my part about the quality of 4ed D&D.
'findel
The one thing that I can see coming from MMO's for sure is per encounter powers. That is clearly taken from the MMO recharge mechanic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I think it is an interesting mechanic.Item sets. There was a trivial amount of this among artifacts, but it became the standard when 4e was released. (Along with eliminating Stat items). If I hadn't put all my old gaming mags in storage, I would go through the 4e preview for more examples. WotC was fairly blatant about the design influence in the 4e preview seminars and such, but I'm not sure how much of that made it into print.
You have to go out and get the Magic Item Compendium (v3.5) which has multitude of Item Sets. Actually, they're pretty good too (some anyways).
Also on thing v3.5 did (which I thought was "video-gamey") was Legacy Weapons. I don't know if 4E can pull off such an idea since Artifacts, Intelligent Weapons, and other Weapon Sets work similar but the idea of "Unlocking" features as you grow into a strong and dangerous adventurer was pretty cool. It also guarenteed that Legacy Weapons where probably going to be the one and only weapon a specific character would wield for a long, long time.
I seem to recall this being a myth that was debunked. Anyone have any better information on this?That there was a 4E? No, that turned out to be true a couple of years later.
:-)
No, that the "4th Edition is not in development" bit was a pretty severe misrepresentation of what the WotC rep said, and has unfortunately been repeated as truth so many times by internet people that it's now just accepted. I'm almost certain that someone in this thread can point us in the right direction.
That reminds me of a thread I saw over at Wizards back in late '06 where someone had a friend(who had a friend who know's a guy, yadda yadda yadda) claiming that WotC was working on 4e, and everybody flamed him saying he was crazy. A WotC rep even stepped into the thread saying it was all false and there was no 4e, not even in development.I seem to recall this being a myth that was debunked. Anyone have any better information on this?I recall they even made a April's Fool out of it:
Announcement: 4dventure 4th edition is coming! No, no, April's Fool! hahaha!
Turns out we were fooled by thinking we were fooled, and not in a funny way IMO.
[edit] While I think this marketing stunt was bad taste, this is not an editorial on my part about the quality of 4ed D&D.
'findel
Er, no, I don't think that happened either.
WotC's 2006 April Fool's prank was a My Little Ponies RPG, and their 2007 prank was a licensed D&D version of Monopoly.
"4dventure" was an actual tagline used in the marketing reveal of 4th Edition.
Seriously, guys, this is the internet. In all likelihood the next post will be someone claiming to have seen 4th Edition come down their chimney on Christmas Eve.
No, that the "4th Edition is not in development" bit was a pretty severe misrepresentation of what the WotC rep said, and has unfortunately been repeated as truth so many times by internet people that it's now just accepted. I'm almost certain that someone in this thread can point us in the right direction.
There was a response along the lines of 'we are not working on a 4e that requires minis' when asked if there was a 4e in development. The particular quotes are out there, because for a while there were people who saw the particular quote in question, people who claimed it was a hoax, and then eventually someone pulled up the original quote which was indeed real and settled the issue. Having settled the issue, I don't have any copy of it to drop immediately. Someone should be easily able to find it.
There have also been some claims from folks who were told offline by reps that they 'had no 4e products on their planned release list' around a year before 4e dropped, as a response to the question of if they were working on 4e.
Wait, that doesn't make much sense. Didn't they announce 4E close to an almost full year before the actual launch? Or are you saying that they specifically denied it, like, two weeks before the announcement that it was coming?Anyway, I also don't have the link (either to the claimed quotes or to any proof otherwise), but I do seem to recall the same as Scott - that this was another myth that was eventually debunked.
By "dropped" I meant the announcement of 4e, not the release date. Poor word choice.
I think it is unreasonably silly to expect a company to announce any product before they are ready. I mean, you don't get angry at Paizo because they haven't announced the Fall 2012 RPG book yet, do you? Even though we all know it is very likely to be Bestiary 4. If you ask the staff, they'll still say "We have announced all the books we are prepared to announce." or some such.
So even if they are beginning work on 5E, which I doubt, I wouldn't expect a formal announcement until around GenCon next year.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Monte was hired to work on some expansion modules for 4E. 4E is already very modular. Just look at how well Gamma World manages to be unique and different, but still use the 4E framework. I could see Mike and Monte working on some optional expansions to make variants of 4E.
I still say that Planescape 2012 is the safer bet. Even if they are working on 5E they should still use Monte to work on other projects in the meantime.
There was a response along the lines of 'we are not working on a 4e that requires minis' when asked if there was a 4e in development.
This is still different from the correction I remember hearing. I bet Cirno knows what Matthew and I are thinking of.
HE NEVER TRASH TALKED 4eWhile I might agree with you that there isn't any specific quote to suggest that he did trash talk 4e, you cannot say for certain that he didn't. You have not been privvy to all his conversations since he left WotC.
Nonetheless, some people seem to have the impression that he did.
I'm sorry, I have to strenuously oppose this kind of thinking. Everywhere someone thought he said bad things about 4E have been incorrect memories. Or impressions of someone else.
It's like claiming: "There is no evidence to disprove my impression that Jerry Wright kicks puppies in the privacy of his home." Without evidence it is libel, either malicious or mistaken. Either way, it really shouldn't be tolerated by an informed public.
One thing - Fallacy.
I am saying we live in a civilisation based on around 25K years of history, correct - no? As such we live in the realms of scientific proof. Not analogy, not opinion...fact! Provable fact. With 8 lines of argument I can prove reality is not real. Any point no. False analogies in a thread saying it is true, "because", blatant "hand wave" logic (from many folks calling out non-simulationist 4E mechanics) silly to be completely honest. As what they state is completely anathema to stated opinion - "mechanic is needed; without that nothing makes sense".
The kids are with the mother-in-law, wife (unfortunately) has gone to bed, foolishness of many of these posts and what I have just written - real.
|
|
....what.
"You can't deny something because no one will believe you, so you should admit to doing it regardless of if you are doing it"?
Before 4E was released you had people working for the company saying that was not true at all then they released 4E and well that imo kind of looked dumb. Either way a new edtion will always anger some of the fanbase. Better off the be upfront about it this time around imo.
|
|
Well that's how marketing works.First were Mearls columns where he mused about design in no much relevance to the current 4E developments.
Then we have Monte on, and I suppose Monte will be doing the same for half a year or so.
Then will come a subtle hint there and another there, and then at GenCon '12 comes the big announcement.
That's pretty much how it worked with 4E's foreshadowing, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it any different now.
Building anticipation for new product can be done in several ways - Paizo, for example, didn't bother with the "subtle" part and just dropped the "Bulmahn Bomb" in March 2008 with PF Alpha.
I work in retail so I know all bout advertsing and pushing a product. The thing is most rpg companies are usually upfront about a new edtion. As I said one way or the other it will anger and/or drive away some of the fans. Just be upfront about it.
|
|
As another possibility, could they take the stance that Fantasy Flight Games has taken in regards to their 40K roleplaying game books. By that I mean, make a new setting such as Planescape, it's own seperate DnD game.
They could continue this process through several iterations as they develop additional campaign settings each one tweaking the ruleset to incorporate feedback from players while also experimenting with new ideas.
Seems to be working for FFG.
As another possibility, could they take the stance that Fantasy Flight Games has taken in regards to their 40K roleplaying game books. By that I mean, make a new setting such as Planescape, it's own seperate DnD game.
They could continue this process through several iterations as they develop additional campaign settings each one tweaking the ruleset to incorporate feedback from players while also experimenting with new ideas.
Seems to be working for FFG.
That's only because there are 30 years of pent up demand for a 40k rpg. If WotC tried that, we'd flock to any of the other D&D versions that are still floating around.
If the game were sufficiently different, like Gamma World or a Supers game, it might work.
Better off the be upfront about it this time around imo.So you'd have no problem with them saying there is no 5E planned as long as it's true? Sounds good to me.
Its pretty much irreverent. They never say anything one way or the other on the topic...like ever.
|
Has it been that long? Time flies. I thought he still had creative oversight and approved content. At the very least, he still owns the site. He just hired Super Genius to handle operations. Last I heard, they are still working for him.Monte's official association with DaD ended over a year ago. He kept writing the occasional blog until about January of this year, but I don't think he's done anything with them since then.
If you check the copyrights on the page, SGG has owned the copyright to Dungeonaday since 2010. The page was also recently moved. The core page is now hosted off SuperGeniusGames.com
And of course, now that I'm on record saying he hasn't done anything since January, I will also go on record that my statement is no longer accurate.
As of today, they announced that Monte was guest writing the next mini-dungeon on the site, "The Tomb-World of Alak-Ammur", for the next two weeks starting this upcoming Monday.
Then they can put up or shut up. Until something is confirmed then it's a malicious rumor and nothing more.I admit I was out of line. It's been a pretty bad week all around. I should not have posted on this forum feeling the way I was. So I apolagize to you and others for my posts.
One thing though that Wotc cannot do is deny they are working on 5E because they said the same with 4E. They should be honest and admit to working on a new edition. Otherwise no one will beleive them.
I'm just annoyed that in 2011 people are still buying what they heard some guy knew about from something he saw on the internet.
If by now you aren't entirely jaded to internet rumors then 1) you are hilariously gullible or, more likely, 2) the rumor is something you want to believe.
The truth is, like most rumors, someone probably thought "Wouldn't it make a great story to tell if Monte Cook attacked 4e?" and said as much, and from there it spread. People heard the rumor and, later down the line, when they recalled it, didn't remember the source and assumed it was legit. It's simple source amnesia. My only problem with claiming for source amnesia is that this is the internet. We can - very easily! - look things up.
|
|
The thing is PC they kind of crewed their own crediabilty when they denied 4E was in the works. Then released 4E. It's kind of hard not to assume that they will try and pull off the same thing again. I admit that I'm probably wrong abut 5E coming out soon if at all. You also cannnot guarentee they won't either. Their lack of transparency with 4e has will have gamers always assuming that they are working on a new edition and will release it. Even if it's never going to happen. The logic being if they did it once they can do it again. Personally I don't beleive that yet try telling someone who dislikes 4E and wotc that.
The thing is PC they kind of crewed their own crediabilty when they denied 4E was in the works. Then released 4E. It's kind of hard not to assume that they will try and pull off the same thing again. I admit that I'm probably wrong abut 5E coming out soon if at all. You also cannnot guarentee they won't either. Their lack of transparency with 4e has will have gamers always assuming that they are working on a new edition and will release it.
That's ridiculous logic. It's not like they denied it and then two weeks later it was on the shelf. They were evasive before the official announcement. Just like every other corporation in existence. Apple denies their new products until the official announcement.
On the other hand, once they announced 4th edition, they had a years of previews and information. Anyone who was paying attention knew a lot about what 4th edition before it arrived.
It seems silly to hold a grudge because of some customer service rep who probably was unaware of the pre-pre-alpha development of 4E.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://montecook.livejournal.com/247101.html
Back to the Laboratory
"Back to the Laboratory
A short while ago, I started working for Wizards of the Coast again, on D&D. I am currently working with talented members of the R&D staff, exploring various options and experimenting with the game. Which is to say, doing what I really love. At this point, you can think of me as a mad scientist in a rpg design laboratory, concocting crazy creations to see if any of them have any value.
I'm really not at all concerned with edition wars or arguments of that nature. Please don't try to drag me into those discussions. D&D is bigger than any of that, and my job is a lot more open ended and broad minded than such things. While I'm at it, let me also add, please don't make assumptions about what I'm doing based on things I've done in the past. The future is not yet written.
Speaking of writing (and the future), I'll be writing the Legends & Lore column at the Wizards' web site starting this week and going forward. I'll be using that as a venue to give you updates on my thoughts on these topics, new (and old) ideas, and experiments."
"...While I'm at it, let me also add, please don't make assumptions about what I'm doing based on things I've done in the past. The future is not yet written..."
Well this at least is encouraging.
I still think the skill system he showed to Mike Mearls recently was terrible though.
I hope he sits down and runs a 4E campaign in Ptolus or some such so that he can come to understand the system he is tinkering with. Without that kind of basic intuitive understanding I don't think its possible to make anything of real use beyond fluff for a 4E.
I hope he sits down and runs a 4E campaign in Ptolus or some such so that he can come to understand the system he is tinkering with. Without that kind of basic intuitive understanding I don't think its possible to make anything of real use beyond fluff for a 4E.
Monte's a professional. I'm certain the first thing he'll do is run/play some 4E games. We'll probably learn a bit more about his plans when he writes his first column.
