# Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?



## Gundark (Jul 29, 2011)

These Legends and Lore articles by Mearls has a lot of people talking. There are people (like myself) who wonder if he is talking about a new edition of D&D, or at least some kind of rules and options/unearthed arcana for 4e. There are others that think that he is just blabbing about game theory with no other motive. I can imagine one of the more asked questions that Mike will be asked is "Where are you going with these articles?"

Anyhow after reading page after page of discussion about these articles I've been surprised at the number of people who are say"This won't work!!!!" or who say something like "If this is 5e then count me out!!!!" without any sort of sense of how this would even actually look beyond discussion about theory. 

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?




Doubtful. Once people have left a system, they don't have the built-in incentive to keep up with new editions. To bring most people back, it would have to be too amazing for me to believe probable.



> I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive.




I don't think so. Pathfinder sells as 3.75; any serious movement from that position would make their audience unhappy.



> Is WotC in a no win situation?




If by win, you mean recover the players they lost with 4e, then yes.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jul 29, 2011)

Dagnabbit, must "spread XP before giving it to Gundark again." 

"Ren E. Who," my answer would have to be "NO": nobody on earth would be able to make MOST people happy; therefore, Wizards of the Coast coudn't do that, as they are composed exclusively of "bodies on earth."

"Harrumph." (<-- always looked for an excuse to use that interjection. Finally found one.)


----------



## MerricB (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", although I'd love to be surprised.

3e managed to be very well received due in no small part due to the neglect of 2e by TSR (and the self-destruction of TSR in the preceding years). However, as the lifespan of 3e went on, the split between the different audiences for D&D became more and more pronounced.

If you compare 1E, Pathfinder and 4E, you get three thoroughly different approaches to D&D. There are areas of each system which you can point to and say, "that's closer to 1E than Pathfinder is", or "that's closer to 4E than 1E is" and suchlike.

If you'd imagine a lot of dials like "Character Complexity", "Monster Complexity", "Combat Complexity", "Speed of Combat", you get different values for each system. 

Mike's thought-experiment D&D, which allows each group to set where the dials are, sounds like a nice idea, but I am sceptical, to say the least, about how achievable it is. (Even if it is achievable, how user-friendly would the system be? And does it just fragment everything even more?)

Cheers!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?



Immediately or short term: unlikely; eventually: possibly. The D&D scene is fairly fractured at this point and it might be difficult to get all (or even just some) of those pieces together again. A new edition might be able to do it.


Gundark said:


> Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)?



Just? Not entirely. They've made a lot of decisions that have alienated their customer base, not just been unpopular. 



Gundark said:


> I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive.



Paizo have a lot of good will with their customer base. They have already said that eventually, there will be a Pathfinder 2, but chances are it will be an update rather than a completely new thing. If nothing else, they are guided by their customers and so can be guaranteed not to do something silly. I think the open tests they do for most things (which would include any Pathfinder 2 update or revision) is the key for them doing stuff that their customers want.



Gundark said:


> Is WotC in a no win situation?



They are in a difficult situation of their own making. I dare say however, that they have the talent to turn things around if such they choose to do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jul 29, 2011)

With a new edition? No. It would further split any fanbase they currently have.

With some other offering? Yes. There are one or two ways they could make most people happy, and it's not yet another edition.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

You can never please everyone, but I'll be the lone voice in the wilderness and say that a Universal D&D core system with supplements that support all the most popular flavors of D&D, could be successful and win over a lot of folks.

Would it win over everyone? No, of course not.

Would some of the people it didn't win over bitch so loudly that it seems less successful? You betcha.

But I remember all of the skepticism about the D20 license and then the skepticism about 3.5 and then all the skepticism about 4E and then all the skepticism about Paizo striking out on their own (as crazy as it seems now, there were people who thought they were going to be out of business within six months). Put together a product that even appeals to a large plurality of (past, present, future) *D&D gamers and you've got a hit.

In the RP world, there's *D&D and then there's everything else.


----------



## humble minion (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm inclined to go with the majority and say 'no' here.  Even if WotC do come up with a brilliant and awesome 5e, then there will be people who'll despise it, and they'll be the people making the most noise.

And the same goes for Paizo.  The thing with D&D being the 600lb gorilla in the fantasy RPG market for so long is that basically everyone played it, even if they preferred different game styles or emphasised different aspects of the whole deal.  Your D&D experience != my D&D experience, basically.

4e took a step in a particular direction, favouring one play style over others.  This is not a bad thing - 3e did this too.  But the difference was that when 4e came along, the OGL meant Pathfinder was able to come along, favouring a different play style but still recognisably being D&D.  I think we've seen the last of a unified D&D audience, to be honest.

I still reckon Paizo will need to bring out Pathfinder 2nd ed at some point in time, making some deep changes to the system to really address the fundamentally broken bits of high level d20 play (it's a bit revealing imho that even Paizo doesn't try to get PCs to 20th level in their adventure paths as a matter of course).  When they do, I think they'll cop a fair bit of the same heat that WotC are copping with the 5e recon they're doing at the moment.  Though probably not QUITE as much - WotC is still (for a number of reasons, of which not all are rubbish) the company a lot of gamers love to hate, and Paizo has a lot of community goodwill stored up.  

And I play 3.5e and buy Pathfinder stuff, for what it's worth.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 29, 2011)

> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?



No.

A significant number of people wouldn't buy anything from WotC even if it was good quality. Beyond that, the 4e release and the edition war mess didn't create a schism in the gaming community from nothing. 4e and 3e are radically different, as are the people who play them. It's very unlikely that the same game could satisfy both groups of people (and many others) now that they have been separated. Above and beyond that, WotC has lost so many staff and is in such a bad place as a company I can't see them designing much of anything.



> Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)?



No.

Most of the fire has been from people who thought 3e and 3.5 were great, bought tons of WotC products, and liked the company (myself included). That's why they dislike it so strongly now.



> I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive.



I seriously doubt that.

PF revised 3.5, but was fairly conservative in the way it was done. The differences between 3.5 and 3.0 are much bigger than the differences between 3.5 & PF (ruleswise, anyway). Could they have made bigger changes? Yes. But they didn't feel it was worth the risk of alienating people. For better or for worse, they were probably right; a substantially different game from Paizo would not likely be embraced by the many fans who look to PF as being the current version of D&D.

That being said, now that Paizo has hired so many of the best people in the gaming industry, including a lot of former WotC employees (many since the original PF core rules were designed) and has become well established as a brand, they would have as good a chance as anyone to break new ground successfully.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 29, 2011)

Nope, I don't imagine a new edition would win many over, only further fracture the fanbase.  Even were Paizo, Green Ronin or some other entity to pull the D&D rabbit out of the hat.

However, I don't think WotC could "win" if they were to resurrect an old version of the game either.  There'd be 4Eers who'd whine WotC had abandoned their edition, and everyone else would complain Mike Mearls ruined their edition of the game.*

Would that stop me from _looking_ at a 5th edition?  Nope, I'd still check it out.  But it would definitely have a hard job of convincing me to drop what I'm playing now and actually play it after my not-so-thrilling encounter with 4E.

Would I like to see older edition support?  Sure, especially if it could be 1E/2E material**.  Or perhaps best of all, material that would work with whatever version of D&D I'm playing.  Sadly, all "fluff" books - like the FR player's guide from 2E or the World and Monsters book of 4E - I don't really fancy, and I don't imagine it'd be possible to do a multi-edition mechanics book without a lot of space wasted converting the material between editions.

* With tongue firmly planted in cheek about the meme "Mike Mearls ruined ..."
** Even though I'm not playing right now, it might inspire me to


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 29, 2011)

humble minion said:


> But the difference was that when 4e came along, the OGL meant Pathfinder was able to come along, favouring a different play style but still recognisably being D&D.




I don't think that was the difference. 3rd Edition was coming off 2nd Edition, which was long in the tooth, and not really loved. (Look at how little retro support there is for 2e.) They made a very good system, _and_ at the same time kept it very faithful to the older editions of D&D. When they made 4e, 3e was still a very well loved system, and a very good system; but they choose to kill several sacred cows and make a system that, whatever virtues it may have, is very different from 3e.

My DM still runs 3.5, and I've seen a number of advertisements for 3.5 groups. A recent poll here ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308611-what-version-s-d-d-do-you-play.html ) came up with almost as many 3.5 players as Pathfinder and D&D 4 (72/77/78), so I don't think the split can be attributed to Pathfinder alone.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 29, 2011)

No, I think that at this point the market is split, and it is likely to remain so. Trying to regain the lost market now would be more likely to split that market further.

Not just a matter of folks rooting for the underdog - WotC had a great deal of goodwill that they squandered in the time leading up to the 4e announcement, and in both the rollout of the product and in the product itself.

If Paizo tried to change Pathfinder as drastically as WotC changed D&D then I think that they too would suffer the loss of their wider audience. While Paizo _could_ make such a boneheaded decision I very much doubt that they _will_.

Not _quite_ the same as saying that 4e is a bad system, merely that it did not appeal to as broad an audience as WotC might, perhaps, have hoped. A lot of those folks who left will not be coming back, I know that I won't be.  Changing back to something closer to 3.X would lose WotC a portion of their 4e audience, but would be unlikely to recapture that same number of folks who prefer the 3.X architecture.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Oryan77 (Jul 29, 2011)

Wizards lost me because they made a new edition. Making another new edition is not going to bring me back.

The reason being, I have no problem with the edition I'm using. I loved it when it came out (like so many other people). It was so much easier to use correctly. I learned it very well, made lots of custom content using those rules, and 10 years later I'm practically to the point where I have enough material & tools for the edition that it takes me very little time to prep (and even convert) adventures.

Rather than remake the rules, I may have still bought books if those books were simply updated or tweaked rules. I would even still by adventures and possibly new campaign settings. But then that seemed to be what killed 2e, so I may be a minority in that market.

I don't play D&D for the rules. Once I have a set of rules that I can use to run my games in a way that I like, I'm good to go. New rules are not going to be the sole reason I switch editions. I hate learning new rules. It's a waste of my time that could be used for reading adventures and creating content for the game.

Now, rather than be so focused on the crunch aspect of D&D, if they started making books that could be used across any edition, I'd probably buy it. I don't know how possible that would be, but if by any chance there was a way to write an adventure or create fluffy content that didn't need to reference specific rules, I'd get it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2011)

Add another "No" to the list...3.X and 4Ed- not to mention previous editions- are too different to make a "Unified" edition possible, much less a success.

However, i also think that Hasbro could do like the big beverage companies do, and support more than one product in the market.  IOW, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hasbro successfully supporting more than one branch of the various D&D designs as RPGs, especially with the power of the DDI behind them.

That would mean that technically, there would be no game called D&D 5Ed.  Instead, there would be a 4Ed derived next edition, a 3.X derived FRPG, and maybe new material for previous editions (although some or all of that may only be available in electronic formats).


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jul 29, 2011)

I definitely think it's possible for a 'unification edition' of D&D that consists of a simplified core that can then be customized via expansion supplements could be successful. Would WOTC lose some of the current 4E fanbase? Yes, that's a given. But if the system is sound I believe they would gain far more lapsed players than they would lose. If the new edition had something like the OGL then I think it's chances of success increase dramatically.


----------



## Wycen (Jul 29, 2011)

My feeeling is the only way to get 51% of the DnD players onboard a single edition again is to let it lapse for a decade and then come back.  Like 3E.


----------



## Pour (Jul 29, 2011)

Why this need for reconciliation?


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 29, 2011)

Pour said:


> Why this need for reconciliation?




There is a human want for people to be a part of something; to have something in common that they can talk, laugh and joke about and others understand implicitly what they're talking about.  The more shared experiences we have with others, the easier we can communicate and be happier in our shared experiences.

The problem is, we can't seem to agree what elements should be included or excluded from this thing called D&D.  Some - often major - elements and attitudes don't easily pass between editions, so we become frustrated and unhappy when we can't communicate our joys and experiences to others because they don't cross over edition barriers.

Yes, I know it was a rhetoric question.  But I believe in the answer.


----------



## Erekose (Jul 29, 2011)

Wycen said:


> My feeeling is the only way to get 51% of the DnD players onboard a single edition again is to let it lapse for a decade and then come back.  Like 3E.




I think there's some truth in this but perhaps it's more to do with "time" rather than D&D being unsupported.

What I mean by that is people who have invested a large amount of money in 3.xE (or a particular edition) need to feel that their money has been well spent and that could take 5 years (10 years?) after the bulk of their purchasing before they feel ready to make a major investment in a new edition. If 4E has a similar lifespan as 3.xE then perhaps committed 3.xE players will be ready to take on 5E?

(Clearly this is dependent on a new edition being deemed a worthy successor to the edition the players have made their previous investment to.)


----------



## Oryan77 (Jul 29, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> There is a human want for people to be a part of something; to have something in common that they can talk, laugh and joke about and others understand implicitly what they're talking about.




Not me. I don't want anyone talking about how great my edition is (3.5/PF). I'm now one of the cool mysterious guys that lingers in the dark corner with my hood pulled over my head. I watch all of those people flocking to their 4e bookshelves while I stand nearby snickering at how they play whatever the media tells them they should play.

Yes, read your precious 4e books. Absorb the new content and go have fun playing it with each other. But you'll never be as cool as me cause I'm now old-school and retro. Just wait until I update my sig with some annoying comment that reminds you how old-school I am and that my edition is better.

When 4e came along, the rest of us (1e, 2e, 3e) became _legacy_. Now we all get along. Maybe if 5e comes out, you'll be legacy also and we'll once again get along since we'll share something in common. But until then, I am Episode IV: A New Hope and you are JarJar Binks.


----------



## Gundark (Jul 29, 2011)

humble minion said:


> I still reckon Paizo will need to bring out Pathfinder 2nd ed at some point in time, making some deep changes to the system to really address the fundamentally broken bits of high level d20 play (it's a bit revealing imho that even Paizo doesn't try to get PCs to 20th level in their adventure paths as a matter of course).  When they do, I think they'll cop a fair bit of the same heat that WotC are copping with the 5e recon they're doing at the moment.  Though probably not QUITE as much - WotC is still (for a number of reasons, of which not all are rubbish) the company a lot of gamers love to hate, and Paizo has a lot of goodwill stored up




I do question what PF2.0 will look like, and that is really a topic of discussion all on it's own. I kinda doubt it'll just be an update, Paizo will get to a point where they'll have to do something different. Then that will be interesting to see.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> I'm now one of the cool mysterious guys that lingers in the dark corner with my hood pulled over my head.



He's a Death Eater! GET HIM!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?




In order to have any chance at creating a new edition that would make the majority of people happy, you would need a system that included---

(a) The cleaner math, simpler prep, dynamic combat options, and many of the other features of 4E; with

(b) The gameplay that was marketed as D&D from 1974 to 2008.

I believe such a game is theoretically possible. OTOH, I don't believe that WotC has any interest in creating such a game.

And even if they did, there's a lot of ancillary work WotC would have to do at this point to start healing rifts. At the very least, they would have to improve the quality of their support products; reverse several of their unpopular decisions; and generally show a higher degree of respect for their customers.

I'm not convinced that WotC -- as an organization -- is interested in or capable of doing any of that, either.

Plus, you may be right. That may not be enough. The reality is that people who like pre-2008 D&D are playing the best supported RPGs in history with new, high-quality support coming out every single day. Given that those people legitimately enjoy the game they're playing, it's not just enough for WotC to produce something that's better than 3E at providing the pre-2008 D&D gameplay. They have to produce something MUCH better in order to counter-balance the advantages of experience and support the older system(s) have.

That could be done in 2000 with 3E because:

(1) The older edition could be taken out of print. (The OGL stops you from doing that.)

(2) There was widespread dissatisfaction with the AD&D ruleset, including a substantial body of ex-D&D players who could be brought back into the fold by fixing the problems they had with the rules. (WotC thought they had identified similar dissatisfaction with D&D3, but the proof is in the pudding: A significant portion of that fanbase wasn't dissatisfied with the stuff WotC that they were dissatisfied with.)

(3) Although there was a large body of existing support material, WotC could also take that support material out of print. (The OGL and digital distribution have taken that option away. And it was still only a fraction of the support material that now exists for 3E.)

(4) TSR had created a great deal of bad-will. WotC was a new company and could make a completely clean break from the past.

More fundamentally, I think the nature of the dissatisfaction in 2000 was significantly different than the dissatisfaction that now exists: There was a fairly widespread consensus on what the problems with the AD&D ruleset were. And most of those problems could be fixed without eliminating the core gameplay of D&D.

In 2008, WotC addressed a different sort of dissatisfaction and fundamentally changed the core gameplay of D&D. In a world without an OGL, this would be a mistake. In a world with an OGL, it may be an irreparable one. Paizo now owns the segment of the market that fundamentally likes 3E but wouldn't mind seeing it improved in a variety of minor ways.

How can you win that segment of the market back? I honestly don't know. Big changes won't do it. Those players specifically aren't interested in big changes. And big changes also means divorcing yourself from the massive 3E support network, which gives you another huge hurdle to clear.

But small changes won't do it, either. Small changes won't justify making the switch back from Pathfinder. WotC can't even really offer the advantages of "official support" because Paizo is out-producing them in terms of quality products.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Jul 29, 2011)

No.

All the other "no" or "doubtful" votes have made all the good points already.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> I kinda doubt it'll just be an update, Paizo will get to a point where they'll have to do something different.




Really? Why?

AFAICT, Paizo is doing what WotC either can't or won't do: They're investing in a business plan that won't burn itself out by focusing on adventure products instead of splatbooks.

See, splatbooks invariably reach a point of saturation: Your customers reach the point where they have all the mechanical options they could ever want and it becomes more and more difficult to convince them that they really need Monster Manual 7 or Book o' Feats 18.

Adventures, OTOH, are consumables. (And even moreso in a culture which reads the adventures for solo entertainment value.) Once you've played through the last set, you'll need a new set. There is no saturation point. Your customers will simply continue buying on a perpetual subscription basis.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> AFAICT, Paizo is doing what WotC either can't or won't do: They're investing in a business plan that won't burn itself out by focusing on adventure products instead of splatbooks.



I don't think this is quite borne out by the facts. I think it would be more accurate to say that Paizo is focusing on adventures *and* splatbooks. That will certainly slow down the burn out rate, but won't prevent them from eventually reaching saturation point with crunch.

Some stats:
 * Number of Paizo adventure releases in the last two years: 39
 * Number of Paizo non-adventure releases in the last two years: 39
 * Things I'm not sure how to count (Player's Guides, Maps): 9


----------



## delericho (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?




No, I don't think so. With 5e they'll probably carry over _most_ of the 4e people, they'll no doubt lose some 4e people, they'll bring back some number of lapsed players, they'll bring back some number of old-edition/retro-clone/Pathfinder players... but they'll not reunify the market as 3e did, at least at this present time.



> Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? Is WotC in a no win situation?




Yes, and yes.

A lot of people feel that WotC have abandoned them (rightly or wrongly). As such, there are a lot of people angry at WotC (again, rightly or wrongly). So, WotC could give away 5e for free, it could be the perfect game, and some people would still complain.



> I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive.




It's really hard to say. Paizo have a hugely better relationship with their fans (and even with neutrals in the marketplace). As such, if they took Pathfinder in a radically new direction they _might_ carry people with them.

On the other hand, they may not. It's hard to tell how many Pathfinder fans are really fans of the _system_, and how many are fans of the _company_.

But with a lot of these things, it's not always about _what_ you say. It's often just as much about _who_ says it, and _how_ they say it. And on that front, Paizo very definitely have the edge over WotC.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Wizards lost me because they made a new edition. Making another new edition is not going to bring me back.



Reading this, I just had an epiphany:

Back in the days, TSR lost _me_ because they _did not_ make a new edition.

I was quite happy playing AD&D 1e until I learned more about other rpg systems and started to feel that 1e was hopelessly outdated. Then came 2e and ... nothing much changed. For me it was too little too late.

So I turned my back on D&D for a couple of years. 3e brought me back. They had overhauled D&D completely and almost everything that I enjoyed in other rpgs that had been missing from D&D was now present.

As time went by (and the average party level went up), the 'ugly' side of 3e showed its face: It put too much work on the DM because it was just too difficult to prep. Combat was getting tedious and took hours even for relatively simple encounters.

Then 4e came along and addressed most of the issues with 3e. However, it also changed a lot of other things, turning D&D into a different game much to the chagrin of many players.

_I_ was still happy with 4e until the Essentials disaster. Luckily I'm not DMing at the moment, otherwise I'd say it's time to turn my back on D&D again - at least for a while.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

While I think it is pretty clear that WotC will never be able to please everyone, I do think that there are some things they could do to please more current D&D players (by which I mean people who are playing all editions of the game, including Pathfinder).

1. Bring back some form of distribution channel for out-of-print products from older editions. Making electronic versions of BECMI/1e/2e/3e products available in some fashion would please a number of people, and perhaps more importantly, would win them back some positive sentiment. I think that the market for electronic publishing has matured enough now that the piracy issues should no longer be a major concern for WotC, and I'll be surprised if we don't see some developments along these lines during the next year or so.

2. Release more edition-neutral products, like Dungeon Tiles and the upcoming Map Packs. We're already seeing a shift towards more physical components -- boxed sets with counters and maps -- but at the moment, those are still being marketed as accessories for 4th edition. I suspect that some clever marketing could easily broaden the market of such products, perhaps by explicitly labeling them as "Edition Neutral".

3a. Include more support for older editions in the online content and perhaps even in some printed releases. We saw this for the first time on DDI last month, when conversion notes for 1e and 2e were included with an article. Doing more of this might result in some warm fuzzy feeling from folks who don't play 4e. This support needn't be more than some conversion notes included as an appendix to be useful.

3b. Actively market the Virtual Table Top as supporting older editions of the game. It already explicitly includes older versions of the game as options for sessions, but they aren't really supported from a crunch point of view yet. I think that a big chunk of the target market for the VTT is gamers who played previous editions, but who have drifted away from their gaming groups, so targeting those folks makes sense to me.

4. Release a line of "D&D classic reprints", which would be reprints of out-of-print material, possibly bundled with 4e updates. We've already seen a number of classic updated to 4e (_Village of Hommlet_, _Tomb of Horrors_ and the upcoming _Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan_). Bundle those with reprints of the originals and maybe a nice map or two that will be useful for either version of the adventure, and they'll be snapped up by collectors and fans of older editions alike. Even if these are limited edition releases, they will still create the impression that WotC cares about older editions.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think this is quite borne out by the facts. I think it would be more accurate to say that Paizo is focusing on adventures *and* splatbooks. That will certainly slow down the burn out rate, but won't prevent them from eventually reaching saturation point with crunch.
> 
> Some stats:
> * Number of Paizo adventure releases in the last two years: 39
> ...




I would like to see more information behind these numbers you posted. Your non-adventure releases number looks like it is lumping together a good number of things that are much less rule dependent than things like the core rulebook, APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic which are more a part of the actual ruleset.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?




WotC proved with 4E that they have become too corporate to create a game I want in a format I want.

I'll be interested in checking out Dungeons & Dragons again if and when it's in the hands of a privately-held company.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think this is quite borne out by the facts. I think it would be more accurate to say that Paizo is focusing on adventures *and* splatbooks. That will certainly slow down the burn out rate, but won't prevent them from eventually reaching saturation point with crunch.
> 
> Some stats:
> * Number of Paizo adventure releases in the last two years: 39
> ...



I think your numbers are distorted here. At present the rulebooks are:
- Core rules
- Advanced Players Guide
- Ultimate Magic
- Ultimate Combat

Everything else is either:
- An Adventure path, Module or Pathfinder Society module
- Monster Books: Manual or Revisited Line
- Golarion campaign books: Race of Golarion, region focus guides etc.

In reference to what Beginning of the End was pointing to, the first couple are your crunch (and apparently, this covers most of what Paizo plan to release in this vein), while the everything else section are your "consumables". This does not count cards, minis, map packs, pathfinder fiction and other such secondary products. I think in this light, his point stands; that Paizo are focusing on consumable products thus promoting overall longevity with good continuous support. At this point I think it fair to say that it's working.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Pour (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> While I think it is pretty clear that WotC will never be able to please everyone, I do think that there are some things they could do to please more current D&D players (by which I mean people who are playing all editions of the game, including Pathfinder).
> 
> 1. Bring back some form of distribution channel for out-of-print products from older editions. Making electronic versions of BECMI/1e/2e/3e products available in some fashion would please a number of people, and perhaps more importantly, would win them back some positive sentiment. I think that the market for electronic publishing has matured enough now that the piracy issues should no longer be a major concern for WotC, and I'll be surprised if we don't see some developments along these lines during the next year or so.
> 
> ...




I'm okay with 1, 2 and 4 so long as they don't take away from 4e support in the process. I'm not a fan of enticing lapsed players at a cost of even less material or attention for players of the current edition. 

One of 4e's basic design principles was to attract new players, and having played Encounters, cons and uncounted home games, I count myself responsible for introducing and retaining 18 new players/DMs. Encounters in my area are usually pushing 30 people a week. Many of my college players have and are expanding games at their schools, and the online players in my two weekly groups have, themselves, expanded into their own games with new players. I want them supported. I appreciate the current flux of Heroic material, but I do want Paragon and especially Epic supported in the coming months/year. I want the continued exploration of the 4e chasis moving  in a forward direction. 

Many board members have done an excellent job illustrating the reasons why pandering to the bygone crowds would ultimately prove fruitless, save in the above examples, which really benefit all of us, except the greater implications of 3a and 3b- new support exclusive to older editions beyond some side notes and time spent fitting older editions into the VTT with more than a minimal adjustment is, to me, just untenable.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 29, 2011)

The real unification efforts need to wait until the late 2020s-early 2030s, when the bulk of the old-school players are nearing retirement age.  

Shiny new version of the 1e Player's Handbook + Led Zeppelin on the oldies station + a bunch of former gamers at the old folks' home... what's not to love!

Actually, I think I just saw the seed of the script of Cocoon 3 in my head....


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> I would like to see more information behind these numbers you posted. Your non-adventure releases number looks like it is lumping together a good number of things that are much less rule dependent than things like the core rulebook, APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic which are more a part of the actual ruleset.






Herremann the Wise said:


> I think your numbers are distorted here. At present the rulebooks are:
> - Core rules
> - Advanced Players Guide
> - Ultimate Magic
> ...




I did indeed count all of the campaign books as non-adventures, because, well, they aren't adventures. And I also agree that Paizo have a great balance between crunch and fluff in their products. But comparisons need to be fair. _Orcs of Golarion_, to pick a random non-adventure off my shelf, actually contains a fair amount of crunch: a page of racial traits on the inside front cover, another page and a quarter of orc traits later on, two pages tactical feats, and another two pages on orc magic, which is also mostly crunch. WotC's _Player's Handbook Races_ series do have a bit more crunch in them, but not much more.

Paizo are clearly limiting the number of "core" rulebooks, but they certainly aren't only focusing only on "adventure products" as was stated. Rather they are focusing on a better balance between crunch and fluff across all of their products, as well as having an excellent line of system-neutral products like the item cards and Flip-Mats. (Aside: Oh how I love my collection of Flip-Mats!)

In part, I think this approach is driven by the fact that Pathfinder inherits all of the crunch already out there for 3.5. Given that, focusing on products that don't compete directly with _Complete Warrior_ is a sensible strategy. 4e, by comparison, is starting with a clean slate of crunch, so _Martial Power_ fills a niche not covered by any existing product.



> In reference to what Beginning of the End was pointing to, the first couple are your crunch (and apparently, this covers most of what Paizo plan to release in this vein), while the everything else section are your "consumables". This does not count cards, minis, map packs, pathfinder fiction and other such secondary products. I think in this light, his point stands; that Paizo are focusing on consumable products thus promoting overall longevity with good continuous support. At this point I think it fair to say that it's working.



I agree that it is working. I wish more 4e products had a crunch/fluff balance that was closer to Pathfinder. (And increasingly, that's indeed the case.) But I also think that Paizo's strategy can only delay the need to have some sort of new edition of Pathfinder. Once they have published _Gnomes/Elves/Humans/Orc/etc. of Golarion_ the options for new products start to decrease. I'm not sure the market for _Yakmen of Golarion_ is that large. (Although I admit I'd buy it.)


----------



## Reynard (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> I agree that it is working. I wish more 4e products had a crunch/fluff balance that was closer to Pathfinder. (And increasingly, that's indeed the case.) But I also think that Paizo's strategy can only delay the need to have some sort of new edition of Pathfinder. Once they have published _Gnomes/Elves/Humans/Orc/etc. of Golarion_ the options for new products start to decrease. I'm not sure the market for _Yakmen of Golarion_ is that large. (Although I admit I'd buy it.)




The idea that a game needs a new edition to make room for rules changes and huge amounts of crunch is a relatively new one. Pathfinder is very young, yet, and its hardcover releases are moving it to a place where "all the options are on the table." But the game has a long shelf life left -- the APs, obviously, plus any number of Golarion books yet to be published. Then, there's a contingent of the fans that want a new and different setting, ranging from something Eberron like to something Dark sun like.

The only thing that points toward the "need" for a PF2 is the belief that new editions are necessary to bring in revenue. But that's a model that has shown to be problematic at best, if not outright wrong. Adventures and supplements may once again provide all the necessary revenue, especially if the game keeps growing so the evergreen Core materials keep selling for years.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 29, 2011)

Right now most lapsed players fall into the following groups, and whether a new edition could get "most" of them back depends entirely on how many people are in each of these.  Because some of these groups could move to a new edition... but several of them will not.

1) The players who took offense to WotC's original 4E marketing.

_Most of these players are probably lost for good, because they just hate WotC the company.  So unless the new edition is just *so* outstanding that they swallow the bile in their mouths, or WotC sells the brand to a different company... these players returning I imagine is unlikely._

2) The players who are 3PP focused.

_Most of these players are also probably lost for good, because they only play D&D because of the OGL and thus any game that doesn't have it (which I'd imagine the new edition falls into that) is not a game they will play._

3) The players who have a specific style of adventure / adventure path they want and enjoy.

_Paizo's generally acknowledged to be head and shoulders above WotC when it comes to adventure design (as far as I can tell from what I read here on the boards).  As a result, many players play Pathfinder just so that they can play those adventures easily.  Most of these players are probably lost for good UNLESS the new edition is so good it's worth players' time to adapt the PF adventures to it, or WotC works a lot harder to create better adventures.  We'll probably find more of this group willing to try the new edition compared to the first two groups, but I think most still wouldn't bother._

4) The players who don't want to play a miniatures game.

_These players definitely ARE more likely to return, if we go under the assumption that one of the 'complexity dials' Mearls talked about is the tactical miniatures combat, and if that is removable.  If it is... then players who like 4E for many advances it did make (like the DDI tools, the ease of monster and encounter design) but hate it because of the focus on miniatures... most certainly will give the new edition a look if it includes a way to remove that focus and play the game miniatureless._

5) The players who don't want to 'rent' an rpg.

_These players ironically enough I would think WOULD be more likely to come to a new edition if the game got printed in books (in addition to DDI).  It's acknowledged that there's been so much errata to 4E that many players just don't want to play the game since their books have become obsolete, and they refuse to have DDI be their book replacement (since they don't actually "own" the material to do with it as they please.)  However, if a new edition comes out that gets fully vetted and printed... the game is now back to its original pristine condition.  A player's handbook that is usable and not out of date.  That would be something many of these players would look forward to, I'd imagine._

6) The players who want earlier editions of the game made available and/or supported.

_There is a subset of players who refuse to play 4E or any game WotC produces because they are upset that WotC does not make earlier editions available.  So in that regard, they are like group 1 in that it's anger towards the company and not the game itself that is the roadblock.  However, unlike group 1... WotC can make reparations to this group by finally actually making earlier edition material available.  If that was to happen... then I think some of these players would 'cross the picket line' as it were, and take a look at the new edition since they've now been placated.  However, I do think this group is very small, because it stands to reason that these players want earlier edition material released because they want to play these earlier editions, *and not* any new game WotC would release._

7) The players who saw rules they liked/loved get removed from 4E.

_Thanks to Dannyalcatraz for mentioning this category, and I think it warrants an edit into my post.  He's right in that what D&D is to people depends greatly on many of the rules used to 'create' the game.  The biggest issue then becomes which people think which rules are the sacred cows, and how many have to get removed from it to make you no longer want to play it.  Hell, for many players the Assassin was a sacred cow and that's what stopped them from moving from 1E to 2E, and THAC0 was a sacred cow that stopped players from switching from 2E to 3E.  Whether any of these players who had left because of slaughtered cows come back to a new edition depends entirely on how many of those cows make a return.  Some will... some won't.  But I do think that Mearls' 'complexity dials' mean that there's possibilities for things to get re-added to the game as part of a particular dial subset (like the nine alignment grid, the 'special' magic items, maybe even the 'great wheel', etc.) _

***

These were just the initial groups I could think of, but I'm sure there are several more if I thought about it longer.  And as I said above, it depends entirely on the number of players who fall within these groups that would determine whether "most" of them were able to be brought back to a new edition.  My own personal guess would be 'no'... as I do not think there are 51% or more players on the side willing to come back.  But we really won't know until it happens.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 29, 2011)

Successfully creating a modular system like this is a huge challenge, and there is nothing Mike Mearls likes better than bacon.

--but close second is a challenge. I hope he succeeds.


----------



## BriarMonkey (Jul 29, 2011)

Short and sweet:  No.

WotC has alienated some, annoyed others, and peeved plenty more.  Many don't give two hoots what WotC does, and that would include a new edition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2011)

I fall somewhat into some of the categories DEFCON 1 enumerated- especially category 1- but I'm not lost for good.  I actually do have a fair amount of 4Ed product.*

My skepticism about a Unification Edition is based purely on mechanics.  There are many changes in 4Ed that simply don't mesh well with previous editions...and those mechanics are a good portion of the reason the divide is as big and deep as it is.  Things like the dilution of alignment to virtual insignificance, the AEDU power system, and so forth are hailed as advances by 4Edphiles and deeply resented by 3.Xphiles...and the rules they replaced are seen in exactly the opposite way by the respective sides.  Appeasing one side is very likely to drive the other away.

I don't see how you can resurrect the sacred cows 4Ed slaughtered without causing many of that game's fans to run away in fear and disgust.

Marketing may have opened the rift, but the mechanics cracked it wide open.






* I think its a solid FRPG.  I just don't think of it as D&D.


----------



## P1NBACK (Jul 29, 2011)

Build it and they will come.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 29, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> Build it and they will come.




Build it and the will come ... to complain.

At least that's my theory, which is mine.

/M

(EDIT: props for Riley and Basterd for picking up the Python reference )


----------



## Lordhawkins9 (Jul 29, 2011)

From a company standpoint, it's hard to be in a "win" position when you're not releasing new product.

For this year, I think WotC canceled more products than they released.  Or at least canceled more products that _I_ wanted to buy.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jul 29, 2011)

I think they could but its going to take 10 years of planing and playtesting. You would have to make it "compatible" with all editions and modular. The core rules should be very basic like OD&D then you have supplements add in AD&D, 3e, or 4e options. You would need to dual stat monster blocks at a minimum as people wont want to convert AC and BAB. I think a better idea is to rerelease rules compendiums of older editions on DDI along with character builders so they get everyone willing to pay monthly to have a reason to do so. Put the old Dungeon and Dragon mags up there and you'll draw the fans regardless of the edition they play.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?




Well it kinda depends.  Look, I'm not trying to go "edition wars" mode here but it seems to me WotC made two crucial mistakes (IMHO) when it came to 4e.  First, for the second time in a decade they released a version of the game completely (and intentionally) incompatible with the previous edition.  If ANYTHING is going to splinter your audience, who has invested $XX in your product, this will do it.  Their second mistake (again, IMHO) was the way their PR department handled the rollout.  This started poorly (with fan/consumer accusations of lying since up until the day before the announcement company reps had been swearing up and down that a new edition was not on the horizon), and just never got better (keeping a lot of changes vague or secret until the books hit the shelves).  Compare the rollout to the 3e rollout and you'll be amazed at the difference in fan reaction (which was not all rosy either).

So where am I going with this if not to spark a big edition fight?  No, WotC will probably never be able to produce an edition to bring everyone back into the fold.  That ship is sailed.  There is too big a gulf between the AD&D and 3e crowds and 4e now.  OTOH, they should be VERY concerned about further splintering their consumer base.  5e, whenever it comes down the pike, needs to be an incremental update as opposed to whole system reboot.  More Call of Cthulhu 7th edition and less Star Wars: Special Edition.  Clean it up and incorporate the best rules updates; don't make us argue who shot first.

The second big thing they could do is give the fans/customers a sense of ownership over the update.  Look at how Paizo handled its public Beta test of Pathfinder.  Or even better, look at the difference between 2nd edition AD&D and 3e.  Maybe it was all the focus group testing, or just smart business, but a lot of the positive reaction for 3e came from the fact that lots of 2nd ed GMs were using a lot of the little rules changes already.  The preview materials highlighted this.  2nd ed took a survey of what fans wanted changed and then just did their own thing regardless of that feedback.  WotC needs to make the fans feel like part of the process for the next edition, which shouldn't be too hard given the access fans have to the developers these days.  This wasn't the case with 4e (or, if it was, I didn't see that vibe around here) and the results are obvious.

This plan won't bring the lost sheep back into the fold, but I think it will build better retention and consumer relations going forward.  IMHO, of course.

Tom


----------



## Corathon (Jul 29, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?




Probably not, but I applaud the effort.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Jul 29, 2011)

BluSponge said:


> The second big thing they could do is give the fans/customers a sense of ownership over the update.



I suspect that this is what Mike Mearls is doing now with his series of articles - putting out feelers in the ether, sampling opinions, and taking baby steps with the community. If there's too much fragmentation and he can't find common ground, then maybe they'll splinter into a 4E and 5E direction in parallel.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

humble minion said:


> I still reckon Paizo will need to bring out Pathfinder 2nd ed at some point in time, making some deep changes to the system to really address the fundamentally broken bits of high level d20 play (it's a bit revealing imho that even Paizo doesn't try to get PCs to 20th level in their adventure paths as a matter of course).



Yeah, high level d20 is definitely going to need more work at some point. I suspect Paizo has privately tried several times to make high-level adventures work and found that it's just a mess. (Obviously, they did it in the pages of Dungeon previously.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> 4. Release a line of "D&D classic reprints", which would be reprints of out-of-print material, possibly bundled with 4e updates. We've already seen a number of classic updated to 4e (_Village of Hommlet_, _Tomb of Horrors_ and the upcoming _Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan_). Bundle those with reprints of the originals and maybe a nice map or two that will be useful for either version of the adventure, and they'll be snapped up by collectors and fans of older editions alike. Even if these are limited edition releases, they will still create the impression that WotC cares about older editions.



I would love a stats-lite edition of Village of Hommlet, Tomb of Horrors and several others, including the original stats-lite module, In Search of the Unknown. (I really want to use the map, but I don't want to pay $15 for a tattered version from Noble Knight, and would love a digital version for my iPad.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My skepticism about a Unification Edition is based purely on mechanics.  There are many changes in 4Ed that simply don't mesh well with previous editions...and those mechanics are a good portion of the reason the divide is as big and deep as it is.  Things like the dilution of alignment to virtual insignificance, the AEDU power system, and so forth are hailed as advances by 4Edphiles and deeply resented by 3.Xphiles...and the rules they replaced are seen in exactly the opposite way by the respective sides.  Appeasing one side is very likely to drive the other away.
> 
> I don't see how you can resurrect the sacred cows 4Ed slaughtered without causing many of that game's fans to run away in fear and disgust.



Put them in separate books of optional rules, somehow indicating that one is 3E flavored-rules, and one is 4E-flavored rules. It's not impossible to do -- a lot of the stuff that ended up in 4E got trial runs in 3E supplements later on.

Everything else, really, is fluff. How many alignments or how many planes there are don't really affect the rules that much (although you can obviously create settings where they do) and could easily be handled in a supplement. A Planescape series of books, for instance, could -- _should have_ -- the nine alignments in the players book, along with planar races and the spells required for life on the planes, and the Great Wheel and a ton of related monsters and gods and new rules to make it all work in the DM book. (And Sigil, naturally, would be 50 percent or so of the setting book.)


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 29, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> I suspect that this is what Mike Mearls is doing now with his series of articles - putting out feelers in the ether, sampling opinions, and taking baby steps with the community. If there's too much fragmentation and he can't find common ground, then maybe they'll splinter into a 4E and 5E direction in parallel.




I agree with you on the first point.  Not so much on the second.  Rather than splinter, I think Mearls and R&D will simply go in a different direction and chalk up the blog entries to experimentation and conjecture.  Nothing I've seen from WotC in the past decade suggests that have any interest in pursuing a parallel product line with DnD.

Tom


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 29, 2011)

No, the community is fractured as others have pointed out. 4e maybe attracted new players but lost some old ones and then Paizo showed up and picked up the stragglers. You essentially have a 4+ way division here. A new "edition" would simply split things even more.

Though I don't interpret Mike Mearl's musings as much as a new edition but as a new approach to this community division. Cull a base system from the various rule sets, center it on things they all have in common (the attributes for instance), then create plug and play "modules" (terrible choose of words BTW). 

You want the 4e style Powers module, great - you prefer the 3e Spells/Feats module, ok. You want just the basic classes and attributes, that works too. The ever popular 3e Grappling module? Sure thing. To me, that's not a new edition, it's just a re-marketing of old content (or hosue rule stuff) which is re-designed in such a way as to integrate with each other. 

I've toyed with the idea of creating a new edition for my own enjoyment and even as a simple hobbyist my ideas have seen some contempt hurled their way - before people even understand what the rules entail. If WotC creates a new edition or "evolves" DnD down any new path, they are sure to be subjected to blind, abject hatred whether the new edition is a good game or not. 

However, that may be what needs to happen to take RPGs into the future. Maybe everything needs to be modular / pick and choose and sold piecemeal on a website. Maybe dinosaurs like myself that like the smell and feel of books and like to see people's faces (and have them in dice throwing range...) NEED to be weeded out of the hobby for it to once again be "successful". Who says pleasing everyone is what they are even after?

Locally, I can't find many people playing DnD at the shops. 4e games surface every now and then and fade away. My FLGS has been running a Pathfinder night, but they don't want to allow people to run anything else - they can't seem to keep consistent players for 4e and obviously there is no money in 3e. I'll stomach it because Pathfinder is -close- to what I normally play, but I still don't care much for it. (Too clsoe to the same thing and I am not one of thsoe people that demanded every class get some new ability each level or it was "broken"...I'm constantly finding people can't keep up with half the crap their characters can do.)

As noted, with all the edition debacles, I'm either rmaking my own system to run which is similar to DnD and creates the experience I want from it, or I am seriously considering dialing back to 2e or earlier. Sure, I know, there are other RPGs out there but regardless the company decisions I am a solid fan of DnD in one form or another.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 29, 2011)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I think your numbers are distorted here. At present the rulebooks are:
> - Core rules
> - Advanced Players Guide
> - Ultimate Magic
> - Ultimate Combat




I believe if you count the monster books, Paizo is averaging a mechanical supplement about once every 4 months. At that rate, I believe it will take them something like 15 years to reach the saturation point of WotC's 3.5 mechanical supplements.

Which means that circa 2024, Paizo would theoretically "need" to do a 3.5-style reboot. That's so far in the future it's basically irrelevant in terms of business planning. Their business plan is very, very sustainable. The nature of gaming itself is likely to change before their business plan exhausts itself.

(This doesn't mean that the company won't have to change course and adapt to the times. But it will mean that they won't be doing it to themselves.)


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 29, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> I believe if you count the monster books, Paizo is averaging a mechanical supplement about once every 4 months. At that rate, I believe it will take them something like 15 years to reach the saturation point of WotC's 3.5 mechanical supplements.




I don't know that I believe that. They're already up to Bestiary 3, and WotC was only up to <s>4</s> 3 monster manuals (counting the Fiend Folio) before 3.5. Paizo is also printing larger books; the Complete Arcane was 192 pages, and Advanced Player's Guide is 336, 75% more. So the APG, Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic is about equal to the Complete Warrior, Adventurer, Arcane, Divine and Scoundrel. It feels like they're already approaching the point where WotC's books started getting, er, esoteric.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 29, 2011)

Of the various splintered parts of the fanbase, I can see WotC making a version that appeals to multiple splinters, but not some members of each splinter. And even if they made the best game ever, gave it away for free, and hired a good DM to come to your house and run it for you, some people would complain that the jerk DM didn't contribute any snacks. And I'm not even including the people ticked off at WotC personally, in that assessment.  

For example, I can see a modular version that appealed strongly to any two of the 4E, 3E, or Basic/1E crowd.  But not all three.  The trade offs you'd have to make to appeal to both the 3E and 4E players are not going to leave enough design room to appeal to the earlier group. And so on for any of the two.

I also have my doubts about big corporations and roleplaying rules.  Like the problems with licensed properties, I think the corporate mindset puts a ceiling on the excellence possible--one which marketing, productive values, strong editing and playtesting, etc. must compensate for.  That is, a committee never made any great art.  If you want to make an artistic product by committee, then all those other strengths must be pushed to their limits, for the overall thing to really hit.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> I don't know that I believe that. They're already up to Bestiary 3, and WotC was only up to 4 monster manuals (counting the Fiend Folio) before 3.5.



No, _Monster Manual III_ was a 3.5 release, so WotC only released *three* monster books for 3.0: _Monster Manual_, _Monster Manual II_ and _Fiend Folio_. If we're only counting monster books, Paizo will have exceeded WotC's monster page count once _Bestiary 3_ is released.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That is, a committee never made any great art.



There are a lot of great movies out there, and almost all of them were created by the artistic decisions of dozens or even hundreds of people. (Some of them might be small, like the choices a key grip makes, but they're still choices and thus design by committee.)

3E was designed by committee, and while it has its problems (hello, life after level 15), most people hold it to be, overall, a pretty solid design.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> No, _Monster Manual III_ was a 3.5 release, so WotC only released *three* monster books for 3.0: _Monster Manual_, _Monster Manual II_ and _Fiend Folio_. If we're only counting monster books, Paizo will have exceeded WotC's monster page count once _Bestiary 3_ is released.



Don't most of their Monsters Revisited books include new monsters, too, or are those reprinted in the Bestiaries?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2011)

> Put them in separate books of optional rules, somehow indicating that one is 3E flavored-rules, and one is 4E-flavored rules. It's not impossible to do -- a lot of the stuff that ended up in 4E got trial runs in 3E supplements later on.




I really don't see that working on a mechanical level, considering 3Ed (and previous editions) had things like alignment with actual mechanical effects, whereas 4Ed's alignment is simply words on a page for guidance; AEDU system vs Vancian magic and characters without magic at all, and so forth.

...Unless you're talking about releasing books of fluff with dual stats like the Tri-Stat/HERO books of a few years ago.

But that's not really a unified edition, that's dual-statted, system neutral books.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I really don't see that working on a mechanical level, considering 3Ed (and previous editions) had things like alignment with actual mechanical effects, whereas 4Ed's alignment is simply words on a page for guidance; AEDU system vs Vancian magic and characters without magic at all, and so forth.



Look at some of the OSR rulebooks for what a UD&D core book might look like: Characters basically get to whack each other with weapons and there's not a lot more detail beyond that. Magic could be left out entirely, and available in a supplement book, possibly one that had several systems balanced against one another. (A real, and near-essential, Tome of Magic, in other words.)

The 3E-flavor book (and again, I'd link it to a setting and a monster book) would include classes like the paladin that relies on alignment and monsters that use the alignment system. So, if you wanted alignment and how it all plays out, you'd pick up the UD&D Forgotten Realms books and adventures.



> ...Unless you're talking about releasing books of fluff with dual stats like the Tri-Stat/HERO books of a few years ago.
> 
> But that's not really a unified edition, that's dual-statted, system neutral books.



I'd keep the "settings" separate -- the only modules that would feature the Delve format, for instance, would be the UD&D Nentir Vale ones.

There could be universal adventures that didn't feature paladins or Great Wheel outsiders or delve-style encounters that could work with all systems. Depending on your point of view, that's either more compelling or less than the current system.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> I believe if you count the monster books, Paizo is averaging a mechanical supplement about once every 4 months. At that rate, I believe it will take them something like 15 years to reach the saturation point of WotC's 3.5 mechanical supplements.



Well, it's possible to reach any conclusion if you just make up facts 

What are you counting as 3.5 "mechanical supplements"? The core rulebooks, plus the _Complete books_ and _Expanded Psionics Handbook_? Does the _Races of_ series count? What about _Draconomicon_ and _Libris Mortis_? _Frostburn_? _Heroes of Battle_? I'm not sure it is fair to count all of those without also counting a lot of the Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles series.

By my count, excluding only adventures, WotC released 6652 pages of material during the first two years of 3.5, while Paizo released 3832 pages of material during the first two years of Pathfinder. That means Pathfinder has a release rate which is about 58% that of 3.5. Since 3.5 had a 57 month lifespan, extrapolating that gives Pathfinder until November 2016 to reach the same saturation point. That's still some time away, but a lot sooner than 2024...


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 29, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> Well, it's possible to reach any conclusion if you just make up facts
> 
> What are you counting as 3.5 "mechanical supplements"? The core rulebooks, plus the _Complete books_ and _Expanded Psionics Handbook_? Does the _Races of_ series count? What about _Draconomicon_ and _Libris Mortis_? _Frostburn_? _Heroes of Battle_? I'm not sure it is fair to count all of those without also counting a lot of the Pathfinder Companion/Chronicles series.




I think the distinction is pretty clear to anyone who isn't being silly about it.

If you don't buy that there's a meaningful distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical supplements, OK. But claiming that anyone talking about such a distinction is just "making up facts" is, frankly, getting pretty close to a baseless and needless personal attack.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> I think the distinction is pretty clear to anyone who isn't being silly about it.
> 
> If you don't buy that there's a meaningful distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical supplements, OK. But claiming that anyone talking about such a distinction is just "making up facts" is, frankly, getting pretty close to a baseless and needless personal attack.



My apologies -- I _really_ didn't mean that to come across as a personal attack. But I do not think the distinction is clear at all. I just spent more than an hour looking through all of the 3.5 and Pathfinder releases to try to provide some actual figures, and I could not easily divide either pile of books into "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" supplements.

I was honestly not being facetious in asking where you draw the line. I'm genuinely curious to know.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 29, 2011)

Maggan said:


> Build it and the will come ... to complain.




"If [WoTC] started to walk on water, [some people] would complain that [they] can't swim." - JtKL


----------



## KidSnide (Jul 29, 2011)

Personally, I think a good VTT that come integrated with WotC's multi-edition IP could be a real killer app.  

I use Fantasy Grounds 2, not because I'm particularly found of the software (although it's not bad), but mostly because I'm running a War of the Burning Sky game and it's already been loaded into FG2.

If WotC created a VTT that could support multiple editions and was loaded with its classic modules (and ideally, would allow people to upload their edition conversions of the same), I think a lot of people would sign up for that.  

-KS


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2011)

> Look at some of the OSR rulebooks for what a UD&D core book might look like: Characters basically get to whack each other with weapons and there's not a lot more detail beyond that. Magic could be left out entirely, and available in a supplement book, possibly one that had several systems balanced against one another. (A real, and near-essential, Tome of Magic, in other words.)




1) OSR?  IDK that abbrv./acronym.

2) Magic not in the base version of a FRPG?  Especially the best known FRPG in the world?  The one non-gamers think is synonymous with the hobby? You've lost me already.

3) What kind of magic?  AEDU loses you the Vancians, Vancian costs you the AEDUphes.  Plus, if you go AEDU, the AEDUphiles will want that stuff for the non-magic wielding classes.



> There could be universal adventures that didn't feature paladins or Great Wheel outsiders or delve-style encounters that could work with all systems.




So when someone wants to play a Paladin in one of these so-called "universal" adventures, are you going to include guidance for when Sir Praiseworthy Killalot "Detects Evil" or will he simply be gimped or banned?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) OSR?  IDK that abbrv./acronym.



Old School Renaissance. It's the retroclones and retro not-quite-clones like C&C. They've been doing stripped-down D&D for several years now, in an attempt to recreate older versions of the game.



> So when someone wants to play a Paladin in one of these so-called "universal" adventures, are you going to include guidance for when Sir Praiseworthy Killalot "Detects Evil" or will he simply be gimped or banned?



You could take the radical step of writing "Evil" on every relevant stat-block.

Your concerns about how they'd handle the various power types are real issues -- and honestly, if Mearls hadn't alluded to it, it wouldn't have been something I would have thought they'd try. How they handle the Human Evil Detector is really no big deal at all.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 30, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 6) The players who want earlier editions of the game made available and/or supported.
> 
> _There is a subset of players who refuse to play 4E or any game WotC produces because they are upset that WotC does not make earlier editions available.  So in that regard, they are like group 1 in that it's anger towards the company and not the game itself that is the roadblock.  However, unlike group 1... WotC can make reparations to this group by finally actually making earlier edition material available.  If that was to happen... then I think some of these players would 'cross the picket line' as it were, and take a look at the new edition since they've now been placated.  However, I do think this group is very small, because it stands to reason that these players want earlier edition material released because they want to play these earlier editions, *and not* any new game WotC would release._



Just wanted to revisit this part (or why and how I semi-pseudo-sorta disagree) - older edition adventures are much, _much_ easier to convert to newer editions than converting, say, a Pathfinder adventure to 4e.

And enough people have done so that I think that adventures and setting materials are likely to draw across editions. (I ran Bone Hill, Village of Hommlet, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, and Keep on the Borderlands with 3.X.)

So, not _quite_ the same thing. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Old School Renaissance. It's the retroclones and retro not-quite-clones like C&C. They've been doing stripped-down D&D for several years now, in an attempt to recreate older versions of the game.




Hmmm...take this for what it's worth, but not a one of those has even gotten me past looking at them.  And the only one that did THAT was Hackmaster.



> You could take the radical step of writing "Evil" on every relevant stat-block.



Too much work for me to make use of a supposedly "universal" product- with it's _intended_ ruleset- to get me to buy it.



> Your concerns about how they'd handle the various power types are real issues -- and honestly, if Mearls hadn't alluded to it, it wouldn't have been something I would have thought they'd try. How they handle the Human Evil Detector is really no big deal at all.



It seems a big deal to some.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hmmm...take this for what it's worth, but not a one of those has even gotten me past looking at them.  And the only one that did THAT was Hackmaster.



Completely irrelevant. The point is that these rulesets are out there and are being tested already. WotC can swoop in, grab what works, and build off there.



> Too much work for me to make use of a supposedly "universal" product- with it's _intended_ ruleset- to get me to buy it.



I was unclear: In a universal adventure, WotC could go ahead and write "evil" on all the stat blocks. If they didn't want to afford four whole characters, they could just write "E."

I'm not advocating any of this, by the way, so your vehemence is misplaced. If you aren't interested in it, great. I don't know that I give a crap about it, either. I'm just saying that, contrary to people saying it's UNPOSSIBLE to do, it actually seems pretty easy, for the most part -- you can squint and see the core ruleset inside True20 or C&C or several of the retroclones, for instance -- with the hardest part bolting on a 4E ruleset to a more stripped down core, if I understood where Mearls is going with his columns.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2011)

> I'm not advocating any of this, by the way, so your vehemence is misplaced. If you aren't interested in it, great. I don't know that I give a crap about it, either. I'm just saying that, contrary to people saying it's UNPOSSIBLE to do, it actually seems pretty easy, for the most part -- you can squint and see the core ruleset inside True20 or C&C or several of the retroclones, for instance -- with the hardest part bolting on a 4E ruleset to a more stripped down core, if I understood where Mearls is going with his columns.



Not so much vehemence as extreme skepticism.

Personally, I already play and prefer a game in which melding 1Ed/2Ed, 3.X and 4Ed mechanics is perfectly possible: HERO*.  So I know that it _can_ be done.

My skepticism lies in the question of whether a Unified Edition- OK, I'll just call it UED&D- would actually be _acceptable_ to all.  Or most.

Because while I know for a fact that HERO can handle this without a hitch, it's very nature as a toolbox system turns a lot of people off...having all the inner workings of the game on full display simply isnt to everyone's liking.  And a UED&D might look a lot like HERO in the sense of that kind of system transparency.

And if you can't get the majority of D&D players to accept UED&D, what purpose does it serve?






* I suspect M&M- esp. with its W&W supplement- could go a long ways in that direction as well, and GURPS, too, to a lesser extent.


----------



## Gundark (Jul 30, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Really? Why? [...]
> 
> AFAICT, Paizo is doing what WotC either can't or won't do: They're investing in a business plan that won't burn itself out by focusing on adventure products instead of splatbooks.
> 
> ...




While I will concede that they have chosen the path of less saturation, saying  that there is NO saturation and that Paizo could keep this up forever is wrong as well. Going by your example Paizo WILL get to the point of adventure path saturation where ideas began to get stale and they recycle ideas (adventure path # 53  RETURN of the Rune Lords and inbred Ogres!!!!!). Maybe your group is different, but they can put them out WAY faster than I can play them. I collect board games as well, I've got a closet FULL of them (packed), there came a point where it began to be silly to keep up ( I mean how many games with wooden cubes and resource management can a guy own?). Paizo will get there too.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 30, 2011)

Pour said:


> Why this need for reconciliation?



Because if they managed to pull in, say 75% of the number of people who have played *D&D* regularly over the years and then gone away they'll be literally swimming in cash.  Nowhere near *WORLD OF WARCRAFT* levels of money, mind you, but bucketloads.

I mean, think about it.  *S1 TOMB OF HORRORS* sold _250,000_ copies, according to Gary (at, I think, $5.00 a copy that would be $1.25m just for that module)  *UNEARTHED ARCANA* brought in $16,000,000 _net_ - enough to pay off debtors and save *TSR* (again, per Gary Gygax).  

Imagine tapping in to the public that bought those, but had moved on, or not advanced ahead with later editions.  Imagine if you could hit a sweet spot of 50-60% of those people.  "Wouldn't you have to do that?"


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2011)

I suspect Paizo is already seeing diminishing returns on their adventure paths. Although I am certain there are people who blast through each chapter when they come out, many more, I suspect, are getting further and further behind and don't have the incentive to keep buying more paths at this time, to say nothing of all the standalone adventures. The question is how bad the drop-off is and how fast it accelerates. (Obviously, there are a lot of people who buy them just to read them or as simple collectors, and that helps cushion the blow.)

At some point, they will want to change their model.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2011)

The step that's missing from this discussion so far is that any new edition can't just be focused on recovering lapsed players (even if it could recover _huge_ numbers of them). It's still a limited and diminishing market. A new edition has to bring in _brand new_ players, and it has to do so in numbers that we haven't seen in quite some time.

Now, I realize that this wasn't the point of the topic, but it's something that still has to be taken into account. Even if WotC _could_ produce a game to make most D&D players happy (for whatever value of "most" you care to use), it still might not be a successful or sustainable edition.

My gut feeling--and I'll be the first to admit that my gut probably qualifies as more anecdote than data --is that, in the current market (and faced with competing forms of entertainment), an edition that could successfully bring in a sufficient* number of brand-new players would have to be, at its core, simpler than either PF or 4E, with optional add-ons for those who prefer more complexity.

("Sufficient" being defined as enough new gamers to make tabletop RPGs a viable and profitable hobby for another few generations.)

In order to create such a game, WotC (or whoever) would need to boil down _every_ edition--with a focus on 3E/PF and 4E, but at least some attention paid to earlier editions--and try to isolate the most fundamental core aspects that make the game "true D&D" in the minds of the players. You're never going to find a consensus on that, not by a long shot. But it might--_might_--be possible to isolate a collection of core aspects that appeal to a _majority_ of the fans of each/every edition.

If you take these core aspects--the "essence" of D&D--and you create a game that's simple and has a low barrier to entry based on those core aspects, it won't be an evolution of 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, but rather a new game with some themes and elements in common with all of them. If it's done _really well_, and if the company's been _very_ careful about determining what those core elements actually are, the result _might_ be a game that entices more lapsed players to come back than it loses _and_ attracts new players to the hobby as well.

Is that what Mike's doing? Trying to tease out the common elements of all editions in hopes of creating an uber-edition? I have no idea. I don't know if that's his intent, and I have no idea if it's even remotely possible.

But I think that's the only way to go in the long term. You're never going to make 4E appeal to people who still prefer 3E/PF, and you're never going to make 3E/PF appeal to people who prefer 4E. If you want to bring them back together, the only remaining option is a new game that appeals to both (or at least to a majority of both), that _feels _like D&D to both, and that's a solid enough game to entice them away from the edition they're currently playing.

It's a tall ask, and I have no idea if it's feasible, but I think even the _attempt_ (whether by WotC, Paizo, or whoever) would produce a fascinating result.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2011)

Or, to summarize:

There are few questions as divisive in the market as "What makes D&D, D&D?" and "What should D&D be trying to accomplish, as a game?" But answering those two questions for at least a majority of the market, and then building a simple/easy game focused _heavily_ on those answers, is the only way to both potentially unite the audience and also appeal to new gamers. No evolution of any existing edition on its own is going to cut it.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 30, 2011)

I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jul 30, 2011)

_>>Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?_

If the new edition is based on what Mearls has been suggesting in his blog, then I think there's a decent chance. Not a great chance, but a decent one.

If you change the question from "MOST" to "MORE", then I would say absolutely. I think the version of D&D Mearls is suggesting would certainly make more people happy than 4e does.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Jul 30, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> ... they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players.





WotC did.  That's what 4th Edition is about.

The jury is clearly out on whether it worked or not.  My bet is on "didn't work", but we may not know for years.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 30, 2011)

I think something to consider is that D&D is no longer synonymous with RPG.  Yes, D&D is by far still the biggest brand name in the hobby.  However, I think more people are now aware that the WoTC way isn't the only game in town.  

While the fracturing D&D fanbase may have hurt WoTC, many other companies have continued to produce products which not only satisfied the fans those companies already had, but also looked really good to people who were disenfranchised with the current D&D direction and were more open to trying different things than they were before.  I would never suggest the WoTC is floundering.  I believe they are still doing well, but I also believe that the gap between D&D and other products such as Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS (just to name a few examples) is much smaller than it has been previously.

I don't think Mearls is only looking at D&D.  It may be just coincidence, but it seems as though he has an awareness of how other systems handle things.  The idea of a simple core with modular add-ons is something which is currently being done elsewhere.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 30, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I suspect Paizo is already seeing diminishing returns on their adventure paths. Although I am certain there are people who blast through each chapter when they come out, many more, I suspect, are getting further and further behind and don't have the incentive to keep buying more paths at this time, to say nothing of all the standalone adventures. The question is how bad the drop-off is and how fast it accelerates. (Obviously, there are a lot of people who buy them just to read them or as simple collectors, and that helps cushion the blow.)
> 
> At some point, they will want to change their model.



Right now circulation of the adventure paths in general is still increasing, and last I had heard the rate of increase was accelerating - there may be a 'diminishing returns' in the future, but not yet. (Though I do gather that there was a jump 'n' slump because of Kingmaker - which sold extremely well, the next path did better than the one _before_ Kingmaker, but not as well _as_ Kingmaker. Folks wanted to take their shovels and play in the sandbox....  )

D&D on the other hand is not doing that well _locally_, so their point of diminishing returns has possibly been reached, again, at least locally - especially factoring in their now slower release schedule. I actually doubt that Paizo will be changing their model all that soon, whereas WotC is currently changing theirs.

Pathfinder is not relying as much on an 'everything is core, everything must sell!' as WotC was. They do not try to market every product at the same level, which I believe WotC was trying to do for a while, or something close.

And, for the record, WotC changing their model is not a bad thing - they were saturating their market, now they are moving to remedy that. Returns were high, now they are going back down. Returns are the Devil. The Devil, I say!!!

The Auld Grump


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 30, 2011)

Gundark said:


> Going by your example Paizo WILL get to the point of adventure path saturation where ideas began to get stale and they recycle ideas (adventure path # 53  RETURN of the Rune Lords and inbred Ogres!!!!!). Maybe your group is different, but they can put them out WAY faster than I can play them.




This is pretty much irrelevant for the same reason that Tor's ability to publish more books in a year that I can personally read doesn't cause Tor to reboot "English language novels" to a new edition every 5 years in order to continue selling novels.



DumbPaladin said:


> WotC did.  That's what 4th Edition is about.




I'd argue they went about it in exactly the wrong way. They tried to compete with computer games at the things computer games are strongest at. There's no future in that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 30, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> WotC did.  That's what 4th Edition is about.
> 
> The jury is clearly out on whether it worked or not.  My bet is on "didn't work", but we may not know for years.



Or, possibly 'changed markets' rather than 'didn't work'. I suspect (spelled 'making a wild arsed guess') that the new market was not as large as they had hoped, but it may be that their new target market will prove itself.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> WotC did.  That's what 4th Edition is about.
> 
> The jury is clearly out on whether it worked or not.  My bet is on "didn't work", but we may not know for years.



A bolt-on-your-own-complexity-options model for UD&D is following the MMORPG model as well, specifically the so-called "free to play" model, where people buy add-on option packs as the company's primary source of revenue.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Right now circulation of the adventure paths in general is still increasing, and last I had heard the rate of increase was accelerating - there may be a 'diminishing returns' in the future, but not yet.



Well, damn, that's amazing. My hat's off to Paizo, in that case.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 30, 2011)

Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?




The discussion so far seems to have focused a lot on rules. Of course, it's a big part of it all, but what about setting?

I thought the implied setting (Points of Light) in 4e was cool to begin with, but as I played on I missed a campaign setting of the classic format. My players would ask a lot of questions that I didn't have the time to think up good answers to, so it all felt sketchy and unappealing.

So if WotC did try making a "reconciliatory" edition, I think they should revisit Greyhawk and make it not only the default campaign, but also devote significant time and energy to adding and improving it without remaking it into another image.

I actually don't love Greyhawk, I would actually rather see them go all Planescape or Dark Sun but I do think that has less appeal for a wide audience. The only two other options are in my mind Forgotten Realms (rewound) and Eberron. And Eberron works best as an alternative campaign setting, I think. Forgotten Realms ... hmmm ... could work, but they'd have to backtrack on the latest RSE.

But I think Greyhawk would be the best bet, but with more focus than was given in D&D3e.

/M


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 30, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby.



3.X gaming really isn't retro. Because of the OGL and SRD, it's more accessible to more people than any other mainstream rpg. Since it's been "updated" to Pathfinder, there are still people buying products for it, and the system is still attracting new players. I don't know what basis there is to say that the 3.X segment is shrinking. In fact, there's evidence to suggest the opposite. 4e has the "current" D&D label on it, but it hasn't exactly monopolized the market.



> Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.



There's clearly a market there. It's debatable as to how to access that market. There's probably something to be said for adding online resources, but if you move the game online you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. To this date, the most successful computer-based resource is still the SRD.

As far as how to attract new players from the wider gaming community, think how many people were attracted to D&D by the Baldur's Gate series. A lot. A high-quality, popular tie-in game could do wonders, but that hasn't happened since BGII (Neverwinter Nights was mired in mediocrity, the sequel was horrible, and no D&D game worthy of mention has come out since). The success of Dragon Age suggests that D&D should try to get to the computer gaming market by making quality computer games, not by making their own game more like a computer game.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 30, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.




But that shrinking pool is still fairly huge, but not going after older gamers is shooting yourself in the foot. Its like saying I want to sell a flying car, but all those land car users are not the target market. Not selling to the those that are known to pay for vehicles or other commodity means not succeeding. If you don't target the existing market, it only means fail...

Regarding the casual gamer and Pathfinder, for example, there exists both the PRD, and the d20pfsrd.com - show me where the rules are free to online users with 4e. Of course, you can't - so which is better targetting the casual online user - Pathfinder or 4e. I argue Pathfinder does a better job, because its rules are free and available online.

Although not created by Paizo, there are many free and paid-for Virtual Terrain and Character generators. I can use MapTool VT app, and PCGen to play PF online and create my characters and never have to pay anyone for a DDI subscription.

So saying only 4e is going the right way, is wrong. Pathfinder does it too, they just don't do it directly from their website, like 4e does. But I would never be a DDI customer, and by preference never a PF DDI is such a thing existed.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 30, 2011)

Maggan said:


> The discussion so far seems to have focused a lot on rules. Of course, it's a big part of it all, but what about setting?
> 
> I thought the implied setting (Points of Light) in 4e was cool to begin with, but as I played on I missed a campaign setting of the classic format. My players would ask a lot of questions that I didn't have the time to think up good answers to, so it all felt sketchy and unappealing.
> 
> ...





For me, part of the problem was that I didn't feel the mechanics meshed very well with the fluff concerning the points of light world.  There are many people who feel there is no connection at all between fluff and mechanics, but I highly disagree.  I believe there are certain mechanical structures which better (or worse) support certain feels.  What I read in the preview books and the impression I got from them didn't match up with what I got from the actual finished product of 4E at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> The step that's missing from this discussion so far is that any new edition can't just be focused on recovering lapsed players (even if it could recover _huge_ numbers of them). It's still a limited and diminishing market. A new edition has to bring in _brand new_ players, and it has to do so in numbers that we haven't seen in quite some time.
> 
> _<snip many good points>_




My response to this was touched on upthread in my post about HERO.

I can right now go to my shelf and pull down a game- HERO- that allows me to combine all the elements of any and all editions of D&D and run PCs from those editions side by side in a single campaign.

It would require a lot of work: doing the HERO "Package Deals" for each race & class; translating Feats, powers & spells, one by one, even from all the little subsystems (like Shadow magic or Incarnum); making sure there are AEDU and Vancian versions of each - but it could be done.

The end result would work and be balanced.  It would even feel right...in play.  It would look funny to non-HERO players, though...enough so that the system's visible inner-workings might put people off.

And I think a UED&D would have to have a lot in common with HERO in order to pull off that stunt.

The thing is, though, it would not be simpler, it would not have faster character generation, NPC/Foe generation would be as complex as it ever was.

And I simply don't see a UED&D which satisfies both the Vancians and the AEDUphiles which is as simple or simpler than either design already is.

Far less Herculean a task, and far more feasible in a business sense, to use the tools on hand- extant IP, the various editions' rulesets, DDI, D&D's overall brand power- to do what car and soft-drink companies have been doing for years and support various _distinct_, _tailored_ products under the corporate banner to capture as much of the market as possible.  Each of which can be evolved over time if and when needed.

The IP gives you the foot in the door; DDI gives you lower production/distribution costs; the brand gives you marketing power within the hobby and outside of it.

Edition cannibalization becomes a non-issue- GM didn't care all that much whether Camaros or Firebirds sold more as long as it was selling competitively versus Mustangs.  Coke and Pepsi are less concerned about a particular beverage in their line- each now in the thousands- than overall share of the global drink market.

Why chase a dwindling number of grognards?  Why assume the number is dwindling?  Legacy clones seem to be doing all right.  With DDI and name recognition, _official D&D_ products being released in those niches could actually expand those niches.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 30, 2011)

Would a new edition make people happy?

In my opinion: No.  It would likely make some people happy, it would likely bring some new converts from older editions, maybe some brand new players, but would almost assuredly turn others off and fracture the community even more.

IMO, a new edition will never unify or reunify the D&D community (if it was even a unified community in the first place).

The only thing that should matter as far as WotC is concerned, is unifying the community into wanting to purchase DDI subscriptions (as DDI _is_ the future of D&D).  The only way to do that is to have full and equal support for all editions on DDI - and bring back the damn pdf's!!!

For me, I'm mostly indifferent about a new edition.  It would have to perfectly hit my sweet spot to make a significant impact on me, though I'm sure I might find some aspects of a new edition worthy of co-opting for my own games.  But an ala-carte DDI that allows you to make _your_ RPG system, that's virtually guaranteed to hit everyones sweet spot?  Well that would be something...


----------



## Pour (Jul 30, 2011)

As many have pointed out, the lines have been drawn, the existing RPG community is firmly split, and by virtue of the inherent design differences between each iteration of D&D the idea of a perfect edition seems almost delusional at this point. 

Let the other editions stand on their own, as they clearly have been doing via the Old School Renaissance and Pathfinder. Someone pointed out that, out of the current pool of RPGers, D&D is no longer the go-to standard, and the amount of exciting gaming options have never been more diverse. That's okay. 

The future of D&D is in breaking new ground and pushing new design  philosophies. It's about remembering what's been done before, sure,  respecting it, but not regurgitating it and certainly not in being  shackled by it. It's in bringing in new players, appealing to new  groups, new demographics, and yes, changing, new settings, new video  games, no doubt eventually new cartoons and movies, new mechanics, and  the disappearance of others. 

4e was not the one, failed flirtation with this notion, it was one step in a continuous evolution. The old ways are done. Let them play out in their own communities, evolve with their new custodians, and allow D&D to take its own steps, with or without you.

It makes no sense to create something bare bones only to offer add-ons that emulate what we already have in other editions. The success and future of D&D is not in going backwards, cleaning up some of the older editions, and offering them all up again. It's not redesigning what's been done before just enough to warrant the number 5. It's not reconciling with the shunned, offended and frustrated.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 30, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I also believe that the gap between D&D and other products such as Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS (just to name a few examples) is much smaller than it has been previously.




The gap between D&D and Pathfinder is small, but GURPS (just to name one example) hasn't been doing well at all.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 30, 2011)

Pour said:


> The future of D&D is in breaking new ground and pushing new design  philosophies.




That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.


----------



## Pour (Jul 30, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.




Not only do I think it wise, I think it essential, and I believe it's the route they've taken. They do have quite a backing, after all, with the most capital to devote to such ventures. 4e is more than an experiment, it is the evolution of (or reaction to, that's highly subjective) what came before it, and anything that comes after should be as well. I mean what is the alternative of change? Think of all that would have been missed  if designers, at any point, stopped producing new and experimental material. We'd not have  the rich history and assets of D&D the property- no Faerun, no Strahd, no Sorcerer Kings or Sigil, no THAC0 (somebody must like it... right?) or scaling AC or skills or saves or defenses or domains or powers! Divergent ideas,  risks, pursuit of creative possibilities, the process  should never be denied or shunned because (and this is the really wonderful thing) we can go back to  any iteration of the game at any time, all of which are now supported with *new *material through  various means. I'll never understand the animosity for  changes moving forward when it changes nothing in the past. Resistance could cost us the next great thing, and a return to what has been done most certainly will. 

Speaking more to the business end of your response, I'm pretty sure WotC's mainline property is Magic and, to me at least, it made perfect sense exploring divergent design principles than 3e and try appealing to wider audiences with the 4e of their secondary game, as I still do, through any number of changes, including the slaying of whatever sacred cows necessary to create a new D&D experience that is fun, popular and prosperous.

Expanding, omitting and reinterpreting D&D are not slights to those who've come before. Look at what wonderful things are happening for the previous editions. D&D is alive and well in whatever version we want, but I maintain the future of the game should not be going backward to revisit the former mechanics or seek any sort of appeasement, apology or 'coming home' for gamers who have found their happy edition, found a new game entirely or left under some necessary or silly pretense. It lies in new ground, new design. And that, ironically, is the best hope for reconciling, as some have already pointed out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2011)

On the flipside, one of the great maxims of business is "Innovate or die."

There is some truth to Pour's assertion, but one of the revelations of 4Ed was that innovation for it's own sake isn't necessarily going to be well-received.  The trick is divining what your market wants.

I- like a lot of players- wanted and would have welcomed a cleaning up and refinement of 3.5.  Looking at just one element of the game, many people wanted wizards to be wizardy all the time, eschewing the use of mundane things like crossbows.  That could have been done along he lines of the specialist rules found in _Unearthed Arcana_ or the reserve feats.  Instead, we got the AEDU system and a nearly complete excision of Vancian casting.

That ticked off a lot of people...buy it also pleased a buck of people, including opening the game to new players.

A refinement of 3.5 might have done likewise- we'll probably never know- but 4Ed did succeed.

And for WotC to innovate away from _another_ successful system- immediately after having done so before- merely to innovate would probably be a bad idea.  Paid me though it does to say it, but if they opt to go with a single RPG system for the next incarnation of D&D, they're better off evolving from 4Ed than designing a complete new game.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 30, 2011)

A hypothetical awesome game could absolutely create a "unified" market.  "Unified" defined as comparable to the massive D20 boom previously experienced.  Obviously there were  plenty of people who hated the system.  But, even more obviously, the was a major market dominance in play.

So, yes.  WotC could make a huge chunk of the market follow one game, regardless of whether or not me or any other one person was a fan of the new game.

However, 3E was lightning in a bottle.  And the marketplace is even more challenging now than it was then.  The chances of actual success are very small.

And, that's just talking about system.  There are a lot of people torked at WotC specifically, and that just adds to the burden.  

And a system which would have the old appeal would also, pretty much be definition, alienate some meaningful chunk of the current fan base.

Far and away WotC's best choice is to work with what they have for a few years yet.


----------



## triqui (Jul 30, 2011)

I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players. 

If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 30, 2011)

triqui said:


> I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players.
> 
> If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.




Of course, 0e/Holmes Basic/1e didn't target existing customers _because there weren't any yet_/.  Has D&D ever /just/ targeted existing players?  There's a reson it is/was considered the "gateway" RPG.

However, you don't want to just get 12-year olds unless you can survive on their discretionary spend and compete with all the other options to spend.


----------



## triqui (Jul 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> However, you don't want to just get 12-year olds unless you can survive on their discretionary spend and compete with all the other options to spend.




12 years old have an incredibly amount of spending power, as any father with a pokemon-loving child will tell you 

But you are right. WotC should not target only 12 years old that have never played the game before. They can target 20 years old that have never played the game before . The younger, the better, becouse it means a larger potential (a 12 years old that plays until he is 40 gives more revenue than a 20 years old that plays until he is 40) The trick is, however, that they need to take new players into the hobby, or the hobby will vanish eventually. When the grognards die of old age, at the very least...


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 31, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> A bolt-on-your-own-complexity-options model for UD&D is following the MMORPG model as well, specifically the so-called "free to play" model, where people buy add-on option packs as the company's primary source of revenue.




I've said before that I think this ous leading toward a Korean mmorpg model, where basic access is cheap and add-ons can be had for extra one-time or continuous charges.

The basic structure of D20 works well for a modular approach; attributes, skills, attack & defense, feats, powers. I do think the best version of it was True 20, which folded hit  points into saves, and powers into feats. All of which would be trickier with D&D, but doable.



gamerprinter said:


> If you don't target the existing market, it only means fail...




And yet as the enthusiasm for Pathfinder shows, going after that market is pretty pointless. They really have no ability to won those gamers over unless they made a new version of 3.5, in which case they would still be at a disadvantage.

No, they need to go after the gamers who don't like  3.X/Pathfinder. It has to be an alternative, not a mirror image.



> Regarding the casual gamer and Pathfinder, for example, there exists both the PRD, and the d20pfsrd.com - show me where the rules are free to online users with 4e. Of course, you can't - so which is better targetting the casual online user - Pathfinder or 4e. I argue Pathfinder does a better job, because its rules are free and available online.




Yes Pathfinder does have the rules online for free. In fact, I have made Pathfinder characters and can play in Pathfinder games, AND I have no reason to spend any money on any Pathfinder product. And so I won't.

Pathfinder has made it so I don't need to ever give them my money. Just what would I be spending money on- their incredibly sexist artwork? 

Paizo is depending on old school players who just have to drop 100+ dollars on hardback books in order to feel like they're properly gaming. Which is silly from my perspective, since I can access the pfsrd.



> Although not created by Paizo, there are many free and paid-for Virtual Terrain and Character generators. I can use MapTool VT app, and PCGen to play PF online and create my characters and never have to pay anyone for a DDI subscription.[/qoute]
> 
> Or give Paizo a penny. This is getting into "90's internet startup" level of economics. And downloading some spyware filled character generator? How so very year 2000.
> 
> ...


----------



## triqui (Jul 31, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> By my count, excluding only adventures, WotC released 6652 pages of material during the first two years of 3.5, while Paizo released 3832 pages of material during the first two years of Pathfinder. That means Pathfinder has a release rate which is about 58% that of 3.5. Since 3.5 had a 57 month lifespan, extrapolating that gives Pathfinder until November 2016 to reach the same saturation point. That's still some time away, but a lot sooner than 2024...




However, there are two different reasons to need a reboot. The first one, which you have accounted for, is saturation point. The second one is lack of selling power. If they don't get enough money from their products (once the core book sells start to tank), they'll need to reboot, just to sell the core book once again. That's what's called "planned obsolescence". 

It's true that Adventure Paths make for a much better business plan. It's more sustainable, and has more staying power, as you never have "enough" adventures as long as you keep playing. But that said, I doubt Paizo could make profit only selling AP. They need to sell other products as well (both splatbooks and supplements like Bestiary, and, mainly, the evergreen products like Core rulebook). Once those start to go below a level, they'll *need* a reboot, and it doesn't matter if they have 50.000 pages published or just 20.000. They'll need to sell the Core again.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2011)

> So you're one of the gamers which it would be pointless for WOTC to market to in the first place. Which emphasizes my original point that WOTC should aim for the non-grognard, non-Pathfinder set.



Yikes.

Sadly, it does seem that WotC feels roughly the same way.

It is worth noting however, that while it is an internet neologism, "Grognard" generally refers to older players playing of out-of-print games who are nostalgic for "the way things used to be". Pathfinder is a current game (and, strictly speaking, newer than 4e). The group of people playing out-of-print or OSR games is small, fractured, and generally older. The group playing Pathfinder is substantial, more unified in interest, and more diverse in age and background. I wouldn't equate the two. Frankly, both groups are numerous enough and have enough purchasing power that I would think WotC should be interested in what they think.



> Yes Pathfinder does have the rules online for free. In fact, I have made Pathfinder characters and can play in Pathfinder games, AND I have no reason to spend any money on any Pathfinder product. And so I won't



...and despite the fact that you personally (and I, and many others) use the pfsrd without buying any Pathfinder products, enough people do buy them that the company is highly successful. The beauty of the open gaming model is that it's a more extreme version of the "Korean mmorpg model". The buy-in cost is $0, and people who are interested in the game based on the rules online can buy full rulebooks for reference, adventures to play in, and accessories. The prd is basically cheap advertising from a business perspective, and that business model, despite the fact that it involves giving away a large part of a company's product for free, has had quite a bit of success.

When WotC created the OGL with 3e, they rang a bell that couldn't be unrung. Now many people won't buy an rpg, regardless of quality, unless it's open. If WotC were ever going to try to expand their customer base, the best way to do it would be to release a new open game to directly compete with Pathfinder and the other OGL games out there. Not that this is likely to happen.

For the record, I don't play Pathfinder or 4e, and I'm 25.


----------



## Azgulor (Jul 31, 2011)

WotC may be in a no win situation.  I'd be willing to bet on that, but I think the DDI model makes them enough $ and D&D itself is still enough of a draw that 4e is doing respectably well.  Maybe not well enough for the WotC business plan/goals, but respectable/good by any other measure.

If Paizo were taking the same design-what-if approach that Mearls is doing today, I wouldn't be happy.  The reason for it is that the Pathfinder RPG is waaaaay too early in its life cycle.  IF I were a 4e fan, I'd be very concerned by these articles.

However, if Paizo were to get any slack from me, it would be by virtue of their business model - I was an AP & Golarion fan since their inception and the PF RPG came later.  So they've got me hooked on multiple fronts: RPG, campaign setting material, and APs & modules.

Since I'm not a 4e fan and have a game that I'm very happy with (and very invested in at this point), WotC releasing a new edition does nothing for me.  I left D&D for other games in the 2E era, came back to D&D in the 3e era, and left again with 4e.  I don't have to play a game with "D&D" on the cover to get my FRPG fix -- it's irrelevant.

While it's possible that some future edition of D&D will have "unifying appeal", I don't think that it's likely.  I certainly don't think that it's necessary or even a reasonable goal.

At this particular point in time, I don't think a new edition buys WotC anything.  It's too early in 4e's life cycle - a new edition would result in many 4e fans being ticked off.  Yet it hasn't been so long since 3e that "lapsed" D&D fans are seeking D&D nostalgia.  Also, while there have always been other FRPGs to compete for the "D&D experience", the difference now is that Pathfinder provides that competing RPG and is able to hit that "D&D experience" mark dead center for a growing number of players.

If 3e is the last edition of D&D that I ever buy, I won't be bothered by the fact that I'm "not playing D&D".


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 31, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Paizo is depending on old school players who just have to drop 100+ dollars on hardback books in order to feel like they're properly gaming. Which is silly from my perspective, since I can access the pfsrd.




Except of course those that prefer PDFs and can get the core rulebooks at $10 a pop. Or who simply like to support the openness Paizo has with their rulesets and show their support by purchasing their product in either paper or PDF form.



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Or give Paizo a penny. This is getting into "90's internet startup" level of economics. And downloading some spyware filled character generator? How so very year 2000.




Spyware filled? Where did you grab that from? Show me where PCGen has been shown to be spyware filled?



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> What I'm looking for is a centralized, cloud-based character creation and campaign management system, one where for one minor monthly fee gamers can have access to the basic materials needed to play or run a game. Then using a modular system, gamers who want advanced materials or extras can can spend a small monthly fee to access them. Done properly, that should be more attractive then spending up front $100 or more.




I have cloud based now. I can save my Hero Lab or PC Gen character files to my free Dropbox account and have easy access to my characters from any of my computers and even a friends computer if I happen to forget to bring my character sheet one night.

I can use d20pfsrd.com to access the rules from any Internet connected computer - as you have already noted you have done.

As for a small monthly fee (i.e. subscription), depends - how many months until that monthly fee exceeds the $100. (this ignores of course that I can get started without spending anywhere near $100). What happens when I decide I don't want to pay a subscription fee? Do I lose access to the material I was using? If so - then that up front fee seems much more favorable.




			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> So you're one of the gamers which it would be pointless for WOTC to market to in the first place. Which emphasizes my  original point that WOTC should aim for the non-grognard, non-Pathfinder set.




And this I don't necessarily disagree with. Of course you like to use the term grognard - keep in mind Pathfinder players are introducing new people to the game all the time, people that are not long time RPG players. There are lots of new Pathfinder players who are also new to RPGs as well.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

triqui said:


> I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players.
> 
> If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.



At surface level I, of course, agree with this 100%.

If you can trade me for a 12 year old who will be a life long gamer then it is a complete no-brainer.

But, I think there is an underlying flaw in the presumptions.

First, getting *new* players and increasing the portion of players are not remotely at cross-purposes and, to the contrary, are mostly aligned.  Yeah, us older folks might prefer elves where the kids like dragonkin or whatever the age cultural differences are.  But there is a hell of a lot more overlap in a Harry Potter inspiration and a Tolkein inspiration than their are major differences.

But, second, and more importantly, 90% of RPG gamers are RPG gamers by nature.  At least, to a very reasonable extent there are people who are and people who are not and never will be RPG gamers.  

If you were to jump into a point in time, say in the early 1980s once the D&D boom was fully established but still going, and then had a method of measuring, I'd bet the percentage of 12 years olds who became lifelong gamers has been fairly constant ever since.  Sure, there have no doubt been fluctuations.  And awareness that the hobby exists almost certainly has vastly more to do with that than the specifics of edition.  If you were 12 the year 2nd edition came out, there is a higher chance that the buzz caught your attention than if you were 12 four years later.   But that just means more 13 year olds found out the next year...  That trend cancels out.  

But taking someone, 12, 21, or 50, who isn't somewhere in the "gamer" type and trying to make them into someone who starts being a regular on-going spender is a very tough task.  The number isn't zero, but it isn't a big part of the marketplace.  

Bottom line, advertising that the hobby exists to kids is a great idea.  But it has a limited peak potential return.  But trying to custom craft a specific ruleset to appeal to kids, openly at the expense of existing older gamers will be a losing exchange.  Losing 10 adults and gaining 15 kids may sound great.  But if the alternative was losing 3 adults and gaining 13 kids, then you didn't do so well.  (and why not gain 2 adults and 15 kids....)

The D20 boom was huge.  And it *probably* had a bit of a spike in growth in kids.  But, that wasn't really because it appealed to them better remotely so much as because the duldrums of late 2E/ TSR implosion had reduced the profile of the overall hobby and there was simply a rich field of potential gamers out there to harvest.  

Love it or hate it, there is no questioning that 4E had plenty of buzz.  And I'm certain it has kept the 12 years fresh blood flowing.  It is still D&D and that is the recognized brand name for the hobby.  It is the entry game.  

But the new 12 year old players start playing not because of the details of the system.  They are new players, they don't know anything about that by definition.  They are new players because they hear the basic idea of what RPGs are, and like the rest of us, it sounds cool to them.  They start with the obvious choice and it may be some time before the idea of different system even occurs to them.  And, ultimately, the breakdown in taste for what makes a good system will break along pretty much the same lines as people of any other age.  The kids will have more Harry Potter or dragonmen flavor to go with their system.  But they are still going to look for a system they like and then put their dragon men into that.

When you design a system, design it for GAMERS.  Advertise to KIDS, design for GAMERS.


----------



## Sonny (Jul 31, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.




Shrinking? Pathfinder is outselling D&D. When you add all those people playing older editions and the success of retro clones this "shrinking market" is larger then their current one.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.



I believe this is exactly the policy that was followed for designing 4E.  And that led to these debates we are having now.  If it had worked the massive base of new fans would drown out any grognards pointlessly trying to suggest how they could do better next time.

(And no, I don't think 4E is an mmo or a card game.  I do think that the heavy focus on easy to DM, etc... was clearly aimed at those markets, and there was a ton of talk about exactly that during the lead up to and early months after release.  Of course, at that time the spin was that us "grognards" wouldn't be missed because we would be replaced by so much new blood.  Now that exact same point is just being moved from it not having happened for 4E to how it so clearly will work for some future game.)


----------



## triqui (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If you were to jump into a point in time, say in the early 1980s once the D&D boom was fully established but still going, and then had a method of measuring, I'd bet the percentage of 12 years olds who became lifelong gamers has been fairly constant ever since.




I highly disagree with this. Though I have no actual data to back up my claims (just like you don't, either).




> But taking someone, 12, 21, or 50, who isn't somewhere in the "gamer" type and trying to make them into someone who starts being a regular on-going spender is a very tough task.  The number isn't zero, but it isn't a big part of the marketplace.



Never in history you have had more "gamer" type kids than now. Ever. We are talking about a group (young people interested in games) that spend in CCG more than TSR was able to sell in one year. (And I mean games like yugioh, pokemon or WoW TCG, I'm not even talking about the 600lb Gorilla MAgic the gathering) Those young gamers spend in YuGiOh about 15% of the 800 million dollars that CCG move each year, which is closelly five times what TSR reported in 1982 (20 million $) and more than twice what they were selling in 1996. To put it in perspective, WoTC is spending more money on ProTour *prizes* than TSR was making with their whole brand (including not only D&D, but also novels, minis, etc) And that's about CCG. World of Warcraft is getting 12$ from each of their 11 million susbcribers _per month_, and videogame industry has surpassed films and music.

So there is no shortage of "gamers" this days. It's just that those gamers aren't attracted by games with long preparation times, complex rules, and 1 hours per combat.



> But trying to custom craft a specific ruleset to appeal to kids, openly at the expense of existing older gamers will be a losing exchange.  Losing 10 adults and gaining 15 kids may sound great.  But if the alternative was losing 3 adults and gaining 13 kids, then you didn't do so well.  (and why not gain 2 adults and 15 kids....)



First, it's not only about gaining kids. It's about gaining new gamers. Including people with 22 years old that play often to CCG and MMorpgs, or people that love the shiny new Game of Thrones TV serie. Second, the problem with your alternative, is that is proven wrong: the 4e sellings have tanked, and whatever amount of books they've sold, it does not seem to be enough. That's why, imho, Mike Mearls is opening the debate about what to do now (both with Essentials line, and this "wannabe 5e")




> The D20 boom was huge.  And it *probably* had a bit of a spike in growth in kids.  But, that wasn't really because it appealed to them better remotely so much as because the duldrums of late 2E/ TSR implosion had reduced the profile of the overall hobby and there was simply a rich field of potential gamers out there to harvest.



 Do you have data about that, or are you talking about your personal experience?



> But the new 12 year old players start playing not because of the details of the system.



 No, but they STOP playing becouse of the details of the system. And they told their YuGiOh partner that "that game sucks", and say so in their Guild's Chat in World of Warcraft. Becouse, you know... who wants to spend two hours to make a character? That sucks. Greatly. (fun part is that probably it would had sucked in 1982 too... just that in 1982 you did not need 2 hours to make a character  )



> The kids will have more Harry Potter or dragonmen flavor to go with their system.  But they are still going to look for a system they like and then put their dragon men into that.



 The kids (and not-so-kids) of today can buy Dragon Age 2 and build a character in like 5 minutes. Anything that can't compete with that in easy use, is doomed.


> When you design a system, design it for GAMERS.  Advertise to KIDS, design for GAMERS.




When you are a non-profit organization (also known as independent rpg publishers that go bankrupt), you design it for gamers. When you are a company that has to pay bills (including your designer wages), you build games for CUSTOMERS.

Do you think Pathfinder is hurting D&D? Just wait until Blizzard launches Diablo 3.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> At surface level I, of course, agree with this 100%.
> 
> If you can trade me for a 12 year old who will be a life long gamer then it is a complete no-brainer.
> 
> ...



A couple of points I'd just like to add.

One, older people have kids, and they introduce their kids to the games they play.

Two, kids are never as stupid as big companies think they are. They can handle "adult" game rules. They don't need to have the game dumbed down or simplified for them. And I think that particularly those gamer-type kids want an "adult" game and would be turned off by anything designed or marketed strongly towards children.

Three, turning non-gamers into gamers is indeed exceedingly difficult, but in the long run, is valuable to the hobby.

Last, I just hate the idea (held by many) that kids prefer dragonkin to elves, or that kids need their fighters to have kewl powerz, or that kids don't want the same things out of their game that adults want. While generational differences surely exist, the commonalities are much greater. Kids want the same things adults want: adventure, inspiration, and a solid underpinning of logical rules.


----------



## triqui (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I believe this is exactly the policy that was followed for designing 4E.  And that led to these debates we are having now.  If it had worked the massive base of new fans would drown out any grognards pointlessly trying to suggest how they could do better next time.
> 
> (And no, I don't think 4E is an mmo or a card game.  I do think that the heavy focus on easy to DM, etc... was clearly aimed at those markets, and there was a ton of talk about exactly that during the lead up to and early months after release.  Of course, at that time the spin was that us "grognards" wouldn't be missed because we would be replaced by so much new blood.  Now that exact same point is just being moved from it not having happened for 4E to how it so clearly will work for some future game.)




But it didn't work, becouse they tried to beat videogames in their strongest point: gamism. Plus many of the 4e targets failed in its implementation (for example, it was a 4e target to reduce combat length. It didn't work, combat are even lengthier.  But the diagnose was correct anyways: you need to make the combat faster. Just that some of the decisions they made for that (like changing permanent bonuses for situational bonuses) were wrong.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2011)

triqui said:


> So there is no shortage of "gamers" this days. It's just that those gamers aren't attracted by games with long preparation times, complex rules, and 1 hours per combat.
> ...
> The kids (and not-so-kids) of today can buy Dragon Age 2 and build a character in like 5 minutes. Anything that can't compete with that in easy use, is doomed.



No pen-and-paper rpg can ever compete with a computer game for ease of use. There's probably some room to simplify the rules, make a D&D Basic with add-ons, and cut down on character creation times, but D&D will always be an effort-intensive hobby. And it should be. As with many things in life, you get out of it what you put into it. The only real room for improvement is making sure that long preparation time is spent on character, plot, and setting, not on looking up rules.



> When you are a non-profit organization (also known as independent rpg publishers that go bankrupt), you design it for gamers. When you are a company that has to pay bills (including your designer wages), you build games for CUSTOMERS.



There's profitable, and then there's worth doing. Does a small natural foods store make as much as your local Wal-Mart? No. Does The Wire generate as much revenue as American Idol? No. Does a high-quality PnP rpg make as much money as WoW? No.

While D&D may expand its niche, it will probably always be a niche market. What's wrong with creating a quality fan-oriented product as opposed to a commercialized one that appeals to the lowest common denominator? In the 21st century, premium products directed at small markets do well across the board. Perhaps the question here is not can they but "should WotC create a D&D that pleases everyone". I surely hope they don't.

Frankly, the idea of a gaming company as small and poor is a better example of social justice than most of the entertainment industry. No one should get rich off of writing D&D books (or by playing basketball or starring in movies). They should do it because they love the hobby ("by gamers for gamers"). Most of them do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2011)

> No one should get rich off of writing D&D books (or by playing basketball or starring in movies).




Why the hell not?  Because it isn't "real work" or isn't worthy, somehow?  Should they get "real jobs?"

If people want to pay for what you offer the world in volumes and prices enough to make you rich, so be it.


----------



## Pour (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I believe this is exactly the policy that was followed for designing 4E.  And that led to these debates we are having now.  If it had worked the massive base of new fans would drown out any grognards pointlessly trying to suggest how they could do better next time.
> 
> (And no, I don't think 4E is an mmo or a card game.  I do think that the heavy focus on easy to DM, etc... was clearly aimed at those markets, and there was a ton of talk about exactly that during the lead up to and early months after release.  Of course, at that time the spin was that us "grognards" wouldn't be missed because we would be replaced by so much new blood.  Now that exact same point is just being moved from it not having happened for 4E to how it so clearly will work for some future game.)




Yes, but 4e is not some failed flirtation with the concept of attracting new players and underlining certain design principles over those in past editions, like easier DMing. 4e is a first couple of steps in a continued evolution that is both digital and not beholden to the mechanics of the past. As you say in another post, the goals were good ones, but the implementation still needs work in areas like combat. WotC willing, they will continue to pursue them and not try some universal edition or reconcile with past editions. That leads to stagnation, and I believe is largely futile with the support in place for those editions. There must be forward progression.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 31, 2011)

There is an adage in engineering that 90% of innovation fails - more often than not a change fails to improve upon the original. A similar effect is noted in biology. (In biology it is closer to 10,000 to one. With many of the survivors being no more successful, but not dying out either.)

If 4e has a smaller market and/or market share than 3.X then it is not the next step in an evolution, it is merely an evolutionary cul de sac. It may well _be_ a 'failed flirtation' if the older model continues to thrive while the new and innovative withers on the vine.

That said, I think that WotC would be better served continuing with 4e and further developing from their newer architecture - they may have lost territory, but going back to the older philosophy is unlikely to regain them that lost ground. Specialization is natural, trying to survive in two very different environments is unlikely to work.

The Auld Grump


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

I played 1e at one time long ago, and I probably wouldn't play it again, not that I dislike it, but I've grown and changed with the various editions up to Pathfinder. In no way am I a grognard. 4e is not my flavor though its certainly a good game to play. But I do prefer real books to electronic format, though I have that too.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

There is a core of gamers who want simpler rules, but there's also a core of gamers who do not. This need to 'streamline' and 'simplify' is only for one group of people, not some universal need all gamers seek. Its certainly something I don't want and I know many who agree.

I like my games complex, and fiddly. I enjoy game prep as much as playing or running game - its a creative puzzle for me to come up with some fun encounters that really challenge the players, which for me includes creating custom monsters, power rich NPCs. This is certainly not for everybody, but neither is 5 minute character creation.

Assumptions that games must become simpler is just a one-sided view.


----------



## Dragon Sin-Camealot (Jul 31, 2011)

As long as we omit:

Racism, name-calling, intolerance, bigotry, and generally not being a jerk.  I learned these fab five from a certain dot-net.

We take polls and gather imput for questions about the targeted fanbase.  What are key problems with this?  Time, believability, advertisement?

What can you do to get people to go out of their way to read your story?  In Chess both players have to abide by the same rules.  In fiction there's variance, deception, and lop-sidedness.  More apparent than definable games.

In fiction you have all kinds of aspects.  Fiction has an upper limit yet it's up to us to define and redefine to capture the interest of our readers.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Assumptions that games must become simpler is just a one-sided view.




True. But, a game that is simple at its core but allows additional complexity via add-ons is more universally appealing than one that's complex at the core, since those can't easily be simplified on the fly.

I'm not proposing a version of D&D that only caters to the "simpler is better" style--just one that _starts_ with that assumption, and then allows designers/gamers to add additional layers to their heart's content.

(Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)


----------



## Dragon Sin-Camealot (Jul 31, 2011)

Main reasons: New and Interesting.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

Pour said:


> Yes, but 4e is not some failed flirtation with the concept of attracting new players and underlining certain design principles over those in past editions, like easier DMing. 4e is a first couple of steps in a continued evolution that is both digital and not beholden to the mechanics of the past. As you say in another post, the goals were good ones, but the implementation still needs work in areas like combat. WotC willing, they will continue to pursue them and not try some universal edition or reconcile with past editions. That leads to stagnation, and I believe is largely futile with the support in place for those editions. There must be forward progression.




There must be progress.

But frequently the best path forward is to admit your mistakes, go back and find a better path from where you once were.

I actually think a goal of targeting MMO players and Card game players *IS* as bad goal.  You have to know who your market really is and wishful thinking for a bigger potential is just bad planning.

No one is calling for "stagnation".  But there are things worse than stagnation and wandering off the path can be one of those things.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> (Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)



I think that is an over stated simplification.

And I really don't believe that there is any evidence that it works out that way.

Certainly not at the "editions of D&D" level.  I think it just underestimates the fans and leads to giving them less than what they want.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

triqui said:


> Never in history you have had more "gamer" type kids than now. Ever. We are talking about a group (young people interested in games) that spend in CCG more than TSR was able to sell in one year.



But there have been other hobbies through the decades and yet there is no observable difference in the proportion of tabletop gamers.

You make some pretty strong statements about CCGs and I think they are reasonably accurate.  We know this because we see it going on around us.  

What we DON'T see is the same thing happening in RPGs.  You are equating potential CCG players with potential RPGers.  And that is your flaw right there.

As you demonstrate, if the data existed tyo show what you believe, we would have that data.



> So there is no shortage of "gamers" this days. It's just that those gamers aren't attracted by games with long preparation times, complex rules, and 1 hours per combat.



I agree that a those people don't want to do those things.  But, you know what, those people also don't want to sit around a table with friends pretending to be an elf.  Erase prep time, dumb down the rules and drop combat to 10 minutes and you will get a tiny fraction of those people.  And you will lose a huge chunk of you existing base as a cost.



> The kids (and not-so-kids) of today can buy Dragon Age 2 and build a character in like 5 minutes. Anything that can't compete with that in easy use, is doomed.



I think you are selling the potential fans very short here.



> When you are a non-profit organization (also known as independent rpg publishers that go bankrupt), you design it for gamers. When you are a company that has to pay bills (including your designer wages), you build games for CUSTOMERS.



You have missed my point.  I'm saying know who your market really is.  The customers don't want simplistic games.



> Do you think Pathfinder is hurting D&D? Just wait until Blizzard launches Diablo 3.



First, I think at this point Pathfinder is now helping D&D.

But Diablo 2 was released at almost the exact same time as 3E.  It didn't hurt it.  Now , maybe, because 4E managed to lose so many old fans and is working with what they would get of "new" fans, it might be different.  But I doubt it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why the hell not?  Because it isn't "real work" or isn't worthy, somehow?  Should they get "real jobs?"
> 
> If people want to pay for what you offer the world in volumes and prices enough to make you rich, so be it.



It would be hard to answer this without violating the no-politics rule. I'm not saying that producing entertainment isn't a real job, I'm saying more that in general no one deserves to be exceedingly rich when so many people are struggling. Most people who work in the entertainment industry are not particularly rich, but there are a few who are, and I'm not a fan of "celebrity culture". While producing entertainment is valuable and difficult and can be a real job, I do believe that there are more essential roles in society, and that compensation should be disseminated accordingly. Obviously, this is only my opinion.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't want a D&D game that's about profit rather than entertainment, and it's tough to walk that line and still make a living.


----------



## Jasperak (Jul 31, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.




I think 4e would have had me if it were marketed as DDMv3 or advanced DDM


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2011)

Ahnehnois, I actually agree with you on several points, but on others I clearly don't...

So in the intrest of brevity and non-threadjacking, I'll just respond to this:



> I understand where you're coming from, but I don't want a D&D game that's about profit rather than entertainment, and it's tough to walk that line and still make a living.




_Up to a point,_ the more money you make doing what you love, the easier it becomes to find the time to devote to doing that at your highest level of proficiency.

(Ani Di Franco has made some very interesting personal observations on this.)


----------



## Pour (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> There must be progress.
> 
> But frequently the best path forward is to admit your mistakes, go back and find a better path from where you once were.
> 
> ...




Dead ends or overly-fiddly bits or new problems are to be expected in design, and I agree that's when you return to your original aim and try again, more or less the process of making a practical, functional rules system. This is kind of where I see 4e right now. They're in a position to rework the weak points of the system, but there isn't enough cause, in my opinion, to dump the majority of it in favor of different design principles in an new edition, nor is it productive to reverse design principles established at the outset and seek the answers in older rules. It must be a forward process, and if it looks less like the D&D rules of the past, so be it.

Targeting MMO and CCG players is a fine goal, but I don't think it was limited to those two segments in regards to new players, I just think they've failed, thus far, to return to a wider public consciousness, and that requires good video games (here's hoping for Neverwinter- or better yet, pick a hungry, young studio and announce Baldur's Gate 3 for a spike in game press) and a Nentir Vale CN animated series, but I digress... 

They never forgot their core market, though, to say those who play 4e or would play 4e. In fact, they're doing more now than I recall in my gaming past to reach out to me and my friends (gamers and non gamers), between Encounters and the upcoming Lair Assault, both of which offer me easy ways to introduce the game without having to do anything but show up, and which are way more accessible and constant than LFR ever was in my experience. 

Not only that, these programs have garnered the attention of adjacent markets, for instance my Encounters program is run in a comic book and game shop, and we've drawn in comic readers as well as traditional hobbyists. Come to think, the shop also holds a number of Yugi-Oh, Pokemon and Magic tournaments, and they too have been reeled into the culture (and me back into Magic after a long lapse- Commander format is awesome). Will all of them stay with it, no, probably not, but there is exposure and a way for anyone to walk off the streets Wednesdays (and Lair Assault can be run any day of the week) to game.

For all the good I believe WotC have done, I by no means believe they've handled everything perfectly, or that the rules system doesn't need work. They didn't, and it does, but I kind of embrace the refining process and discovery. It feels exciting, you know, taking the game new places. And I've said this before, but it's a beautiful thing that as they do this, the other editions are always there for people, and all of them are supported.

I feel I've gotten way off topic. Sorry about that. 

Speaking to your last point, though, getting lost can be frustrating, confusing, messy, ugly, yes, but if they keep pressing through the unknown, cutting through the doubts, moving forward into new mechanics, new settings and fluff, digital frontiers, instead of trying to retrace their steps to get back where they started, I believe the destination is just over the next hill. It's not design for design's sake, it's design for the game's sake, for our sake.

Also, I tend to favor the bold designers willing to try new things, to let the historical iterations of the game be what they are, and find new paths. You know, WotC are almost like path-finders...


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Up to a point,_ the more money you make doing what you love, the easier it becomes to find the time to devote to doing that at your highest level of proficiency.



Can't give XP, so here's to financial security.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2011)

Pour said:


> Dead ends or overly-fiddly bits or new problems are to be expected in design, and I agree that's when you return to your original aim and try again, more or less the process of making a practical, functional rules system. This is kind of where I see 4e right now. They're in a position to rework the weak points of the system, but there isn't enough cause, in my opinion, to dump the majority of it in favor of different design principles in an new edition, nor is it productive to reverse design principles established at the outset and seek the answers in older rules. It must be a forward process, and if it looks less like the D&D rules of the past, so be it.



But as a 4E fan you don't represent the lost market.  

If a D&D of the future looks nothing like D&D of the past and is a huge hit, then awesome.  But if the D&D of the past had a better footprint than the D&D of the present, then it is probably a better starting point for finding that D&D of the future.  We both agree completely on the merits of progress, but you keep throwing in a hand wave that gives the present credit for things it has not achieved.



> Targeting MMO and CCG players is a fine goal, but I don't think it was limited to those two segments in regards to new players, I just think they've failed, thus far, to return to a wider public consciousness, and that requires good video games (here's hoping for Neverwinter- or better yet, pick a hungry, young studio and announce Baldur's Gate 3 for a spike in game press) and a Nentir Vale CN animated series, but I digress...



I do think they can make a ton more money off the brand in general by continuing to reach out into other areas, such as having D&D video games that keep up with technology.  But tying the fans of those efforts directly back to the fans of the tabletop game is a mistake.  

You can make the most awesome video game in the world and make so much money that the entire tabletop industry is negligible.  And the vast majority of those people playing will still never become table top gamers who spend money in the hobby month after month.



> They never forgot their core market, though, to say those who play 4e or would play 4e. In fact, they're doing more now than I recall in my gaming past to reach out to me and my friends (gamers and non gamers), between Encounters and the upcoming Lair Assault, both of which offer me easy ways to introduce the game without having to do anything but show up, and which are way more accessible and constant than LFR ever was in my experience.



That depends on what you mean by your words.  When 4E was announced I was an advocate from day 1.  As is always the case, the initial response was "those money grubbers" blah blah blah...  I was enthused and ready to see what they had.  I absolutely qualify as someone who "would play 4E".  It was only after I saw the specifics of the game itself that I went looking elsewhere.  And I know I'm not uncommon.  

Your position seems to exclude me from the pool of potential market.  And I think that does a good job of summing up WotC's problem.


> Not only that, these programs have garnered the attention of adjacent markets, for instance my Encounters program is run in a comic book and game shop, and we've drawn in comic readers as well as traditional hobbyists. Come to think, the shop also holds a number of Yugi-Oh, Pokemon and Magic tournaments, and they too have been reeled into the culture (and me back into Magic after a long lapse- Commander format is awesome). Will all of them stay with it, no, probably not, but there is exposure and a way for anyone to walk off the streets Wednesdays (and Lair Assault can be run any day of the week) to game.



 I was playing D&D in comic book shops in the 80s.  This is nothing new.

And again, I agree 100% with ADVERTISING, but you have dodged away from the point that the game ITSELF needs to appeal to the right target.



> Also, I tend to favor the bold designers willing to try new things, to let the historical iterations of the game be what they are, and find new paths. You know, WotC are almost like path-finders...



So do I.  

But boldness buried under blindness to learning from mistakes is not a merit.

Yes, WotC found *A* path.  

As Auld Grump correctly pointed out, 90% of innovation leads to failure.  That doesn't remotely make the innovation bad.  Failures and learning from mistakes is what lead to progress.  

but you are cutting out that critical part and declaring that because boldness is good all results of boldness are good.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Pour (Jul 31, 2011)

Interesting thoughts, Bry, but do I really sound so elementary there at the end?

I'm actually someone who is against focusing on lost markets beyond 4e rules conversions of past modules and prequels/sequels (if that's focus on the lost market at all, which, kind of off topic, I can't wait for the prequel to Temple of Elemental Evil). Focusing on the lost market won't help the game or its players in the slightest, especially if in doing so we move backwards into mechanical territory 4e already broke away from. The differences between the present and the past are too drastic, OSR and Pathfinder cater perfectly to previous editions (not to say I don't love their material, ala I'm totally picking up Petty Gods when it releases), and it makes the idea of some harmonic, universal system seem not only impossible, but repetitive, stagnant, which we're both against. 

That said, focusing on a lost market of gamers happy with their editions is not the same thing as focusing on a game past, present, and future D&D gamers can enjoy, and I think we both heartily advocate the latter, no matter what it looks like. If there is ever going to be any appeal for past markets, the way is  forward, in the evolution of the current game until it reaches a point  where lapsed players might again investigate it, when it ceases to be  the game they didn't like and has evolved into something else. I, as a  4e DM, want the same thing, the continued expansion, creation and  exploration of rules and settings.  When I can no longer happily share in that process, then I think I know I've found my edition of choice, and will use it to my heart's content, until which time I may jump back on the train.

I never meant to exclude you, and neither did WotC. If you didn't like what was offered, that was your right, and you've put your money where your mind is and look at all the wonderful stuff that came from it. I don't see the problem in Pathfinders or... can I say it as a non-loaded term, grognards jumping ship. I know much is made of it, and I'm sure there are business ramifications from it, but if we're ever going to get to a new place, we need to cover new ground. Informed by the past, sure, but not beholden to it. 

I think I'm having trouble understanding, and this may be where I'm hand-waving, at what point you consider something a mistake, failure or wrong path when I'm claiming we shouldn't return to mechanical territory 4e broke away from. Are you talking about mechanics, that we should go back to defense saves and Vancian magic and monster/NPC blocks built more like PCs? Are you referring to actual IP/PR management? I feel I need a little more clarification there. 

I will say, though, that I got into D&D through video games. The majority won't, but I did, because of the exposure to the IP, and afterward exposure to two different editions, at which point I chose 4e. The game itself appealed to me, and the ideas of where it could go. I wouldn't call it a mistake to attribute some influence on the number of gamers related to what's out there at any given time, comics, games, animation, movies, etc. I also have to wonder at the gains from temporary players with public play programs, fortune cards, lower price-point Essentials material, and so on. 

Bry, I like you, I respect you, but the end of that post is a little harsh. 4e is not boldness buried under blindness (love the alliteration there, though) and not everything bold is good (the Blitzkrieg for instance). True, WotC took a step, and we're now seeing all editions take their continued, divergent evolutionary steps, which is exciting beyond belief, but 90% dead-end mutation and 10% new species is exactly the kind of failure and learning we need for progress. Would you be willing to say that 4e is a necessary and continued process on the road to new iterations of D&D, which may or may not appeal to any and all lapsed, current and future players through virtue of its mechanical differences from the past and reverence to the IP, and that we may differ where designers should start when trying again, it's ultimately agree it's for the better?

And I was born in the 80's, old man! (just kidding)


----------



## Wiseblood (Jul 31, 2011)

WotC could make most people happy, but those are some very long odds.

I wonder if their design principles and their plans actually hurt them. Are they being creative inside a box? A box created by branding and by corporate strategy. 3e and MtG were concieved by the ambitious small company. Much like D&D was by TSR.


 I'm not so sure WotC has what it takes to deliver. One thing I am sure of is that someone out there does have what it takes.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> True. But, a game that is simple at its core but allows additional complexity via add-ons is more universally appealing than one that's complex at the core, since those can't easily be simplified on the fly.
> 
> I'm not proposing a version of D&D that only caters to the "simpler is better" style--just one that _starts_ with that assumption, and then allows designers/gamers to add additional layers to their heart's content.
> 
> (Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)




That reasoning is sound and I wouldn't oppose that view. However, as stated it's not necessarily a goal for all gamers - it's certainly not my goal.

I was just suggesting that the assumption that 3x/PF is complicated so it is a doomed system, 'since everyone wants a simpler game' is just not a given. Many people want a simpler game, but that doesn't describe all people - this was my only point.

I also agree that for new people coming into the game simpler is easier. But then I am not a beginner, I was only speaking from my point of view as a 30+ year experienced gamer, that I don't want nor need a simpler game. I'd rather hand-hold a new gamer into the 'complex game' so to make it easier to get involved by playing first hand in whatever game is in front of them, rather than guide them into a simpler game instead.

Edit: my very first game of D&D, the DM forced me to play a 12th level wizard having never played an RPG before. It was tough, but with plenty of hand-holding, I learned (or was forced to learn) quickly. I found it very complicated, but also a thrilling experience. So for the beginner going baby steps isn't necessarily the only nor best tact in getting them into a game. I wouldn't do this to new players in my game. I am just saying that pulling an inexperienced gamer into a complex situation is a doable concept. And this would be the complete opposite to a simpler game to learn the process.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 31, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> The gap between D&D and Pathfinder is small, but GURPS (just to name one example) hasn't been doing well at all.





Might just be a local oddity then, but I've seen it (as well as Rogue Trader) become very popular in this area.

I've also noticed that SJG is starting to release a few things in physical form.  I'm aware that Munchkin is their flagship game right now, but SJG still supports GURPS, and the company is still in business -which is quite a feat considering how long they've been around.


Either way, I still think my point stands.  D&D used to blow pretty much every other game out of the water.  While it is still the industry leader, I do not believe the gap between D&D and other games is anywhere near what it used to be.  There are even some people who claim at certain points in the year that Pathfinder edges ahead.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I think that is an over stated simplification.
> 
> And I really don't believe that there is any evidence that it works out that way.
> 
> Certainly not at the "editions of D&D" level.  I think it just underestimates the fans and leads to giving them less than what they want.




Yes, it's a simplification. I should have said "To an extent."

I only have anecdote and gut instinct to go with, same as anyone else. But I can only say that, IME, I've seen far more people turned off by the complexity of D&D (any edition) than have been attracted by it. I've seen far more people not want to get into the game because of the perceived necessity of multiple books and hours of "study" than have been attracted by it.

Add that to the fact that, as I said above, it's always easier to increase a system's complexity through supplements than to _de_crease it, and I still firmly believe that the way to go forward is a simple core game with a large amount of _optional_ complexity.

In point of fact, I personally would love to see the game return to the BECMI model of advancement and expansion. I'm not suggesting it _should_--I lack the data to make a marketing decision like that--only that, _as I perceive it_, that would be the best option.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Might just be a local oddity then, but I've seen it (as well as Rogue Trader) become very popular in this area.




Even a game that is failing or falling in the larger market might have success in localities, here and there. If the money spent to develop and market a game cost's more than the varying successes in some localities, its still a fail.

I know people who play and love GURPs. If those people are part of a minority of gamers, then SJG is still suffering, despite that fact of some local successes.

I think that's the point that Prosfilaes is making (don't know for sure).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2011)

To clarify, D&D has (almost) always been a game where you get more out of it if you put more thought and effort into it. I'm not suggesting we lose that.

I'm suggesting we lose the _necessity_ of that.

The character creation "mini-game," if you will, should be _possible_, absolutely, but not _required_. At its most basic form, D&D should be playable by newcomers in a matter of minutes, not hours. Those who _want_ to spend hours on characters and optimization should absolutely have that capability, but I feel it should come in the form of add-ons, not the basic, core, out-of-the-box experience. Because _that_--again, IME--is where you lose people, both newcomers to the game and experienced gamers who just want a more streamlined experience.

In other words, and using prior versions as an example, if one group wants to play with just Basic, and another wants to play with Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master, that should be entirely possible.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Even a game that is failing or falling in the larger market might have success in localities, here and there. If the money spent to develop and market a game cost's more than the varying successes in some localities, its still a fail.
> 
> I know people who play and love GURPs. If those people are part of a minority of gamers, then SJG is still suffering, despite that fact of some local successes.
> 
> I think that's the point that Prosfilaes is making (don't know for sure).





My point really doesn't hinge upon the validity of his point though.  Part of my point is considering the fact that within the past two years, I've seen D&D go from being the only game being played in this area to being one of many games being played -and by far not being the most common game played.

If I look at myself and my own anecdotal experience, I went from barely being aware there even were games other than D&D to it becoming my secondary choice of game.  At first I thought this might have just been personal preference, and that I was the oddball in the area, but then I starting paying more attention to what was going on around me; the games being advertised at the local gaming store, and the games in the area recruiting.

On a larger scale that extends beyond this area, it might not be GURPS nor Rogue Trader nor any of the other games I mention, but it's my point that it is (IMO) more common to find other games openly played and referenced by actual name now.  D&D used to be synonymous with RPG much in the same way that 'Coke' is synonymous with soda in some areas of the South, Xerox is occasionally synonymous with copy, and Frigidaire was at one time synonymous with refrigerator.  

Naturally, as was the case with those brands, other brands would make names of their own and stand on their own feet.  It is naturally for that to happen.  However, I believe the other gaming companies have more rapidly closed the game and garnered more interest in the past 2-3 years than they have in the 30+ years prior.

The point growing out of that point is that I believe WoTC (going forward) needs to be more aware of how some of their choices are received and perceived by their fanbase.  The reason being that their product is no longer viewed by many to be the only way to play.  Where they may have faltered, others have been consistently getting better, and people have noticed.

Now, I would never suggest people only play one game.  Even looking at myself, I do not.  However, even if you are someone who plays multiple games, that still means there might be times when you choose one product over another.  Again, if I look at myself; even though I still do play D&D, I realize that I have not purchased a D&D product since Manual of The Planes for 4th Edition.  

Instead, when I drive to the local gaming store, I actually look at other options.  I would have never done that before; D&D had a monopoly on my rpg book budget.  As it stands -and I believe by talking to other gamers that I am not the only one- D&D/WoTC now have to work to convince me to buy their product instead of a product made by someone else.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Ah, I see what you mean, 'anecdotally for you'. For me, that was the 80's. I was playing Traveler, Space Opera, Aftermath, Twilight 2000, Elfquest, Paranoia and many other games in addition to D&D from say 1983 until 1989 - being primarily a D&Der from 1977 up to that point.

In the 1990's I dabbled with WoD, and for a short time played HOL.

So I've never considered D&D the only game in town, except in the 70's (and it wasn't true even then.)

When looking at the whole industry (a difficult thing to do at any time), I generally don't refer to personal anecdotes, as that can always vary when regarding the market as a whole.

Until your last post, I didn't understand that you were speaking anecdotally only.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 31, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm suggesting we lose the _necessity_ of that.
> 
> The character creation "mini-game," if you will, should be _possible_, absolutely, but not _required_. At its most basic form, D&D should be playable by newcomers in a matter of minutes, not hours. Those who _want_ to spend hours on characters and optimization should absolutely have that capability, but I feel it should come in the form of add-ons, not the basic, core, out-of-the-box experience. Because _that_--again, IME--is where you lose people, both newcomers to the game and experienced gamers who just want a more streamlined experience.




When D&D was at its most popular, it was a game that:

(1) Was sold alongside other games in a form that looked like a game.

(2) Could be introduced to a new player in about 10 minutes (including the creation of a full character).

(3) By default supported an open table that made it as easy to pick-up and play as any board or card game.

(4) Featured easy prep and relatively easy running for the DM.

(5) Penetrated the mainstream through marketing, tie-in products, and the like.

Since 1985, these elements have been stripped from the game one by one.

I don't think these things are the be-all or end-all of success. But they'd certainly be the first things I'd be looking to implement if I was in charge of the D&D brand.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Ah, I see what you mean, 'anecdotally for you'. For me, that was the 80's. I was playing Traveler, Space Opera, Aftermath, Twilight 2000, Elfquest, Paranoia and many other games in addition to D&D from say 1983 until 1989 - being primarily a D&Der from 1977 up to that point.
> 
> In the 1990's I dabbled with WoD, and for a short time played HOL.
> 
> ...





It was a view that started as being based on anecdotal experience, but, in the past few years, I have seen what is around me start to reflect my own personal experience as well.  There seem to be more people having a similar experience at the same time than there were previously.  While there may have been pockets of people who played other games before, and there still are pockets of people who play alternative games, I believe -overall- that alternative games have grown larger than the pockets they were contained in before.  Simultaneously, there have been a few times in which D&D has (from what I can tell when I look at the community as a whole; not just here locally) stumbled.  I believe this has lead to the gap between the industry leader and alternatives being less than it previously was.

As such, I believe this is something WoTC needs to be aware of going forward if they want to perform better as a company.  I would never suggest WoTC is hurting; I am sure they still do quite well.  However, I do not believe they are doing nearly as well as they expected they would be with their current products.  Meanwhile, other companies are doing better than they were before.  Even some of the companies which people might claim are 'doing terrible' are showing signs of improvement.  

I used personal experience to illustrate my point mainly because -as someone who is not an employee of Hasbro- I do not have concrete figures to present along with my posts.


edit:  I wanted to clarify something I said.  'What is around me' also started with just here at my home table.  Then, it became what I noticed here in the local area.  Other games were being brought to the forefront.  Still, that's somewhat anecdotal and localized.  Then, I went to a few cons and noticed what I felt was more prominent presentation of other games than I had seen in years past.  Still, I admit it is based on personal experience and things I have seen.  It just seems (from my point of view) that there are more people willing to play other games at this point in time than I have experience before, and the change seems to have happened rather rapidly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2011)

> The character creation "mini-game," if you will, should be possible, absolutely, but not required. At its most basic form, D&D should be playable by newcomers in a matter of minutes, not hours. Those who want to spend hours on characters and optimization should absolutely have that capability, but I feel it should come in the form of add-ons, not the basic, core, out-of-the-box experience. Because that--again, IME--is where you lose people, both newcomers to the game and experienced gamers who just want a more streamlined experience.




This is one area where I think 3Ed/3.5Ed serves better...because each class has a nearly complete build included in amongst all the other stuff.  Sure, some of them were not well done- including outright rules errors- but you could crack open the PHB and grab a complete party in minutes.  4Ed does this too, but not as thoroughly.

But I don't think either goes far enough.

IMHO, for games as complex as 3Ed-4Ed, a quick-play option doesn't need stripped-down rules, but rather a gallery of completely statted out and equipped PCs in the PHB.  Many other games do this- HERO, Shadowrun and so many more- and it really does help players "get it" sooner.  Heck, some people just use the provided PCs as is.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Honestly, I think that D&D/Pathfinder, when creating a first level character is only a 10 minute activitiy. Pick your race, pick your class, roll your stats, make racial adjustments, roll HP (or give max at first level as we do), pick your 2 to 3 feats depending on race, pick your skills - that's it, and it only took 10 minutes.

If you're starting the PCs at much higher than 3rd level, then yeah, its going to take longer than 10 minutes.

Really, the game doesn't get complicated until you're higher in level - most starting gamers shouldn't be starting at higher than 1st level anyway.

10 minute character creation (IMO) is the norm for a 1st level character.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 1, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> 10 minute character creation (IMO) is the norm for a 1st level character.



It is for me too. But I've been playing D&D for close to thirty years now. It's quick because I know what the options are. Imagine if you will that WotC dropped a completely brand new 5e at GenCon (they won't but let's just say they did). The 5e Player's Handbook gets thrust into your hand and you are told to make a character. How long would it take you? Even with the "easy-guide-character section" and even with a perfect understanding of what sacred cows you "expect" to be in there, it is still going to take you time to get your bearings. That is what the completely new player is confronted with. I think the saturation of computer game "knowledge" now-a-days helps in this process compared to when I was starting out but having so many options really lengthens the process.

Imagine: roll ability scores. Um... it looks like I'm best to be a fighter. I'll choose a sword and armor with my basic starting equipment. OK, I'm right to go. It would be interesting if at its most basic level, that was the extent of character creation for most classes. That is going to throw people into the game much quicker than with more recent editions.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2011)

I was introduced to the game by someone already expert in it, who held my hand as I rolled up my first character. I never bought a brand new game, not knowing how to create a character, until I was already an experienced gamer (then it wasn't something I was completely uninitiated in). I didn't begin my first RPG experience by purchasing the game alone without assistance - so I'd have no idea what I was doing to begin play in the first place.

I've never met anyone who has - though I'm sure they exist. Everyone I know joined a game of experienced players who helped them into the hobby. I may be wrong, but I think that's how most people begin their trek in playing RPGs.

And I agree with you, from the stand-point of a first time gamer who doesn't have that expert to help him out - just as I say, I don't know anyone who falls into that category.

But regarding whether a game is an easy pickup for a new player is not my concern as someone looking at a new game. Simplicity is great for beginners, but I'm not a beginner, so its not something I am looking for at all. Don't give me a simple game, I don't want it.

[And really, I don't look at what WotC is doing anymore, they don't make the game I want to play anymore, so I don't even look - or care if a 5e, or non-e comes into existence. At this point, I'm only concerned at what Paizo is releasing or other PF 3pp and little else].


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> < snip >
> IMHO, for games as complex as 3Ed-4Ed, a quick-play option doesn't need stripped-down rules, but rather a gallery of completely statted out and equipped PCs in the PHB.  Many other games do this- HERO, Shadowrun and so many more- and it really does help players "get it" sooner.  Heck, some people just use the provided PCs as is.




Now, *this* I like. 

Hey, _*WotC*_! Give us a scadload of prebuilds in the PHB1! 
Yes, I'm talking something like 64 or 128 of them. (So, actually, I mean "Scadloads," _plural_.)
Complete with _backstory_. 

No further simplification would be necessary. Newbies could learn to play from there. 
(I would offer my Human Warlord as an example to use -- except that he's so idiosyncratic that most people would look at him and say, "Whu?")


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 1, 2011)

I don't think backgrounds would be necessary, especially given the info most PHB have given over the years.  I think most people can use that fluff as a launching pad for their own ideas- the problem usually comes from translating ideas to character sheet.

I also think a 2-3 PCs per race and class would be sufficient.  IOW, there might be 3 Rangers- an elf, a human and a halfling, for example, and each of those races would have another 2 builds in the book, whatever they may be.

You could probably get 1-2 per page, depending on formatting and actual game mechanics, inclusion of art, etc.  Given that these are meant to aid quickstart play, I'd err on the side of caution, using a whole page and possibly including a sidebar on what the particular build does well.


----------



## Pour (Aug 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think backgrounds would be necessary, especially given the info most PHB have given over the years.  I think most people can use that fluff as a launching pad for their own ideas- the problem usually comes from translating ideas to character sheet.
> 
> I also think a 2-3 PCs per race and class would be sufficient.  IOW, there might be 3 Rangers- an elf, a human and a halfling, for example, and each of those races would have another 2 builds in the book, whatever they may be.
> 
> You could probably get 1-2 per page, depending on formatting and actual game mechanics, inclusion of art, etc.  Given that these are meant to aid quickstart play, I'd err on the side of caution, using a whole page and possibly including a sidebar on what the particular build does well.




That sounds like a pretty helpful 3rd party product if someone were to make it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think backgrounds would be necessary, especially given the info most PHB have given over the years.  I think most people can use that fluff as a launching pad for their own ideas- the problem usually comes from translating ideas to character sheet.
> 
> I also think a 2-3 PCs per race and class would be sufficient.  IOW, there might be 3 Rangers- an elf, a human and a halfling, for example, and each of those races would have another 2 builds in the book, whatever they may be.
> 
> You could probably get 1-2 per page, depending on formatting and actual game mechanics, inclusion of art, etc.  Given that these are meant to aid quickstart play, I'd err on the side of caution, using a whole page and possibly including a sidebar on what the particular build does well.



My own experience is that folks _loathe_ pregenerated characters, except for things like convention games.

I'd give such a product a pass as well, looking for something more robust.

Though, as an optional adjunct to a more flexible game it might work, though I still would not buy it. Give me games that can stop a bullet or be used as lethal, hardcover, weapons!

The Auld Grump, strewing d4s as caltrops in his wake.....


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 1, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Except of course those that prefer PDFs and can get the core rulebooks at $10 a pop.




 So...I can choose to spend money to get the game materials in a format that is not as easily searchable, and that is nearly impossible to read on my smartphone? One which requires me to lug an expensive computer around? Is this a religious thing? :')




> Or who simply like to support the openness Paizo has with their rulesets and show their support by purchasing their product in either paper or PDF form.




I suppose that's a valid reason. After all, sports teams make their money off of selling symbolic to display team loyalty. I simply don't like relying on fan charity as a business model, since rpg fans are notoriously fickle and tightfisted.



> Spyware filled? Where did you grab that from? Show me where PCGen has been shown to be spyware filled?




Welcome to 2011. Any download is full of spyware or malware until proven safe, and that goes doubly so for executables. 

Maybe PCGen's creators are trustworthy, and maybe not. Maybe they're trustworthy and they got hacked somewhere in the process. The bottom line is I'm not going to install 200 megabytes of  executable programs on any system anywhere near any sensitive data. Maybe if I had an off-network dedicated game computer that would be different, but as it is, i'm not being paid to take the risk.

Anyway, this leads to another issue, something I was going to mention as part of my wishlist. 200 megabytes is still a fair chunk of memory, especially for the devices I use. You wouldn't want to operate off a smartphone, for instance, and from my perspective, that's where we should be going.

Ideally, I want a cloud-based rpg system where I can access all character and gm functions from an android or iphone, combined with smart search and communications functions. So if I'm playing at a tournament or convention, I don't need a pile of heavy books, or even an expensive laptop; I can access the online game system, and send my character to	the gm. With the right functionality, changes made in the game could be updated for all players automatically.



> As for a small monthly fee (i.e. subscription), depends - how many months until that monthly fee exceeds the $100. (this ignores of course that I can get started without spending anywhere near $100). What happens when I decide I don't want to pay a subscription fee? Do I lose access to the material I was using? If so - then that up front fee seems much more favorable.




Well, this IS a business model we're talking about. Now bear on mind, gamers are notoriously stingy, but even that is subject to price points. The bottom line is that gamers and people in general are willing to pay  something like 5 dollars a month continually, where they complain about spending 40 dollars in one lump. In addition, charges can be as narrowly focused as desired; say, 15 cents to have access to a single class' advanced features,  rather then spending the money for a full sourcebook.

As for when people don't want to spend the money for an account, we can base that on what DDI and mmorpgs already do in that situation. The account and data is kept in memory for whenever the player wants to resubscribe

The idea l is to make everything as simple and easy for the the gamer as possible. One locaation for everything, no having to muck around various sites or having to do massive downloads, no worrying about PDFs. Ideally  almost everything accessible from a smartphone. DDI should be playing Pandora to Pathfinder's Napster.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 1, 2011)

> My own experience is that folks loathe pregenerated characters, except for things like convention games.




My own experience is that _experienced gamers_ loathe pregenerated characters, except for things like convention games.  You and I aren't the market for this.  It's for the newbies.

Make it into a softcover product like 1Ed's _Rogue's Gallery_ or the more recent _Player's Handbook Races_ series- $10 for 32 1st level pregens tied to the PHB stuff- and I think it could do well...if the game really is attracting new players, that is.  And if it does sell well, do more based on subsequent releases.

I still think the PHBs themselves should include a few to maximize the quick play potential...probably in place of all the stuff not needed for 1st level PCs- like magic items (which really belong in the DMG, IMHO).  Hell- given how many products have digital supplements of some kind, the pregens could all be "free web enhancements," included on a CD, DVD, or on a thumb drive you get with the purchase of a PHB.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 1, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> Well, it's possible to reach any conclusion if you just make up facts



37% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.



There is one sure-fire way for WotC to get the D&D game back to its early popularity: 



Spoiler



*Mazes and Monsters 2, starring Tom Hanks.*


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 1, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Welcome to 2011. Any download is full of spyware or malware until proven safe, and that goes doubly so for executables.




So you slander the makers of PCGen with no evidence. It's 2011; anyone taking credit card numbers is a thief until proven safe. Does that mean we should eschew any RPG system that we have to pay for online automatically?



> In addition, charges can be as narrowly focused as desired; say, 15 cents to have access to a single class' advanced features,  rather then spending the money for a full sourcebook.




It's 2011; micropayments have been proven impractical. Seriously; the credit card companies charge too much for a 15 cent charge to be profitable, and the resistance most people have to pulling out the wallet is pretty constant between 15 cents and a couple bucks.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 1, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Either way, I still think my point stands.  D&D used to blow pretty much every other game out of the water.  While it is still the industry leader, I do not believe the gap between D&D and other games is anywhere near what it used to be.  There are even some people who claim at certain points in the year that Pathfinder edges ahead.




The way I've seen it, is that during the 90s, the World of Darkness approached and possibly passed D&D in sales (though no one has hard numbers here.) So the gap between D&D may be more then what it use to be. Secondly, I may be wrong, but I think that while Pathfinder may challenge D&D for book sales now, that just means that what was once basically a one game market has become a two game market. The numbers for all the other games are basically where they've always been.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 1, 2011)

[threadjack]



prosfilaes said:


> So you slander the makers of PCGen with no evidence.




Since it's written, wouldn't it be libel rather than slander?



> It's 2011; anyone taking credit card numbers is a thief until proven safe. Does that mean we should eschew any RPG system that we have to pay for online automatically?




Particularly since the ongoing subscription is being handled by a non-associated 3rd-party as a service.  Who knows how thorough their hiring practices are?  It takes just one bad hire over the lifetime of your subscription...  

[/threadjack]


----------



## triqui (Aug 1, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But there have been other hobbies through the decades and yet there is no observable difference in the proportion of tabletop gamers.



Never in history those other hobbies were so powerful as now. CCG and Videogames are huge. Videogames are actually a industry monster, fighting one-on-one (and winning...) with Hollywood. We are talking about billions of dollars here. In 1980 D&D was competing with, say, tabletop games like Avalon hills and the like, that's true. However, Avalon Hill was never close to be a fraction of what Blizzard Enterteiment is. Nintendo alone is probably bigger than the whole gaming industry in the 80s...



> What we DON'T see is the same thing happening in RPGs.  You are equating potential CCG players with potential RPGers.  And that is your flaw right there.



I disagree, then. They *are* potential RPGers. What they are not, is potential RPGers in the current RPG incarnation (prep-time, complex rules, etc)



> I agree that a those people don't want to do those things.  But, you know what, those people also don't want to sit around a table with friends pretending to be an elf.



And there is where you are basically wrong. The millions of players that each Legend of Zelda has ARE siting around a table pretending to be an Elf. An elf named "Link", actually. MTG players are pretending to be a Planeswalker Wizard fighting other.
Blizzard has 11 millions of subscribers that pretend to be an elf, orc, gnome or walking cow.
Those players *can* be attracted by D&D (and RPG industry in general). But only if RPG aim to what they look. D&D 4e tried to do so (and I applaud), but probably missed the point. 4e R+D team thought people played WoW becouse of the shinny powers like Mortal Strike, Vanish and Cleave, and tried to copy that. But probably they failed to notice that they play WoW becouse you can build a character in 15 seconds and you can start to play from the get go.



> Erase prep time, dumb down the rules and drop combat to 10 minutes and you will get a tiny fraction of those people.  And you will lose a huge chunk of you existing base as a cost.



"dumbing down" is not the same as "simple to learn". Chess is simple to learn. And is not "dumb", by any extension of the word

That said, probably WotC might lose 90% of grognards, win a 10% of Videogamers+CCG gamers, and still have a net gain. That's what I think you might not be looking rightly. Videogames and CCG are a HUGE monster compared to RPG industry. A tiny fraction of that, is a huge amount of money.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 1, 2011)

triqui said:


> Never in history those other hobbies were so powerful as now. CCG and Videogames are huge. Videogames are actually a industry monster, fighting one-on-one (and winning...) with Hollywood. We are talking about billions of dollars here. In 1980 D&D was competing with, say, tabletop games like Avalon hills and the like, that's true. However, Avalon Hill was never close to be a fraction of what Blizzard Enterteiment is. Nintendo alone is probably bigger than the whole gaming industry in the 80s...
> 
> 
> I disagree, then. They *are* potential RPGers. What they are not, is potential RPGers in the current RPG incarnation (prep-time, complex rules, etc)
> ...






I believe you are over-estimating the draw of roleplaying as a passtime.  If it were just speed of play/simplicity to start that was the problem, the games with very simple start-ups would have blown past D&D years ago.  There are dozens of games with very simple "pick up let's go" rulesets.  Many have existed for a decade or more.

Heck, if there was a massive desire to roleplay among the general populace, the party murder-mystery games would be blowout sellers, especially since they (1) weren't connected to D&D in any way and were unaffected by the "geek miasma" that surrounds it, (2) were/are sold in regular game stores/department stores, and (3) have had a couple of decades to penetrate public awareness.  They sell occasionally, but not well and with limited repeat business.

Over its span, D&D has had few non-D&D competitors for first place.  None of the rules-light/prep-light systems has ever challenged D&D -- not those systems that downplay dice, not the systems that downplay DMs, not the systems that eschew formal characteristics/skills/abilities for more free-form design. 

In fact, the only thing that *has* challenged D&D has been systems with entrenched world-views that spoke to a different segment of the general population. 

The first was Runequest; not a lighter system, but more consistent in approaches and with a strong integrated world flavour that was simultaneously more mythic and gritty.  The second was oWoD; not a light system made even less intelligable by the presentation style.  But it also had a very strong world flavour that spoke to a different section of the population.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 1, 2011)

I think people would be surprised to see just how small the tabletop RPG industry really is.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 1, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> To clarify, D&D has (almost) always been a game where you get more out of it if you put more thought and effort into it. I'm not suggesting we lose that.
> 
> I'm suggesting we lose the _necessity_ of that.
> 
> ...




Man, I wish you were in charge of the next edition of D&D.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 1, 2011)

i think this has been said, but I am captain of the redundancy team

if Hasbro was sure that a 5e product would generate profit, it would be on its way to the shelves.

As far playing right away and not spending hours learning the rules and character generation, I would suggest you check out the youtube-cast of the robot chicken session.  Three of the 5 players at the table had never played any role playing game, and yet, as it said in the commentary, they were off and playing within 15 minutes of sitting down.
&[URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/misc.php?do=dbtech_usertag_hash&hash=x202a]#x202aDM&#39s Commentary: D&D Robot Chicken, Part 1&#x202c‏ - YouTube[/url]


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 1, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> So you slander the makers of PCGen with no evidence. It's 2011; anyone taking credit card numbers is a thief until proven safe. Does that mean we should eschew any RPG system that we have to pay for online automatically?



Yeah, pretty much what he is doing - either that or he is completely unfamiliar with Sourceforge.

Or he might be wearing a tinfoil hat, I suppose.  (I used to have a roommate who thought that rental tapes for the VCR might have viruses... what they might find from his VCR I don't know, other than that he had lousy taste in movies.)




> It's 2011; micropayments have been proven impractical. Seriously; the credit card companies charge too much for a 15 cent charge to be profitable, and the resistance most people have to pulling out the wallet is pretty constant between 15 cents and a couple bucks.



Pretty much. The rates that they allowed to charge now actually used to be illegal. Let us hear it for deregulation....

The Auld Grump, remember, you should move _away_ from the guy wearing the tinfoil hat... (except for B. W., he's okay....)


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 1, 2011)

@ Triqui


I do not discount your view.  I do believe there are untapped markets for rpgs among players of other games and members of other hobbies.

However, I also feel there is a lot of untapped potential with just the good old fashioned rpg.  As someone who is both an avid video game player and someone who plays rpgs, I find that video games are increasingly adding rpg elements.  The drive to immerse yourself into games, I believe, is becoming stronger.  Some of the most popular games over the past few years have been games which found a way to emulate some of the tabletop feel.  While there are gamers who are probably unaware that some of those elements were taken from tabletop gaming, they still enjoy them.  

There are plenty of people who want a deeper experience; not a more simplified one; for a while now, even games like Madden football and WWE Smackdown have included things such as being able to make your own character, take the role of a team owner, and etc.  Each year, these features have gotten more in depth.  So, while I do see the merit in making a game easier to learn, I also believe there are just as many people who want a game they can sit down and have a longer, deeper experience with.

I might be the odd man out, but, for me, I generally play video games for a very different reason than why I play rpgs.  The deeper experience is what drew me to rpgs in the first place.  I had a small dose of what a roleplaying experience could be with some of the console games I was familiar with.  When I discovered there was a way to have that experience without being restrained by the confines of a computer's programming, I embraced the idea.  RPGs engage me on a level that not very many video games do.  More and more, as video games became able to contain more complexity, I found myself wanting to play more games which emulated the feel I have while playing tabletop games.

I support the idea of making the rpg hobby easier to enter.  I see the merit in a more streamlined starting square.  However, I've come to fear that 'streamlined' tends to mean cutting a lot of the details out that make me want to play an rpg.  If a tabletop game gets streamlined and simplified to the point that I feel as though I am being constrained by the limits of the programming, I start to wonder why I don't just stay home on gameday and fire up the XBox instead.

Instead of chopping games down, why not build the potential players up?  By all means, start with something simple, but also showcase what might be possible beyond that simple start.  Play to the strengths of tabletop gaming and highlight that the game can be any world you can imagine.  I do not believe people are adverse to complexity if it is presented the right way and it leads to a more engaging experience.  In a society where we have young children capable of Twitter, using iPhones, iPads, and all manner of gadgets, I think adding complexity can work.  The trick is making getting there not feel like work and also making people want to engage on a deeper level; making a potential gamer want to invest not just in today's session around the table, but tomorrow's campaign.

With a simple start, but the potential for a deeper experience, I think you can find a way to market to both the person who wants to be more casual, but also have products available for the person who wants to stick with the game through the long haul.  I know there is some talk of this concerning D&D already.  Honestly, I don't know if that's the game D&D should be.  I can only express my belief that it's possible to build such an experience and have people embrace the deeper, more complex experience rather than shy away from it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 2, 2011)

triqui said:


> I disagree, then. They *are* potential RPGers. What they are not, is potential RPGers in the current RPG incarnation (prep-time, complex rules, etc)



Put your money where your mouth is and you will go broke.



> And there is where you are basically wrong. The millions of players that each Legend of Zelda has ARE siting around a table pretending to be an Elf. An elf named "Link", actually. MTG players are pretending to be a Planeswalker Wizard fighting other.
> 
> Blizzard has 11 millions of subscribers that pretend to be an elf, orc, gnome or walking cow.



No, that is EXACTLY the flaw in the thinking.  There are huge differences even in "pretending to be an elf" while playing a WOW night elf and "pretending to be an elf" during a table top RPG experience.

The vast majority of WOW players wouldn't be caught dead at a D&D table.  Seeing the superficial similarity and confusing that for equivalence is a fatal flaw.



> Those players *can* be attracted by D&D (and RPG industry in general). But only if RPG aim to what they look. D&D 4e tried to do so (and I applaud), but probably missed the point. 4e R+D team thought people played WoW becouse of the shinny powers like Mortal Strike, Vanish and Cleave, and tried to copy that. But probably they failed to notice that they play WoW becouse you can build a character in 15 seconds and you can start to play from the get go.



You know, I gotta point out that it is really funny that 4E copied WOW is being used as a defense here.  

I really don't see 15 second char builds as a benefit for what I get out of RPGs.  It works great for computer games, certainly.  But the depth of character experience is a big part of MY D&D fun.

I've been away from WOW for a couple years now, but I used to run an 80 Undead Priest running top raids.  I loved it and I don't play now because I'm clean and sober and I want to stay that way.  I know how much fun it can be.  And I also know it is a very different fun.




> That said, probably WotC might lose 90% of grognards, win a 10% of Videogamers+CCG gamers, and still have a net gain. That's what I think you might not be looking rightly. Videogames and CCG are a HUGE monster compared to RPG industry. A tiny fraction of that, is a huge amount of money.



Oh no, I agree absolutely that they are massive compared to RPGS.  That is because they appeal to vastly more people than RPGs.  The fact, as you pointed out, that the larger hobby was never this big before is because there was never the kinds of things that appealed to the larger crowd.  And when there was D&D in the 70s and 80s, there was still NOTHING in the hobby that appealed to that vast crowd.  They offer something that RPGs don't and RPGs offer something that they don't.  But a hell of a lot more people want what those other games offer than want what RPGs offer.  

So THAT is the problem with you gain 10% scenario.  If they were interested they would have been playing D&D or SOMETHING else before they had CCG or MMOs to choose.  And they did, it was just that the something else was completely outside the hobby.  Nothing that was in the hobby attracted them then and nothing that was in the hobby then attracts them now.

I'll assume I'll never convince you.  But that is fine.  I hope you live to be 150.  But even if you do, you'll be on your death bed predicting that the breakthrough is just around the corner.  I can't prove something won't happen tomorrow, but I can predict that it won't happen tomorrow and keep saying "I told you so" the day after and the day after.

Computer games and the like will dwarf tabletop RPGs forever.
And quickstart RPGs with simple to grab and go rules will last forever.
But the monster successes within the tabletop industry will always appeal to the target niche and will be "complex".


----------



## BryonD (Aug 2, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> 37% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.



There have been 8 different studies to support this.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 2, 2011)

I wrote an article for Critical-Hits.com a couple years back about how WoW and MMORPGs stole the idea of roles from D&D


----------



## Pour (Aug 2, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I wrote an article for Critical-Hits.com a couple years back about how WoW and MMORPGs stole the idea of roles from D&D




If it makes you feel any better, Guild Wars II will soon slay WoW! They even phased out the sacred cow of traditional healers! Imagine if 4e had done that, haha. Say what you will about the Warlord and healing surges, but a total phasing out of the cleric? Oh the wailing would have shaken the pillars of the internet.


----------



## Sonny (Aug 2, 2011)

Actually, if I was to try and bring back players who fell to the wayside in 4E, (and keep 4E players) I think I would do a couples of different things:

1. Bring back the classic Jack Vance magic system.

2. Boil dailies, at wills, etc.. powers for classes down to a consolidated "Power's List" like the previous systems "magic list".

This way you can have Fighters with access to a large number of choices from the "Power's List", But none from the "Magic list". Wizards would have hardly any abilities from the "Powers List", but would have access to a lot of the spells on the "Magic List". Paladins would have access to different abilities (and not as many as the fighter) from the "Powers List" and once again have access to the "magic List" as in past editions.

etc...

A class would be: Class Abilities + Powers List choices + Magic List choices. Not to mention feats and skills. Should keep classes diverse enough. 

So really, the big difference between 3.5 and this new system would be the "powers list" and the fixed math. Also keeping the monster system from fourth edition.

Other changes to bring back people, would be not making combat so mini centric. Choosing to either use or not use minis should be a valid and (very playable) option. Don't make any Planes setup default. But have two big supported choices, The Great Wheel and the 4e one. Only have the classic races in the core player's book.


Not sure how many people would actually like it, but I sure would!


----------



## triqui (Aug 2, 2011)

BryonD said:


> *I* really don't see 15 second char builds as a benefit for what *I* get out of RPGs.  It works great for computer games, certainly.  But the depth of character experience is a big part of *MY* D&D fun.



I bolded the really important words. And, once again, I have to agree, but, once again, I have to repeat myself: what Mike Mearls hinted is *not* targeted to you (or me) as intended audience. So what *you* find interesting in RPG is of little importance here. 



> [...]  If they were interested they would have been playing D&D or SOMETHING else before they had CCG or MMOs to choose.  [...]



Now that's a funny argument marketing-wise. I can imagine people in Coca-Cola saying "hey, we might make a new Coke without sugar, let's call it Coke Zero" and someone saying "no, if consumers would like Coke, they'll be already drinking it". Or someone in Apple "hey, let's make a tablet" and someone else saying "nah, if customers would want a tablet, they'll be using a 2002 Tablet PC already". Yep, that's a nice way to self-defeat any attempt to appeal new customers.



> Computer games and the like will dwarf tabletop RPGs forever.
> And quickstart RPGs with simple to grab and go rules will last forever.
> But the monster successes within the tabletop industry will always appeal to the target niche and will be "complex".



If Mike Mearls keep his job as R+D head of D&D, your last sentence might prove untrue LONG before I get to my death bed.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 2, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Maybe PCGen's creators are trustworthy, and maybe not. Maybe they're trustworthy and they got hacked somewhere in the process. The bottom line is I'm not going to install 200 megabytes of  executable programs on any system anywhere near any sensitive data. Maybe if I had an off-network dedicated game computer that would be different, but as it is, i'm not being paid to take the risk.




This level of paranoia is perhaps admirable if you're working for the CIA. If not, you're just ranting on a digital street corner with tinfoil on your head.

Although, honestly, if you're working for the CIA you probably shouldn't be installing game software onto your work computers just as a sort of general rule. So either way you don't have anything remotely resembling a point.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> My own experience is that _experienced gamers_  loathe pregenerated characters, except for things like convention  games.  You and I aren't the market for this.  It's for the newbies.
> 
> Make it into a softcover product like 1Ed's _Rogue's Gallery_ or the more recent _Player's Handbook Races_ series- $10 for 32 1st level pregens tied to the PHB stuff




You expect the newbies to spend $100 on the rulebooks and then spend another $10 for a supplement containing pregen characters?

That's a kooky strategy.



Nagol said:


> I believe you are over-estimating the draw of  roleplaying as a passtime.  If it were just speed of play/simplicity to  start that was the problem, the games with very simple start-ups would  have blown past D&D years ago.




You're right that it's not JUST about speed of play/simplicity to start. But those are major parts of a total picture which includes:

- Mainstream awareness.
- Making it as easy to start playing as any board or card game.
- An open table as the default play mode (so that experienced players will casually invite new players to join their games)
- A default adventure mode that's easy to create and robust in play
- An affordable/accessible price point

Even if you take mainstream awareness off the table, there are actually very few games that have achieved this particular mix of factors. Even D&D no longer achieves it.



> Heck, if there was a massive desire to roleplay among the general  populace, the party murder-mystery games would be blowout sellers,




Those are pretty much the exact opposite of "easy to play". The expected form of play requires significant prep and exactly the right number of people (no more, no less). In most of the significant ways, they're actually more difficult for people to start playing than traditional RPGs.

RPGs used to be casual games that you could also invest deeply in. But the industry has been moving steadily away from that... and the industry has been steadily shrinking. 

I don't think that's correlation. I think that's causation. And I think it's the same death cycle that killed the wargames industry.


----------



## Windjammer (Aug 2, 2011)

Mouseferatu said:


> WotC (or whoever) would need to boil down _every_ edition ... and try to isolate the most fundamental core aspects that make the game "true D&D" in the minds of the players.  ...
> Is that what Mike's doing? Trying to tease out the common elements of all editions in hopes of creating an uber-edition? I have no idea. I don't know if that's his intent, and I have no idea if it's even remotely possible....
> It's a tall ask, and I have no idea if it's feasible, but I think *even the attempt (whether by WotC, Paizo, or whoever) would produce a fascinating result.*




Ehm, frankly, *no.* After three years of 4E where the design crew (or what's left of it) has consistently failed to fix the game's major flaws - not to mention that the _initial _release fell a long way short from all the design goals we were promised in the preview booklets - I don't think the extant or prospective D&D community needs another grandiose _attempt _at an ambitious design. What we need is some actual effort producing some actual results which are gameable, and which can give us what D&D was always best at: a solid chassis on which to peg _one's own _campaigns. 

What we need is less hype, less spin, less Legends & Lore articles which go nowhere and are never once followed up by an ever so tiny houserule people can actually implement in their games. No, we need just plain solid design. A hard look at what boardgames do right would do well for RPG 'professionals' to finally catch up with an inkling of how games get professionally developed. As in, the final pages in this PDF (excerpts quoted more accessibly here),  which makes a good case on the analogy of game to software development. Guess what. None of that happened to 4E design. 4E design  was NEVER exposed to rigorous design, rigorous development, and rigorous  playtesting. How do we know that? We know that because of the extensive  errating the company had to undergo. Skill challenges, monster damage  output, characters' to-hit bonuses... the most basic numbers in the  game, you name them, they are all wrong, front to back.

Or, as this great gentleman put it upthread,



Ahnehnois said:


> Kids want the same things adults want:  adventure, inspiration, and a solid underpinning of logical  rules.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2011)

I think they cant make everyone happy. But they can make a game everyone is willing to play. Being the most popular game is like being the most popular movie, you have to appeal to a broad audience not a narrow demographic. 4e does a great job appealing to a narrow band of players. Any effort to be everything to everyone is probably going to anger the current base. Not sure its clear how many old players who left after 4e they can win back. I've been. D&D free (and pathfinder/3.5 free) since 4e came out and my gaming has never been better.

I think there is another thing at play here, the days of ogl are passed. Six years ago everyone was making d20 products, but now tgere is a flood of great non-d&d based games to choose from.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 2, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Welcome to 2011. Any download is full of spyware or malware until proven safe, and that goes doubly so for executables.




Yeah, typically proven safe by a few scans by some AV scanners and malware scanners and general reputation on the Internet. It isn't like I am suggesting going to some back alley on Internet and download some pirated software off a torrent link. PC Gen is reputable software. And the source code is open if you do want to look more closely at it.



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Maybe PCGen's creators are trustworthy, and maybe not. Maybe they're trustworthy and they got hacked somewhere in the process.




PCGen has been around a long time. I am pretty sure we can count them trustworthy at this point. We aren't talking some backwater application here. I've heard of more suspect things from Apple and Microsoft than I have from the PCGen creators.

Yep - always worth checking software downloads after downloading in case something did happen to their distribution server. Of course their software is downloaded from SourceForge another place that has a good reputation of running a clean system or at the very least being very up front about anything that might have breached their integrity.



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Ideally, I want a cloud-based rpg system where I can access all character and gm functions from an android or iphone, combined with smart search and communications functions.




I find it interesting that you are going to trust cloud-based storage, but not an application that already has a good reputation within the Internet community.



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> The idea l is to make everything as simple and easy for the the gamer as possible. One locaation for everything, no having to muck around various sites or having to do massive downloads, no worrying about PDFs. Ideally  almost everything accessible from a smartphone. DDI should be playing Pandora to Pathfinder's Napster.




Some of us prefer PDFs to game data wrapped up in a subscription based service that we lose access to when we tire of the monthly fee. Plus PDFs are easily readable on laptops, tablets and smart phones if need be.

I don't mind seeing things move towards some option of tablet based access. Smartphone screens are just too small to be practical for long term use though in my opinion. Great for quick look ups, but not during game prep where I need to look at the material for much longer periods of time.


----------



## lucifer1306217 (Aug 2, 2011)

I don't think WOTC  should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a  shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby.  Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market  segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI  already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and  computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual  services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area  between tabletop and other games that can be exploite


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 2, 2011)

lucifer1306217 said:


> I don't think WOTC  should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a  shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby.  Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market  segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI  already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and  computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual  services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area  between tabletop and other games that can be exploite






Eric Tolle said:


> I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is  not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and  other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.




Twilight Zone, anyone?


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Twilight Zone, anyone?



I'll be charitable and assume a new poster may not be sure how to use the quote feature.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 2, 2011)

> Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition



Short answer: No

Long answer: Maybe. 4E split the fanbase, a lot of folks didn't like it, and more were disappointed over time. WoptC/Hasbro made a lot of decisions that alienated even more customers (DnD mini range, red box, SW RPG/minis, non-existent support for classic settings, Dragon & Dungeon Magazine, again failing to deliver promises with digital tools, OGL>CGL, etc.), to be honest they are currently at a worse level then TSR ever was on public relations level. A lot of folks migrated to Pathfinder, many now find Pathfinder more D&D then D&D 4E is, others moved on to other systems. To make D&D 5E top dog again WotC/Hasbro would need a lot of luck and a lot of effort, I doubt it will happen, but it could. If I were a betting man, releasing a new version of D&D would aggravate the problems they now have even further. imho, keep supporting the players you have left as long as your capable and give it time to heal the 'wounds'.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 2, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> Ehm, frankly, *no.* After three years of 4E where the design crew (or what's left of it) has consistently failed to fix the game's major flaws -




What about older games and the flaws they have? There are some tenements of game design that need to be remembered here. No game can ever be all things to all people. I can easily point out the flaws of other versions of D&D (Pathfinder) and make the same argument you are making. It's not really a fair argument to undertake.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2011)

Matt James said:


> What about older games and the flaws they have? There are some tenements of game design that need to be remembered here. No game can ever be all things to all people. I can easily point out the flaws of other versions of D&D (Pathfinder) and make the same argument you are making. It's not really a fair argument to undertake.




Ever edition will have flaws. But i think 4e is the most focused version of d&d so far (not neccesarily a bad thing) and as a result the one with least broad appeal. No edition will be all things to all people, but they can have a broader focus to appeal to as much of the fan base as possible.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 2, 2011)

I might be insulated, but 4e is massively popular in MD/DC/VA. I also don't subscribe to the notion that broad appeal is an indicator of good game system. We're dealing more with politics of the industry than anything else.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Aug 2, 2011)

There is something to the thought that the more specific your focus, the higher standard to which you will be held. One of the reasons early D&D "got away" with so much in some of the lousy mechanics of subystems was that it was so broad in its appeal.  It was one of those "starter tool sets" that you give a person just moving into an apartment.  Why would anyone expect it to include several different specialized saws and every automative wrench, foreign and domestic?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I might be insulated, but 4e is massively popular in MD/DC/VA. I also don't subscribe to the notion that broad appeal is an indicator of good game system. We're dealing more with politics of the industry than anything else.




I think focused games are great because they are usually tailored to the audience. and i think 4e is a very well designed game built for a specific type of gamer, so people who love it, really love it. But I also think that meant D&d went from being a game that appealed to most gamers to a game that lost much of its core audience. Arguably it is a better system for that move. But whether you make cars, rpgs or movies if your goal is to be THE product in your industry you need broad appeal.

I do think 4e remains very popular. Just not as popular as 3e was. There are plenty of 4e groups around MA as well but it is nowhere near as monolithic as it was five to six years ago. Personally i prefer it this way. More systems, more competition, means more options for me as a gamer. The d20 era was great and all but it did get kind of stale.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 2, 2011)

triqui said:


> I bolded the really important words. And, once again, I have to agree, but, once again, I have to repeat myself: what Mike Mearls hinted is *not* targeted to you (or me) as intended audience. So what *you* find interesting in RPG is of little importance here.



Certainly, and if they make a game that appeals to a vast audience and *I* hate it, then absolute kudos to them.  

But you presented an opinion and I presented an alternate.  And, I think it would be clear from context that I think the alternate I presented is common enough to be significant to the overall market assessment.



> Now that's a funny argument marketing-wise. I can imagine people in Coca-Cola saying "hey, we might make a new Coke without sugar, let's call it Coke Zero" and someone saying "no, if consumers would like Coke, they'll be already drinking it". Or someone in Apple "hey, let's make a tablet" and someone else saying "nah, if customers would want a tablet, they'll be using a 2002 Tablet PC already". Yep, that's a nice way to self-defeat any attempt to appeal new customers.



All you have done here is go right back to the "all change is good change" fallacy. 

And, bottom line, the people you are talking about as gamers now were not playing table top then and they are not playing tabletop now.  And there is no reason to expect they will be playing tabletop tomorrow.  

"Hey, lets market tabletop to them" is like Coke saying "Hey, lets market seaweed flavor soda to the USA."



> If Mike Mearls keep his job as R+D head of D&D, your last sentence might prove untrue LONG before I get to my death bed.



I predict it won't.

Of course, there are other ways for Mike to keep his job without needing to prove me wrong.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 3, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I might be insulated, but 4e is massively popular in MD/DC/VA. I also don't subscribe to the notion that broad appeal is an indicator of good game system. We're dealing more with politics of the industry than anything else.




here in missouri/central U.S. 4e is the game of choice as far as I can see.

I also don't subscribe to the idea that narrow appeal is any indication of a poor system, either.  However, if 100 people like game A and 10 people like game B - I am more apt to consider game A first, but that is my nature, as there are also plenty of people who in the same scenario would check out the underdog first (and there is no right or wrong in this case)


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 3, 2011)

4e might currently be popular in your area/circle, but according to sales globally, Pathfinder is currently selling better. There is of course the period were 4E was selling better then Pathfinder and the period were there was 4E and no Pathfinder RPG for sale, so total sales over it's life 4E still has an advantage. But that's not how publishers see things, less sales, or even worse, less sales then the main competition (that was working for you just a few odd years ago) means your in trouble (and they are right). That's often when companies start to panic and do odd things (like last years new core range), or even worse, desperate things that might blow up in their face.

in the 3(.5)E era D&D was the big fish (post nWoD), had close to 90% of the RPG market in it's grip and most of the rest of that market was directly linked to D&D through it's ruleset. 4E broke the fanbase worse then it ever did before, not to mention that they alienated a lot of 3rd party publishers with their move away from the OGL. Even those that initially stayed with 4E eventually didn't. A lot of publishers either threw in the towel, did their own new rules set, or stayed with the old OGL. That means far less threads that lead back to 4E to fill in holes that 4E doesn't fill itself. So I doubt that 4E even covers 40% the RPG market, the RPG market has also become smaller thanks to computers (MMORPGs), so WotC/Hasbro is raking in far less then it did in the 3(.5)E days and that worries corporate, which in turn worries the investors. And Hasbro doesn't have the best track record for properties, the End of G.I.Joe in 92-94 was horrible with gaudy looking toys (use of neon colors, eco-squad, star-squad, sky-patrol) and ripe with horrible looking reissues (neon green doesn't make a Cobra vehicle look cooler!). It was almost a decade before we saw a proper relaunch...

What I'm trying to say is that WotC/Hasbro has a bad track record with 4E, there are a lot of folks really happy with what 4E does (and doesn't do), why risk this group when a 5E might further fracture this group. Sure a 5E might redirect some Pathfinder and other RPG fans to 5E, but imho the new players attracted would never weigh up against the players lost. Just like 4E didn't attract oodles of brand new RPG fans, 5E wouldn't suddenly change that situation.

Another issue with 4E is that it's mostly crunch books and relatively little fluff. That makes the books people have very useless when a new (and completely different) D&D version shows up. I used my 2E Forgotten Realms books for my 3E FR campaign extensively, the same could be done with a lot of the 3E books, but 4E just doesn't have the fluff imho to be useful. So a lot of 4E folks would feel a lot more 'betrayed' by a new edition then 3E ever did, because 90% of the books they have is now completely useless (compared to maybe 50% from 3E to 4E).

I also see an issue with product accessories, thing from miniatures, to battlemaps, to cards, to coins, dice, etc. WotC/Hasbro has been killing off those accessories for D&D 4E, Paizo has been making those accessories for Pathfinder. While not everyone wants those things, a lot of DM/GMs do, and generally those opinions count more then the players. I suspect that we have a 10-20% customer group that dictates what is played in groups (within reason) and WotC/Hasbro just isn't providing the toys they want/need. A lot of us are already drowning in minis, cards, dice etc. But what of the new generation of DM/GMs?


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 3, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> 4e might currently be popular in your area/circle, but according to sales globally, Pathfinder is currently selling better.



I have not been following sales stats particularly closely, but the impression I have is that the publicly available stats are far from a complete picture, and that it would be dangerous (or at least disingenuous) to assume that they are.

For example, I'm pretty sure that any publicly available figures for D&D sales do not include DDI subscriptions. Since it is clearly a WotC strategy to move some of the income from D&D to online subscriptions, ignoring that and focusing only on the sales of printed goods will probably give misleading conclusions.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 3, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> Another issue with 4E is that it's mostly crunch books and relatively little fluff.



I am not sure that this is supported by an actual examination of 4e products, especially not recent 4e products. From where I'm sitting -- which is a few steps away from a whole shelf of Pathfinder products *and* a whole shelf of 4e products -- it seems to me that:
1. On average, Pathfinder has a fluff to crunch ratio that leans more towards fluff than 4e products.
2. Pathfinder has fewer very heavy crunch books than 4e.
3. 4e has moved away from an initial flurry of crunch-heavy material, towards a fluff/crunch balance closer to Pathfinder's.

It might have been fair to say that 4e was mostly crunch up to about a year after it's release, but I don't think that's a fair claim now.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 3, 2011)

While D&D can attract new players, i am pretty skeptical about the notion of the breakout rpg. Any 4 people that can read can sit down and play a satisfactory game of Settlers of Catan, Britannia or World In Flames but rpgs are different. Some one has to be the Dm, this is quite a peculiar role and quite intimidating if one is coming  at it with no prior experience of rogs. The responsibility for the fun rest on the DM's shoulders and it is very easy to make a messofit.
The only way rpgs could become mainstream is if the potential players can buy the rules and create a character an immediately join a game with a good DM runing a table. I am pretty sure that that is not viable on economic terms.
WoW and other MMOs work because they remove the DM issue. The game is instantly available 24/7/365.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 3, 2011)

triqui said:


> The millions of players that each Legend of Zelda has ARE siting around a table pretending to be an Elf. An elf named "Link", actually.




A few pages behind here - but I had to reply.

I got a coworker that has convinced HR that his first name is Link. And he has a Link suite. So some take it a bit further than just the game...


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 3, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> And yet as the enthusiasm for Pathfinder shows, going after that market is pretty pointless. They really have no ability to won those gamers over unless they made a new version of 3.5, in which case they would still be at a disadvantage.
> 
> No, they need to go after the gamers who don't like  3.X/Pathfinder. It has to be an alternative, not a mirror image.




I have to respectfully disagree with this on a few levels:

1. Grognards vs. 3E players are not the same. Grognards play old school ADnD DnD, etc.  3E managed to bring a lot of old players back into the fold.  I don't sense 4E did that, and in fact pushed many existing players away.  I don't want to play "old school" DnD any more than I want to play 4E.  So yes, a new edition could bring me back.

2. I have bought every iteration of DnD since the old box sets, yet I didn't buy 4E.  No, reason I won't buy 5E if they create a game I like. 4E ain't that game.

3. Paizo does something that WotC doesn't by providing customer service.  I actually have the obtuse sense that if I needed to get Eric Mona on the phone and called Paizo, I may have a reasonable chance of talking to him.  I don't get that sense from any WotC employee.  This is totally crazy thinking, but that's how I "feel" and there is something to be said for customer impressions.

4. Paizo has what I would term a mutual respect for its customers.  It's both of our game.  4E and WotC try to come off that way but it never succeeds.  At least it only does if I pay a monthy installment fee.  Too many of us got burned with the marketing of 4E which pretty much was, "your current game sucks but this new edition is awesome".  That is a lot different from marketing 4E as, "your game is awesome, but this new edition is super awesome."

Do I bear ill will toward WotC, not at all.  Am I an avid Paizo fanboy, no.  I haven't bought any products from either company.  I am out of gaming due to moving. bit if I got back in it wouldn't be with 4E.  It's simply a game I don't like.  Essentially, a new edition could motivate me to get back into the game.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 3, 2011)

Pour said:


> Yes, but 4e is not some failed flirtation with the concept of attracting new players and underlining certain design principles over those in past editions, like easier DMing. 4e is a first couple of steps in a continued evolution that is both digital and not beholden to the mechanics of the past. As you say in another post, the goals were good ones, but the implementation still needs work in areas like combat. WotC willing, they will continue to pursue them and not try some universal edition or reconcile with past editions. That leads to stagnation, and I believe is largely futile with the support in place for those editions. There must be forward progression.




Sometimes with innovation you get things like Betamax, Laser disc, and mini-discs.  Important products for technological advancement, but not the products we are using today.  4E may be the next betamax or it may be the next Blu-ray.  Time will tell.


----------



## Pour (Aug 3, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> Sometimes with innovation you get things like Betamax, Laser disc, and mini-discs.  Important products for technological advancement, but not the products we are using today.  4E may be the next betamax or it may be the next Blu-ray.  Time will tell.




Indeed. I have a feeling we're mostly on the same page. Just going to drop some quotes from my response to Bry a couple of pages back because I think they figure into my reply to you, as well.
Focusing on a lost market of gamers happy with their editions is not the  same thing as focusing on a game past, present, and future D&D  gamers can enjoy, and I think we both heartily advocate the latter, no  matter what it looks like. If there is ever going to be any appeal for  past markets, the way is  forward, in the evolution of the current game  until it reaches a point  where lapsed players might again investigate  it, when it ceases to be  the game they didn't like and has evolved into  something else. I, as a  4e  DM, want the same thing, the continued expansion, creation and   exploration of rules and settings.  When I can no longer happily share  in that process, then I think I know I've found my edition of choice,  and will use it to my heart's content, until which time I may jump back  on the train.

... if  we're ever going to get to a new place, we need to cover new ground.  Informed by the past, sure, but not beholden to it...

True, WotC took a step,  and we're now seeing all editions take their continued, divergent  evolutionary steps, which is exciting beyond belief, but 90% dead-end  mutation and 10% new species is exactly the kind of failure and learning  we need for progress. Would you be willing to say that 4e  is a necessary and continued process on the road to new iterations of  D&D, which may or may not appeal to any and all lapsed, current and  future players through virtue of their mechanical differences from the  past and continued reverence to the IP, and even though we may differ on where designers  should start when trying again, this process is ultimately for the  better?​


----------



## MoxieFu (Aug 4, 2011)

I'm posting this only after scanning the first page so if I am repeating what someone else said, just content yourself that brilliant minds think alike and hey, you were first!

They could at least try.

Ever since the decision to pull the license for Paizo to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazines (and print versions altogether) it seems to me that hey haven't cared what most of their customers want.

After that it seems (to me anyway) that it's been one rash decision after another. It seems like all decisions being made are to make the game be something different from what is was in the past. I think the designers of the new editions (both 3rd and 4th) have been too busy stroking their own egos and not trying to serve the customers and The Game.

I do think the listen to (some) of the fans, but only those that agree with what they want.

Just my 2 cents, and I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 4, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> Just my 2 cents, and I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong.




Which is good, cause I think for the most part, you are.


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 4, 2011)

Something I posted a couple of years ago:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269298-spaghetti-sauce.html


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 4, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> It seems like all decisions being made are to make the game be something different from what is was in the past. I think the designers of the new editions (both 3rd and 4th) have been too busy stroking their own egos and not trying to serve the customers and The Game.



I think that is way to harsh towards the designers, that you (and I) don't like the direction 4E has gone would not originate with the designers. Designers design by the demands of their higher ups. WotC/Hasbro management decided what course they wanted to sail, designers just implement the policies. When you line up all the 'mistakes' they made the course they are sailing becomes clear, it's not a wrong course, it just doesn't have as many passengers as they hoped or were used to. I find (objectively) 4E very sound, game mechanic wise, it just lacks that certain something that inspires me to run a game (Pathfinder does have that certain something, for me atleast).

I fear that 5E would continue the course 4E started, WotC management hoping that this particular course will lead them to the new world with all it's treasures, only forgetting that most of the passengers are dying of malnutrition along the way...


----------



## MoxieFu (Aug 4, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> I think that is way to harsh towards the designers, that you (and I) don't like the direction 4E has gone would not originate with the designers. Designers design by the demands of their higher ups. WotC/Hasbro management decided what course they wanted to sail, designers just implement the policies.
> [snip]




It is a very harsh opinion and very likely unfair too. As I said I reserve the right to be wrong.

But this is the purely emotional reaction that I have. It is neither rational nor empirical.  But it does inform the reason I like what I do. I am not a fan of the Pathfinder rules, but I love the company. They know how serve the needs and tastes of their customers. WotC could learn a lot from Paizo, an awful lot! If a company ignores or insults their customers, they will only lose those customers. From the pulling of the magazines to removing the PDFs, I felt insulted.

If a company is inclusive toward me I respond positively. If I feel excluded I will respond negatively.


----------



## triqui (Aug 4, 2011)

BryonD said:


> All you have done here is go right back to the "all change is good change" fallacy.



No, what I did ther is to show the "you can't repeat the same thing and expect different results" truism. The RPG industry _IS_ small. WotC wants it to be bigger. Therefore, they can't keep doing the same things that have kept RPG as a small industry for 40 years. Sure, they might *fail* in their attempt. If they do, they'll be a small insignificant industry in the next decade. However, if they don't even try, they WILL be a small insignificant industry in the next decade, for sure.



> And, bottom line, the people you are talking about as gamers now were not playing table top then and they are not playing tabletop now.  And there is no reason to expect they will be playing tabletop tomorrow.



There is a reason to expect they'll be playing tabletop tomorrow: they have appeal for games, they have appeal for fantasy, they have appeal for pretending to be an elf hero. They just don't have appeal for current tabletop gaming system. That *might* change if you make a different tabletop game system that *does* appeal them. Before Facebook existed, there were a billion people in the world wich was *not* interested on Myspace. However, lot of those changed opinion becouse 
A) facebook was better
B) Facebook was popular.

with A) having influence on B).


----------



## humble minion (Aug 4, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> I think that is way to harsh towards the designers, that you (and I) don't like the direction 4E has gone would not originate with the designers. Designers design by the demands of their higher ups. WotC/Hasbro management decided what course they wanted to sail, designers just implement the policies. When you line up all the 'mistakes' they made the course they are sailing becomes clear, it's not a wrong course, it just doesn't have as many passengers as they hoped or were used to. I find (objectively) 4E very sound, game mechanic wise, it just lacks that certain something that inspires me to run a game (Pathfinder does have that certain something, for me atleast).




Oddly enough, I find myself heartily agreeing with the second half of your post while disagreeing with the first!

I genuinely think that 4e's rule changes were designer-driven rather than management-driven.  Perhaps some of the _tone_ and what I percieve as the targeting at a younger audience (twoword compoundnames for everything, and the utterly cringeworthy melodramatic prose that heads up maneuver/class/whatever descriptions, for instance), but in general, I think the 4e rules were largely a designer-driven reaction to the weaknesses of d20/3e.  Addressing 3e's very real issues with the layering of buffs overcomplicating combat, the divergent maths at high level, save or die, gamebreaking spells at low level, the ridiculous complexity of high-level 3e stat blocks and the drag that applied to DMs, the attempt (even if clumsy) to separate out tactical vs ritual magic, etc, etc, etc.  All these issues were very well known to the design team and are certainly what I would have looked to address if it were me designing 4e.  

But I think there's a temptation when redesigning something like D&D, to go too far and lose what's familiar.  As a designer, you probably spend years living the ruleset during the new edition design, talking it about it every day with your fellow designers, coming up with new ideas, testing, refining, making more and more fundamental changes as times goes on.  It's probably a small, incremental process of change for a designer, who gets to try all the intermediate stages and who can fight for their favourite bits over the development period, but it's very sudden and stark for a customer, and I think designers who've been immersed in a fluid ruleset for years often forget that.  And 4e actually magnified the problem by making a bunch of flavour changes (planar structure, dragonborn etc) that really just seem to be largely unnecessary (certainly un-asked for) from a game experience point of view and could have almost been custom-made to get on the goat of long-time players.  

NWoD seems to have had the same problem, and I know that previous WH40k ruleset edition changes were recieved so badly that the last couple have actually been so minimal that 90% of the previous edition's material is still usable - and this is in an environment when players play AGAINST each other, so balance is much more important than in D&D.  

Anyway, I do very much agree that 4e was necessary and even desirable, and I even agree with the designers about what issues it should address.  But like you, I just think the 4e we got wasn't one I liked very much.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 4, 2011)

To my mind there are a few facts that need to be accounted for in the next edition if it is to appeal to as wide a base as possible: D&D no longer rules the roost; go *forward*, not backward; innovate to stand apart; use the social network to its fullest; provide quality electronic tools.

(Interestingly I think Wizards engaged with several of these for 4E and should be given credit for that whatever your view on the game that emerged in the process.)

Previous editions split the fans, but no previous edition had the OGL to contend with. In a lot of ways, I'm glad that the R&D dept. at Wizards weren't so scared of the OGL that they just iterated on 3.5 and delivered a 4th Edition that was no more than D&D v3.6. Instead they stripped the game right back and delivered a contemporary vision of D&D, to love or to hate as you saw fit.

But now you have two supported visions of a game with D&D at its roots, and the industry has changed. Official D&D no longer rules. Wizards need to embrace that fact with the next version (which I hope is years and years away), continue to innovate, and if they consider the bite Paizo is taking out of their market to be big enough, take them on.

Paizo have built their market as a safe haven for 3.5 players who didn't like 4E. They've achieved this with utmost skill, but it remains to be seen whether their customers will forever buy material for a game that looks like 3.5, and if not, how they'll react to innovations which start to take the game in new directions. I can imagine Pathfinder 2 and D&D 5 coming at about the same time, and it'll be a fascinating scrap.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 4, 2011)

humble minion said:


> Anyway, I do very much agree that 4e was necessary and even desirable, and I even agree with the designers about what issues it should address.  But like you, I just think the 4e we got wasn't one I liked very much.




I don't think the issue is that we don't like 4E, but it's all the stuff around it that fills me (and others) with worry regarding 5E. I seriously doubt that it was a designer choice to limit fluff, stop Dungeon and Dragon Magazine, etc. Those are all management decisions, not really the designers fault. If you take 2E, 3E, and 4E I'm pretty much certain that you can draw a straight line and create expectations of 5E mechanics wise. I don't necessarily think it's a bad result, but if you look at the things surrounding 4E that are not mechanics and follow those to their 'natural' conclusion for 5E I start to shudder a bit. I think they are trying to (incrementally) reach a point where they can possibly get a lot of customers (the Fantasy MMORPG crowd) but at the cost of loosing their previous customers, I think that is a gamble that is far to risky. I think they are moving to fast and to early, the technology isn't there yet or at least WotC and the folks they hire don't get the required technology off the ground in the last decade plus. Pathfinder choose the classic RPG path but updated it to current day usage.

Pathfinder made a good move by concentrating their Mechanics in a few core books and didn't spawn them as if they were demonrabbits. Then they put in all their other products in clearly defined categories and named them so customers already knew what kind of product it was before they even saw the title. Pathfinder is mechanic wise better then 3.5E (and all the corrections that followed), but it isn't as clear/simple/consistent as 4E, sure I could use the 4E rules with the Pathfinder stuff, but that's more work then I want to do. Also the 4E rulebooks are pretty bland to me, the Pathfinder rulebooks inspire me greatly, just by leaving through a chapter I get all kinds of cool ideas and I actually want to read the rules.

On one technological point Paizo is light years ahead of WotC, PDFs. I loved my PDFs before there were mainstream tablets, but ever since I got my iPad, I read more game pdfs on it then I do in game books. I'm also currently out of bookshelf space, so pdfs have become a necessity ;-)

I think there are still more 4E books in circulation then that there are Pathfinder books, and it will take a long while before that changes. But it will change unless WotC changes something in their way of doing business, imho it's less about the rules and more about the stuff around it all, if WotC changes that they would repair more bridges then a 5E ever would. I even think that a properly redesigned core rulebook set would change a lot after the other issues are resolved, something that doesn't feel like a textbook/manual, and let's not forget all the errata (a 4.5E or a revised version would need a lot more playtesting and a lot less further errata).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 4, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> It is a very harsh opinion and very likely unfair too. As I said I reserve the right to be wrong.
> 
> If a company is inclusive toward me I respond positively. If I feel excluded I will respond negatively.




But unfortunately for you... this is the kind of attitude that is easiest for WotC to ignore.  An unreasonable negative opinion based purely on emotion and not fact.  Thus, you fall into the 'there's no pleasing some people' category.  So hopefully you've accepted that you're never going to be happy, because WotC has no impetus to even attempt to please you.

My guess is that since you are here on the boards complaining about WotC... that answer is 'no, you haven't'.


----------



## Windjammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Matt James said:


> What about older games and the flaws they have? There are some tenements of game design that need to be remembered here. No game can ever be all things to all people. I can easily point out the flaws of other versions of D&D (Pathfinder) and make the same argument you are making. It's not really a fair argument to undertake.




But 4E is slightly different, in that the emphasis both in the pre-release marketing and the end product itself was very heavily on 'we are going to fix the math'. That's the eminent design goal, I'd say. It's certainly very mechanis oriented edition. I could also throw in Wolfgang Baur's remark (a propos his review of PHB 2), "Ah, well, flavor is not a 4E strong point, but we’re heading into the realm of comedy this time out." I agree with this - flavour was never a forte or selling point of most of 4E. Streamlined gameplay was. And if we are to reduce D&D combat to a D&D Miniatures engine, then we might as well critique a) whether that reduction produced more interesting gameplay and b) whether the execution of that reduction was well done.

See, I'm not even jumping on a), which has caused way way way more edition wars. I'm just pointing out b), that a major selling point of 4E didn't come to pass and was not fixed by any of the people officially working on 4E for three years now. Actually makes me wonder what 4E's selling point will be once it's a legacy edition. 1E has the old school vibe, 2E has the most interesting settings, 3E has a rule for everything and very good OGL support, 4E ... well 4E is the game where it's about dynamic combat, yes? 

Only time can tell. Personally I see my group playing and enjoying 4E many years beyond its expiry date, because the modules and PC powers just cry out for slapstick parody and goofy fantasy Vietnam, the type of gamestyle which works well for my current group, and which, to me at least, actually comes quite close to what you see portrayed in 'The Gamers' film. 

So when Wolfgang Baur said that 4E's PHB 2 "heads into the realm of comedy", I see that as one of 4E's strongest selling points. 4e is so hilarious in its language, so over the top in its portrayal of coolness, that once you stop to take it seriously it's a heck of a enjoyable game. You know, like that Kung Fu Panda opening sequence* with the quote, 'He's so awesome, his enemies went blind due to exposure to his awesomeness'. That wouldn't at all look out of place in a 4E splat, and I wouldn't put it beyond WotC' free lancers & co. to write these things with something other than a straight face.

* Link: [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk2dYOFZPt4[/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxLeh_HSEDY"][/ame]


----------



## BryonD (Aug 4, 2011)

triqui said:


> No, what I did ther is to show the "you can't repeat the same thing and expect different results" truism.



That may be true and it still doesn't contradict that you repeated the fallacy.



> The RPG industry _IS_ small. WotC wants it to be bigger. Therefore, they can't keep doing the same things that have kept RPG as a small industry for 40 years. Sure, they might *fail* in their attempt. If they do, they'll be a small insignificant industry in the next decade. However, if they don't even try, they WILL be a small insignificant industry in the next decade, for sure.



They can be the 800 lb gorilla in that small industry or they can be the kid with his hand stuck in the cookie jar.




> There is a reason to expect they'll be playing tabletop tomorrow: they have appeal for games, they have appeal for fantasy, they have appeal for pretending to be an elf hero. They just don't have appeal for current tabletop gaming system. That *might* change if you make a different tabletop game system that *does* appeal them. Before Facebook existed, there were a billion people in the world wich was *not* interested on Myspace. However, lot of those changed opinion becouse
> A) facebook was better
> B) Facebook was popular.
> 
> with A) having influence on B).



There is a lot more reason to think they won't.

Again, I can't prove it, but I can wait and keep saying "I told you so."
WOW and tabletop RPGs are apples and oranges and the equivalence of pretending to eb an elf hero is superficial AT BEST.  

WOW actually has "RP" servers.  And they are routinely mocked on the big servers.  The great majority of fans don't want to actually pretend to be an elf in anything approaching a RP sense even if they are anonomous at a computer somewhere.  They really have no interest is doing that sitting around a table with other people.

Again, I had these same debates 2 - 3 years ago and people promised me that the massive growth of 4E would show me just how wrong I was.    I wasn't wrong then.  I'm not wrong now.  "I told you so."


----------



## MortonStromgal (Aug 4, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> What I'm looking for is a centralized, cloud-based character creation and campaign management system, one where for one minor monthly fee gamers can have access to the basic materials needed to play or run a game. Then using a modular system, gamers who want advanced materials or extras can can spend a small monthly fee to access them. Done properly, that should be more attractive then spending up front $100 or more.




This is exactly what I don't want... Come on, when I was 12 we did most of our RPG playing while camping... Not exactly internet friendly.



Eric Tolle said:


> So...I can choose to spend money to get the  game materials in a format that is not as easily searchable, and that is  nearly impossible to read on my smartphone? One which requires me to  lug an expensive computer around?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Boy I don't even know where to begin on your other post. On the first thing I quoted, the down sides of PDFs would then be the same downsides of DDI. On spyware, malware, android, etc etc. Well something like 89% of most infections these days come through the webbrowser, java being the biggest offender followed by flash. Smart phones are the next big things for virus writers, the infamous android botnet was demonstrated earlier this year because theres no protection from malicious code on smart phones. Cloud computing does not make you more safe, if anything it makes you less safe because I only need hack your cloud provider (like the big Amazon thing earlier this year) then everyone who uses that cloud gets my malware.


----------



## Sonny (Aug 4, 2011)

BryonD said:


> WOW actually has "RP" servers.  And they are routinely mocked on the big servers.  The great majority of fans don't want to actually pretend to be an elf in anything approaching a RP sense even if they are anonomous at a computer somewhere.  They really have no interest is doing that sitting around a table with other people.
> 
> Again, I had these same debates 2 - 3 years ago and people promised me that the massive growth of 4E would show me just how wrong I was.    I wasn't wrong then.  I'm not wrong now.  "I told you so."




True, even people on WoW RP servers who actually do role-play have already done some kind of table-top rpg gaming, so it's not like it's creating a new customer for Wizards or Paizo to sell to. The rest, as you said, just don't care and were never going to be table-top customers anyways.


----------



## variant (Aug 4, 2011)

If they got away from what they did in 4E, I would consider buying 5E. I am still wondering why they didn't use a modified Star Wars system.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 5, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> To my mind there are a few facts that need to be accounted for in the next edition if it is to appeal to as wide a base as possible: D&D no longer rules the roost; go *forward*, not backward; innovate to stand apart; use the social network to its fullest; provide quality electronic tools.



Which of these are you calling "facts"?
I mean, they may all be good ideas, but "facts" is the wrong word at a minimum.



And, of course, I absolute agree that they need to go forward, not backward.  However, the first step in that is to turn around.....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2011)

> On spyware, malware, android...




...Donner and Blitzen?


----------



## BenBrown (Aug 5, 2011)

"go forward, not backward" is a nice catchy phrase, but what does that actually mean in terms of game design?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 5, 2011)

humble minion said:


> I think the 4e rules were largely a designer-driven reaction to the weaknesses of d20/3e.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think that 4e's changes to the fiction of the game are, in many cases, closely connected to the mechanical changes. Worlds and Monsters discusses some of this, though not all (but it does make inferences to other aspects of what happened easier, I think).

One mechanical aspect of 4e that is very central is the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play (and the combat encounter as the paradigm encounter, although I think skill challenges are also an important part of the game). A lot of the mechanical changes are intended to support this.

But the changes to the story elements are also, in my view, intended to support this - nearly every story element of 4e is itself located within, and expresses some sort of position on, a conflict that players also buy into by building their PCs. There are a few exceptions (kruthiks and ankhegs as monsters; Avandra as a god; halflings as a race) but not that many.

And this helps encounter-centric play, because if nearly every story element speaks immediately to some conflict which the players are related to via their PCs, this makes each encounter _matter_, in play. Which supports the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 5, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> I seriously doubt that it was a designer choice to limit fluff
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



To me this is illustrative of a big difference between 3E and 4e, and the approaches to play that they are intended to support. It also reminds me of this comment from Vincent Baker:

Invention - creating setting, character, nifty toys, potent powers - invention can happen before the game or during the game. . .

A game where the invention happens mostly pre-play would be one where there are maps, characters, factions, technology, societies, interests, all in place when the game begins. I can't think of a good example of this in fiction - maybe _Babylon 5_? - but clearly lots of roleplaying happens this way. Look at all the dang setting books!

. . .

Similarly, meaning:

A game where the meaning happens mostly pre-play is one in which somebody or everybody has something to say and already knows what it is when the game starts. . .

My goal as a gamer and a game designer is to push _both_ invention and meaning as much as possible into actual play.

Problem: the hobby, represented by the books in your game store and the conventional habits of most gamers, prefers the pre-game over the game. . .

The solution is to design games that're inspiring, but daydreaming about how much fun the game will be to play seems pointless and lame, and you can't create extensive histories or backstories because that stuff's collaborative -

- so you call a friend.​
I think that 4e is designed more along the lines that Baker advocates, than is 3E. When 4e came out, I remember a lot of people saying that _it plays better than it reads_, as if this was something for which an apology was required.

From my point of view, this feature of 4e is a _virtue_. I want the game to be written as tightly as possible to support play. If it's a good read for daydreamers, then something has gone wrong - it's become a novel, or a guidebook to an imaginary world, rather than a text to support RPGing.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 5, 2011)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
That maybe true, but it is like going to a topnotch restaurant expecting being served some excellent dishes, instead you get to make the dishes with a little supervision from the cook. That might be cool (have done that before), but it isn't what you signed up for nor what you expected going in. 2E and 3E have both been games that greatly inspired before the game, 4E imho isn't. 2E and 3E have often hinged on games being good and fun by the grace of a great DM, maybe 4E has this problem less so, but there's a big problem when a lot of those 'great' DMs don't even get so far as actually run a game. Especially when they have an alternative that does meet their expectations (Pathfinder).

I've seen similar issues with Spycraft 1 vs 2, 1 was cool, exciting and challenging, 2 was like being hit over the head with a phonebook. A lot of folks are stressing functionality over form, that is great for actual tools, but not for entertainment.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 5, 2011)

But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.

I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that _it's created by me and my friends in playing the game_.

That's what Vincent Baker is driving at (as I read him). That's what I think 4e is driving at, too (at least as I read it).

I think that PF is driving at something else. Hence, I think the gap is wide, and the prospects for closing it slim.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> To me this is illustrative of a big difference between 3E and 4e, and the approaches to play that they are intended to support. It also reminds me of this comment from Vincent Baker:
> 
> Problem: the hobby, represented by the books in your game store and the conventional habits of most gamers, prefers the pre-game over the game.​



Unfortunately for 4e, many gamers still prefer the pre-game to the game itself.  I know several players personally who adore this aspect of D&D.  Pouring over magic item lists, looking through book after book for one particular spell, endlessly tweaking that perfect build.  

That's why they can never forgive 4e, for taking that particular aspect of the game away.  For them, that's the magic of D&D.

I don't particularly understand it, but since I've seen the behavior personally, I also can't dismiss it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that 4e's changes to the fiction of the game are, in many cases, closely connected to the mechanical changes. Worlds and Monsters discusses some of this, though not all (but it does make inferences to other aspects of what happened easier, I think).
> 
> One mechanical aspect of 4e that is very central is the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play (and the combat encounter as the paradigm encounter, although I think skill challenges are also an important part of the game). A lot of the mechanical changes are intended to support this.
> 
> ...



4E does a very solid job of doing the things it was designed to do and this is a good example.

It does THIS at the expense of doing the things *I* want.  But that's cool because some people want exactly this.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.



For me, I absolutely enjoy "world building" and "game prep" as a huge part of the fun.  And since I actually sit at the table and play about once every two weeks, having a lot more chances to enjoy my hobby is a big value.

However, I do certainly agree that the "at the table" times are the focus, the most important and the greatest fun.

Which leads to...



> I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that _it's created by me and my friends in playing the game_.
> 
> That's what Vincent Baker is driving at (as I read him). That's what I think 4e is driving at, too (at least as I read it).



Here I think you are presenting a lack of understanding of what fans like me want and experience.

The idea of "served dishes" is alien.  And I say that with full understanding and acceptance that my settings and the world around the characters are preset in a much more solid form than yours.  But the story is still about the characters and how THEY interact and change the setting.  I've commented before about how one of the most awesome things about being a world building RPG DM is seeing players interact with and change it in ways I never would have thought of.

The ingredients are there.  But all the players (including the DM) are creating the dishes from those ingredients.  

I certainly find it interesting that you specifically contrast RPGs as being distinct from the experience of novels and movies since we recently had an exchange in which I specifically described how "feeling like I'm inside a novel" was the standard of measure.

But, just like reading a novel, I have no idea where the story is really going to go.  We are inventing the details as we go along.  We are serving all sorts of unexpected dishes.

And perhaps as DM I have a good idea of where the story is headed.  Maybe you can compare that to reading a novel a second time.  You still "feel like you are inside", but you have more knowledge.  But, that isn't really right because the players are the focus and the energy and they can drive events in a wildly different direction.  It is like you can play the same module 5 times with 5 different groups.  And 3 or 4 times will probably look a lot alike, but the other times are wildly different.  You don't know what is coming.

I don't know if I'll try to defend RPG settings.  And I don't know if I would even claim that my awesome games would not be total DREK if actually written and marketed as fiction.  But the experience at that time of playing feels like some of the best fiction ever, and being IN it and being a driving force OF it is what makes it "the best" or even better than most novels.

It is clear from your comments that you are not seeking that same result.  And it is clear that 4E was not intended to focus on that same result.  4E is encounter driven and player controlled narrative driven so that the world is invented around them as they go. Nothing wrong with that but it is a very different thing.



> I think that PF is driving at something else. Hence, I think the gap is wide, and the prospects for closing it slim.



Agreed very much there.  It is like trying to add ice skates and throwing the ball through a hoop to baseball.  They may all be great sports with huge fans, but trying to equate them is flawed and trying to blend them is absurd.

Asking which is therefore better is also silly.

Asking the title question of this thread, maybe one way or the other IS better at THAT.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> One mechanical aspect of 4e that is very central is the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play (and the combat encounter as the paradigm encounter, although I think skill challenges are also an important part of the game). A lot of the mechanical changes are intended to support this.



I'm still a little bit baffled by this mentality. If I could boil my experience D&D (pre-4e) down to a "core unit", the encounter definitely wouldn't be it. Thus the difficulty of persuading someone like me to accept this new philosophy if they tried to carry it forward into a new edition.



			
				TwoSix said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for 4e, many gamers still prefer the pre-game to the game itself. I know several players personally who adore this aspect of D&D. Pouring over magic item lists, looking through book after book for one particular spell, endlessly tweaking that perfect build.
> 
> That's why they can never forgive 4e, for taking that particular aspect of the game away. For them, that's the magic of D&D.
> 
> I don't particularly understand it, but since I've seen the behavior personally, I also can't dismiss it.





			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.
> 
> I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that it's created by me and my friends in playing the game.
> 
> ...



This is also a bit baffling to me.

To me the defining aspect of 4e is the powers. Every character has to select several of them from a broad variety of sources, make a plan as to how and when to use them, and still has to select feats/skills/etc. I was under the impression that 4e maintained or increased player character creation time as compared to other versions of D&D. I understand that NPC and monster stats are no longer built off the same platform, so those are simpler, but when I look at a 4e fighter, I see a lot more work than when I look at a 3e fighter (even factoring in all the books you'd need to make a decent one).

Conversely, I haven't observed that the "perfect build" was particularly a part of 3e play outside of a select circle of people who are born rules lawyers. I'd say the ability to select classes by level makes it very easy to construct a build-and very easy to change your mind and play level by level (as opposed to selecting one path and being bound to it). I don't deny anyone's experiences to the contrary, but I don't understand them either.

Beyond all that, prep work for DMs has never really been about stats. You can either create your own story and characters, buy them (published adventures), or improvise them at the table. PF in particular has focused on adventures, which takes the prep out of the equation to some extent.

I'm not really seeing the focus on prep vs play as being a point of difference between any versions of D&D (and there are many differences). A version of D&D that didn't focus on poking through books to build powerful characters would be a new development indeed.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that 4e is designed more along the lines that Baker advocates, than is 3E. When 4e came out, I remember a lot of people saying that _it plays better than it reads_, as if this was something for which an apology was required.




I do demand an apology. I paid $30 for a book I get no pleasure in reading, even when I was playing it. Wow, was the PHB a bore. You may as well print out the reams of computer specs for how interesting it was (for me) to read. I was looking for a change and 4e could not close the deal (note it was not just the writing, but I got to admit I got the Savage Worlds book about the same time - one inspired me to keep picking it up....)

Presentation is important as that is how information is communicated effectively. I am in a very techincal field so its not like I do not deal with heavy 'crunch' - but taking something technical and making it boring is a sin that should be punished. And my punishment is to give my gaming $1 to them wild and crazy Savage World folks - they cram fun both into the pre-work AND the game itself. So they have managed to do both by my measure of your definition.

Maybe they got better, I do not know. I did pick up 4e Dark Sun and was not pleased at the 130 pages of crunch up front. I am sure it "plays better than it reads", but that fact has driven me off from picking up anything else.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 5, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> I do demand an apology.



Demanding an apology because you bought a book that you weren't happy with seems rather... um... extreme. If you weren't happy with the purchase, I'd say you were entitled to return it and get a refund. But demanding an apology? That seems like an unrealistic expectation, sorry.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 5, 2011)

Echohawk said:


> Demanding an apology because you bought a book that you weren't happy with seems rather... um... extreme. If you weren't happy with the purchase, I'd say you were entitled to return it and get a refund. But demanding an apology? That seems like an unrealistic expectation, sorry.




There is no point where Internet boards and realistic expectations intersect 

I really do not want an apology. I am actually quite thankful in that I have a more expansive gaming experience now. But there is no excuse for a boring gaming book.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 5, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> There is no point where Internet boards and realistic expectations intersect



So very true 



> I really do not want an apology. I am actually quite thankful in that I have a more expansive gaming experience now. But there is no excuse for a boring gaming book.



Good to see someone putting a positive spin on things. I'm afraid that I also found the PH to be an extremely dull read. My strategy for dealing with this has been to only DM 4e and not play it. The DMG was substantially less dull, and many of the subsequent 4e books were far more inspirational. In particular, _Underdark_ provided me with a heap of ideas I've stolen for my campaign, even though the campaign hasn't yet ventured anywhere near the underdark.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 5, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> I do demand an apology.



So your the kind of guy that demands an apology from his inlaws if he ever gets a divorce. "I'm not satisfied with her since I married her, you made her, I want an apology!" ;-)

Buying something is always a risk, it's the consumers responsibility to research the product. I do not feel that 4E was falsely advertised, if you do, could you please explain?

This is also drifting into edition war territory...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 5, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm still a little bit baffled by this mentality. If I could boil my experience D&D (pre-4e) down to a "core unit", the encounter definitely wouldn't be it. Thus the difficulty of persuading someone like me to accept this new philosophy if they tried to carry it forward into a new edition.




Can you boil your pre-4E experience down to a core unit? What is that core unit to you?

I'm baffled by the mentality as well, but in a completely different way. When I play 4E the encounters don't stand out to me in a way that would cause me to react negatively. It just seems like another abstract measure of time like a round, a turn (either as one player's round or 10 overall rounds), etc.

As for design by encounter, the whole concept started for me with 1E/2E AD&D. The tables in the back gave guidance to the DM to create encounters based on the level of the dungeon the characters were exploring. The classic gaming modules of the era broke down into encounter areas. Those areas could be exploration encounters where path choice and/or dungeon dressing occurred. They could be populated with NPCs for the player characters to interact with. They could be events, like a chase through a crowded market. Or they could be combat encounters. 3E brought about the formalized concept of Encounter Level. What has really changed from those days that makes people see the E word as such a bad thing now? I too am baffled.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 5, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> So your the kind of guy that demands an apology from his inlaws if he ever gets a divorce. "I'm not satisfied with her since I married her, you made her, I want an apology!" ;-)




You got it. Especially since her Dad has money, so I was "due" that part of the inheritance. 



> Buying something is always a risk, it's the consumers responsibility to research the product. I do not feel that 4E was falsely advertised, if you do, could you please explain?




They promised excitement. The book was watching paint dry...




> This is also drifting into edition war territory...




Naw, you are reading too much into it. 4e is fine, the book is boring. See my post above (after the first) for more on it. It did not fit my groups, so I moved on. No major harm.



On the whole grand unification thing - it does not really matter to me. I have accepted that I am not in their target market group (I am an old, grumpy man with a couple of young kids - and most of my circle does not have the time for piles of gaming books that D&D has trended to). It does not mean that I will not buy from Wizards, but I am just very selective about it now. I want cool adventure/campaign ideas. Since getting hooked on Savage Worlds, I also want multiple genres. Lets be honest - that has not been Wizard's strong suite of late. 

If 5e has some really cool adventures - I'll pick some up. If they come out with a new cool campaign setting (or campaign seeds) - great, I'll look at them. If 5e is a bunch of complexity dials on how you want to kill your orc....then no. Savage Worlds kills orcs to my satisfacation -actually, 3e and 4e do to, if I happen to play in someone else's game.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 6, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> PF in particular has focused on adventures, which takes the prep out of the equation to some extent.



When I talked about 3E/PF prioritising pre-play over play, I wasn't talking about prep time. As per my quote of Vincent Baker, I was talking about invention and meaning.

I agree that PF focuses on adventures. Which is to say, it focuses on play in which the invention and meaning have already been determined, pre-play, by whoever authored the adventure.

4e is designed, in my view, to focus on a different sort of play. (WotC's 4e adventures less so - this is one of the reasons why the adventures do such a poor job of showcasing the system).

I should also note - the above is written without attempting to integrate BryonD's comments above, or a response to them. I'm still thinking about that.


----------



## Bleys Icefalcon (Aug 6, 2011)

Somehow I would see the parent company of WoTC vigorously approving 5th Edition - they've made it vividly clear, they are not concerned with a quality product - unless of course said product is profitable.  Collectors and those who simply have to have the newest, shiniest of everything will flock to the stores for 5e, even if 5e is 200 pages of furry softporn.  It would sell, regardless of what's inside the covers.  Selling = profit, which is all that matters to them.

Granted TSR made a muddy mess at the end, and WoTC tried to fix things, and in many cases succeeded - but it simply got away from them with 3.5.  Too much power, too little balance.  4e is a thoughtful detailed, balanced system, unfortunately, it's not really DnD - not to those of us that have bled their way through all of the versions since even before there was any official system.  It's too far away from, and turns it's back on the Gygaxian way of play - where the game is a mystery to the players.  That's DnD.  The players get posed to them a mystery.  They don't get to see behind the screens.  They don't get to read up on the monsters.  They don't get to see the DMs rolls.  They don't get too, as then there'd be little wonder, and less challenge.  

If I know there are trolls in the next room, and I know the trolls will do nothing until I open the door, no matter what, then I have time to ride my pony back to town and concoct a dozen or so Molitov Cocktails, ride my way back, head to that door, light them and toss them in, firmly shutting and blocking the door with the shoring timber I picked up in town while I was at it.

Conversely, if I don't know there are trolls on the other side of the door, then I react REALISTICALLY when I find out - everyone having a kumbuyah session and mutually running the game is all well and good, but it ain't DnD.

5e will be great if we get back to DnD the way it was designed and envisioned, but won't do anything to make the old school purists happy if it continues to drift away from the it's founding paradyme.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 6, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Can you boil your pre-4E experience down to a core unit? What is that core unit to you?



I don't know that I have an easily operational game term that I would say is similarly a core unit. I'd say a game session can probably be boiled down to "scenes" not "encounters". A subtle distinction, but an important one. A scene may or may not involve encountering anything, and it may or may not involve dice rolls; it's just a subjective unit of time before the narrative jumps.



> I'm baffled by the mentality as well, but in a completely different way. When I play 4E the encounters don't stand out to me in a way that would cause me to react negatively. It just seems like another abstract measure of time like a round, a turn (either as one player's round or 10 overall rounds), etc.



There are two things about the encounter concept that stand out (to me). One, rounds have always been measurements of real time (6 seconds in D&D; different in other rpgs). That isn't abstract. Two, "encounter" implies that there is a concrete goal to each scene., either winning a battle or accomplishing something with skilll checks or the like. My experience is that the things I would describe as encounters-even loosely-take up only a minority of session time. Thus I see building a game around them as a rather large paradigm shift.



> As for design by encounter, the whole concept started for me with 1E/2E AD&D. The tables in the back gave guidance to the DM to create encounters based on the level of the dungeon the characters were exploring. The classic gaming modules of the era broke down into encounter areas. Those areas could be exploration encounters where path choice and/or dungeon dressing occurred. They could be populated with NPCs for the player characters to interact with. They could be events, like a chase through a crowded market. Or they could be combat encounters. 3E brought about the formalized concept of Encounter Level. What has really changed from those days that makes people see the E word as such a bad thing now? I too am baffled.



I have no doubt the concept predates 4e. However, consider that pubished adventures are not the core of the game, and neither is the XP system. I'd postulate that a majority of gamers use neither of those things (and I have evidence for the latter). Despite being in the core rulebooks, I wouldn't describe CR/EL as a core part of the game, more like an optional rule for advancement if you don't already have and prefer have your own ideas on the subject. Similarly, published adventures are optional and don't necessarily represent the way people play the game.

What has changed is the proscriptive aspect of the rules. Before, you might have some encounters, 4e is built around them. Similarly, the concept of roles frequently rose out of play in other editions, but now each character is explicitly built to perform a rather gamist role. If you were going to make a 5e, you'd have to choose whether the rules used these concepts or not, and you'd likely be choosing between pleasing one group of players or another.



			
				pemertom said:
			
		

> When I talked about 3E/PF prioritising pre-play over play, I wasn't talking about prep time. As per my quote of Vincent Baker, I was talking about invention and meaning.
> 
> I agree that PF focuses on adventures. Which is to say, it focuses on play in which the invention and meaning have already been determined, pre-play, by whoever authored the adventure.
> 
> 4e is designed, in my view, to focus on a different sort of play. (WotC's 4e adventures less so - this is one of the reasons why the adventures do such a poor job of showcasing the system).



I'd agree that's true of adventures, and that 3e/PF focus more on adventures. Most people don't use them; but they're good for people who don't have time to prep.

Setting those aside, the rules of earlier additions have much more of a "toolkit" feel that let you do what you want, while the 4e mentality is much more (again) proscriptive. I'm still not seeing where preplay vs. play is a point of difference. I'd agree that 4e focuses on a "different sort of play", but I'd also say that improvisational storytelling (i.e. playing on the day) isn't it.

So, oddly, I'm saying that this preplay vs play distinction is not one of the many difficulties of "reunification" with a putative 5e.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> When I talked about 3E/PF prioritising pre-play over play, I wasn't talking about prep time. As per my quote of Vincent Baker, I was talking about invention and meaning.
> 
> I agree that PF focuses on adventures. Which is to say, it focuses on play in which the invention and meaning have already been determined, pre-play, by whoever authored the adventure.
> 
> 4e is designed, in my view, to focus on a different sort of play. (WotC's 4e adventures less so - this is one of the reasons why the adventures do such a poor job of showcasing the system).




Your logic here seems to be a little off. In the first statement you seem to state that Pathfinder (the rules) focuses on adventures and further define adventure as... play where the invention and meaning have already been determined prior to actual in-game play by whoever authored the adventure... 

Now for discussions sake lets ignore the fact that the statement above implies that any game having pre-made adventures (including 4e) should have this as it's default playstyle, which I think is erroneous in the extreme... 

Next you seem to state that 4e is designed to focus on a different sort of play (without defining said type of play) then disregard the 4e adventures as doing a poor job of showcasing whatever this type of play is...

So for PF, the adventures define, or at the least are representative of the type of play the rules create. Yet in 4e you claim adventures are actually a poor example of what type of play 4e was designed to facilitate. This seems like a double standard to me... Maybe 4e's adventures are very much indicative of the type of play the designers expected for 4e and designed its rules to accomodate. (I mean very few if any people actually complain that the rules as used in most of the 4e modules are prone to errors or misused, so I don't think the modules do a bad job of actually showcasing the rules).

IMO, the above is a more realistic conclusion then believing that the same people who designed the game rules are incompetent in using said rules to create adventures in the game's expected playstyle. 

Now whether you personally play in the games expected playstyle is a whole different argument of course.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 6, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Maybe 4e's adventures are very much indicative of the type of play the designers expected for 4e and designed its rules to accomodate. (I mean very few if any people actually complain that the rules as used in most of the 4e modules are prone to errors or misused, so I don't think the modules do a bad job of actually showcasing the rules).
> 
> IMO, the above is a more realistic conclusion then believing that the same people who designed the game rules are incompetent in using said rules to create adventures in the game's expected playstyle.
> 
> Now whether you personally play in the games expected playstyle is a whole different argument of course.



I think is very much on the mark.

I respect that Pemerton runs a great game.  But from reading numerous posts about how he runs the game it sounds a lot like he is taking a product intended to be a beach towel and celebrating its virtues as an umbrella. And kudos to him on the insight and innovation.  But I've never heard anyone, in particular anyone from WotC, promote the game in ways that are consistent with Pemerton's descriptions.  

And, again, credit where credit is due here.  Maybe I don't care for 4E because my DM skills are not as elite as Pemerton's and I don't get the whole new tier of game.  (I don't *think* that is the issue, but I'm seriously offering that it may well be.)  But 4E is supposed to be good for brand new GMs, not game design theory post-docs.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 6, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know that I have an easily operational game term that I would say is similarly a core unit. I'd say a game session can probably be boiled down to "scenes" not "encounters". A subtle distinction, but an important one.




Semantics. I could just as easily say "locations." I still don't see how the use of any of these words fundamentally changes the game.



Ahnehnois said:


> A scene may or may not involve encountering anything, and it may or may not involve dice rolls; it's just a subjective unit of time before the narrative jumps.




Exactly my definition of an "encounter" if you review my previous post. 



Ahnehnois said:


> There are two things about the encounter concept that stand out (to me). One, rounds have always been measurements of real time (6 seconds in D&D; different in other rpgs).




Minor quibble. "Rounds" in D&D have changed over the editions. A 1E round was 1 minute, e.g.



Ahnehnois said:


> That isn't abstract.




But a "scene" is and you're OK with that.



Ahnehnois said:


> Two, "encounter" implies that there is a concrete goal to each scene., either winning a battle or accomplishing something with skilll checks or the like.




Who says? Mike Mearls has had many recent articles about encounters without skill checks and encounters regarding exploration. I think you are putting too much value on a word in a game that has always used the English language very loosely to name game terms.



Ahnehnois said:


> My experience is that the things I would describe as encounters-even loosely-take up only a minority of session time. Thus I see building a game around them as a rather large paradigm shift.




Maybe for your group. My own experience with various groups, gaming clubs, conventions, etc. is that most players enjoy the bits of the game when they are progressing towards a goal. Spending large amounts of time on frivolous matters, such as buying a pair of boots for your character, leads quickly to frustration. YMMV, obviously.



Ahnehnois said:


> I have no doubt the concept predates 4e. However, consider that pubished adventures are not the core of the game, and neither is the XP system. I'd postulate that a majority of gamers use neither of those things (and I have evidence for the latter).




There is equal evidence here on EnWorld that modules *are* core to the game. Many discussions relive the old classics. Others discuss peoples' woes over the poor quality of the WotC modules. A whole company built its reputation from Adventure Paths.



Ahnehnois said:


> Despite being in the core rulebooks, I wouldn't describe CR/EL as a core part of the game, more like an optional rule for advancement if you don't already have and prefer have your own ideas on the subject. Similarly, published adventures are optional and don't necessarily represent the way people play the game.




Again, discussion about the failings of the CR/EL system abound, trying to find better ways to implement them. Whole shared-world campaigns with very large followings use(d) the CR/EL/Level method of building challenging encounters and rewarding those who accomplished their goal. 4E in particular doesn't even stress the encounter=experience as the only means to award XP. The suggestions on Quest XP in the DMG help remind a new DM that characters should be rewarded for achieving their goals.



Ahnehnois said:


> What has changed is the proscriptive aspect of the rules. Before, you might have some encounters, 4e is built around them. Similarly, the concept of roles frequently rose out of play in other editions, but now each character is explicitly built to perform a rather gamist role. If you were going to make a 5e, you'd have to choose whether the rules used these concepts or not, and you'd likely be choosing between pleasing one group of players or another.




I agree they call things out more that used to be more subtle. Some of those things I consider a strength, others easily ignorable.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'd agree that's true of adventures, and that 3e/PF focus more on adventures. Most people don't use them; but they're good for people who don't have time to prep.




I think alot more people use adventures than you would surmise. Otherwise I don't think Paizo would have the success that puts them in the strong position they are today.



Ahnehnois said:


> Setting those aside, the rules of earlier additions have much more of a "toolkit" feel that let you do what you want, while the 4e mentality is much more (again) proscriptive. I'm still not seeing where preplay vs. play is a point of difference. I'd agree that 4e focuses on a "different sort of play", but I'd also say that improvisational storytelling (i.e. playing on the day) isn't it.




I couldn't disagree more. The toolkit I have at my fingertips now with DDi makes my job as DM almost too easy, in both prep and ad-libbing.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 6, 2011)

TwoSix said:


> Unfortunately for 4e, many gamers still prefer the pre-game to the game itself.  I know several players personally who adore this aspect of D&D.  Pouring over magic item lists, looking through book after book for one particular spell, endlessly tweaking that perfect build.
> 
> That's why they can never forgive 4e, for taking that particular aspect of the game away.  For them, that's the magic of D&D.
> 
> I don't particularly understand it, but since I've seen the behavior personally, I also can't dismiss it.




That's were 4E failed.  With 3E I could dream up a character idea and pour through the rule book to find find a class, feats, weapons, magic items, etc to create him.  It was a collage that painted a picture of my idea....yes, it was premaid prior to play.  As an aside, I worry about "perfect build" as a term because that can sound like powergaming.  I could pick up 3E and make my dual weapon wielding dwarven minor from many facets of the game.  This provided me the opportunity to adapt my mind's creation to paper.  The great fun was then seeing how that image would unfold in the DM's world with the rules as a tool.

When I tried to do the same with 4E I found that I had a collection of combat powers.  The rest of the stuff could be hand waved or "role played" without any supporting rules.  The non-combat portion of the game seemed less important.  I always heard the argument that wait for more splatbooks and I could make what I wanted but the point was I didn't define my character by combat abilities.  4E itself is a great tactical combat game, but lost alot of the extras.  In and of itself, it's a great game.  No what it might do is be an even better game for hard core role players who want rules to define combat structure but the rest of the game is left to their imagination.  I lack that sheer creativity and don't care for that type of game as I require rules to help guide my actions.

Any new edition needs that additional extra beyond combat powers to draw me in.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 6, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I couldn't disagree more. The toolkit I have at my fingertips now with DDi makes my job as DM almost too easy, in both prep and ad-libbing.



I don't deny the validity of your opinion. That said, our respective viewpoints don't exactly suggest (as was the thread topic) that the same edition is ever likely to make both of is happy. I don't think my refutations of any of the other points raised are likely to be productive, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## triqui (Aug 7, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Again, I had these same debates 2 - 3 years ago and people promised me that the massive growth of 4E would show me just how wrong I was.    I wasn't wrong then.  I'm not wrong now.  "I told you so."



I already conceded that 4e missed the point when they tried to appeal a broader fan base. They did try to attract them with the shiny powers and cool "modern" stuff like dragonborns, but they didn't take in account that:
1) computers make calculus instantly. Humans not. So too much "shiny powers" and MMORPG like stuff, such as marking, failed becouse it bogged the combat speed play
2) computers give "quests" and things to do instantly and fresh. RPG need preparation time
3) building a character in a computer rpg takes like 15 seconds, and you build it on the fly. Sure, you can go with stronger builds and serious raiding if you want, but for the casuals, it's not needed
4) probably a bunch of other things I'm not thinking about just now.

So yes, they aimed to appeal a broader audience, and missed the shot. However, that does not show a flaw in the plan of appealing broader audience, just in the way they implemented it.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 7, 2011)

I think before people throw out accusations towards Mike Mearls, and Chris Perkins, and Jim Wyatt, and the rest of the folks at Wizards, perhaps take a gander over at the youtube...search for those guys and check out some of the interviews from 2007-2009 about 4th ed and about what they were actually trying to accomplish....might shock some of you


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 7, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I think before people throw out accusations towards Mike Mearls, and Chris Perkins, and Jim Wyatt, and the rest of the folks at Wizards, perhaps take a gander over at the youtube...search for those guys and check out some of the interviews from 2007-2009 about 4th ed and about what they were actually trying to accomplish....might shock some of you




Would you care to elaborate and post some links.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 7, 2011)

triqui said:


> So yes, they aimed to appeal a broader audience, and missed the shot. However, that does not show a flaw in the plan of appealing broader audience, just in the way they implemented it.



Agreed it doesn't prove anything.

And if they try a different approach on the same goal, they will again "miss the shot" and that again won't "prove" anything.

I've already agreed several times that I can't prove anything.  But I can and will keep saying I told you so.


----------



## Tallifer (Aug 7, 2011)

triqui said:


> 1) computers make calculus instantly. Humans not. So too much "shiny powers" and MMORPG like stuff, such as marking, failed becouse it bogged the combat speed play




But your character is required to fight hundreds of usually repetitive fights versus monsters to attain the goals of level and treasure. It usually takes a half a dozen fights and some quests and skill challenges to reach a level in 4th edition D&D.



triqui said:


> 2) computers give "quests" and things to do instantly and fresh. RPG need preparation time




The modules, Dungeon Magazine and the Dungeon Delves provide many ready to run encounters. There are also many third party pdfs available.



triqui said:


> 3) building a character in a computer rpg takes like 15 seconds, and you build it on the fly. Sure, you can go with stronger builds and serious raiding if you want, but for the casuals, it's not needed




I played Dark Age of Camelot off and on for about four years. It takes a only a few minutes to start up a character, but ti takes 50 levels and endless hunting to achieve the readiness to fight in the exciting realm warfare or tackle the most interesting quests and dungeons. It is very true that I enjoyed immensely my weak and stumbling early days; but no one wants to play at the novice level for ever. 4th (indeed any) edition D&D allows you to participate fully in the same adventure and fun as all the other players right from the beginning. 30 minutes to build a decent character on the Character Builder is much better than days upon days farming for levels and equipment.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 7, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> Would you care to elaborate and post some links.



the link is YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
in the search box enter any one of the names of the 4th ed creative team


----------



## LurkMonkey (Aug 7, 2011)

Interesting thread. I am going to go back to the OP on this one. Apologies if I cover ground already tread.



Gundark said:


> I can imagine one of the more asked questions that Mike will be asked is "Where are you going with these articles?"




I get a feeling from reading these articles that Mike is trying to brainstorm about game theory and he wants to elicit feedback from his fanbase. It has proven to be a contentious but successful strategem for Paizo.



Gundark said:


> Anyhow after reading page after page of discussion about these articles I've been surprised at the number of people who are say"This won't work!!!!" or who say something like "If this is 5e then count me out!!!!" without any sort of sense of how this would even actually look beyond discussion about theory.




No matter how you couch the subject of D&D, change, editions, etc. It will elicit strong responses. Look at the last four years. It amazes me how many people are invested in a game ruleset.



Gundark said:


> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?




I am going to come at this from a marketing perspective (my RL profession). I don't think that WotC drew fire from being the 'Big Guy'. D&D was the 'Big Guy' for decades without the schism we have seen in the last few years (granted, the arrival of the Internet as a communication vehicle also bears some of the responsibility for this). In fact, most gamers praised WotC as the savior of D&D in the last days of 2e.

What drew fire was the perception many had at the callousness that WotC (and by implication, Hasbro) treated their customers during the 4e rollout. Before I get any heated replies, note I said PERCEPTION. I am certain they didn't mean to treat any of their customers callously, no company ever does. But, and old saying in the marketing business is 'Perception is reality'. It doesn't matter what message you are trying to get across, if your mode of communication ends up being received badly by your audience, it is your fault, not the audiences. After all, the customer is always right. Why? Because you want them to buy your product. 

Take my example. Not because I think that everyone thinks like me, but because I can only speak for myself. When 4E was announced four years ago, I was cautiously optomistic. I was a bit put out because I had thousands of dollars in 3e stuff, and I really wasn't looking forward to upgrading. However, the example of the 3D computer MMO-like interface WotC showed at GenCon looked really sweet. I have maintained that the future of gaming will eventually blend the visual impact and world-wide reach of MMOs with the customizable features and sandbox-style narratives of TTRPGS. I thought this was an important first step.

Several things occured to sour me on 4e. The previews didn't catch with me. I was somewhat distressed with the slaughter of the sacred cows of canon (I likes my sacred cows). Dragon and Dungeon, two of my oldest and dearest magazine subscriptions were announced to stop print and go digital. Paizo, a company I had learned to respect highly through said magazines, was being cut out of them. The OGL, a document I had thought very highly of, was being discarded for the GSL, a step backwards IMO. The delay in producing the GSL only hardened this opinion. Then, there were the 4Vengers...

I am not trying to spark anger here, let me put this out right away. But from a perception angle, the way the fans of the new system dismissed the concerns of those of us not sold on the new system rankled. I understand that they didn't speak for the company. But, in the end, the perception was that they did, or that their flaming was tolerated. It produced flaming from the proponents of the 3e/OGL side of things as well, and it escalated into the sad state of affairs we sufffered through these last few years.

The final straw for me was ending the miniatures line and ending sales of the previous editions PDFs. I felt as if WotC didn't care for my patronage any more. Whether this was true or not is irrelevant, this is how I FELT, and with a customer, how they feel is how they buy. Now, I am but one person, but my gaming outlay is about $150/month (it is my one hobby). I had originally spent this primarily with WotC and some with White Wolf, but now that money goes to Paizo.

Now, Paizo has won my loyalty over the years. They put out a beautiful product (gaming rules don't really bother me, but quality of product is key). They are incredibly responsive to customer queries, and their staff seems to have a real love of the game. If, as the OP posits, they did a Version 2.0, I believe that their open playtest style and their committment to open source gaming would ease the pain of the transition. I personally don't really care about the ruleset, I can tell my stories with coinfips if that needs to be done. It's how I feel I am valued as a customer that is important.

Is WotC in a 'no-win' situation? No, not really. Hopefully, they can learn from the marketing blunders of the past years and come up with some winning material. I would suggest as an olive branch to disaffected customers that they put PDFs of their older edition material up for sale again. That would go a long way towards healing the schism. Also, releasing edition-neutral items like miniatures, maps and the like would gain them returning customers, who then might be tempted to try their new game ruleset. You have to get them in the door if you want to sell them something, after all. I am not irretreivably lost to WotC, but they will have to work hard to regain my patronage.

Thank you for reading my TL missive. Once again, I will state for clarity: I am not trying to demean 4e, WotC, Hasbro, or its players. I am stating opinions only, and I speak only for myself. I was merely trying to discuss the OP's question from the perspective of a former customer of WotC.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 7, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> the link is YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
> in the search box enter any one of the names of the 4th ed creative team




With your statement about seeing things that "might shock you" I had assumed you either rewatched the videos and had a point to make or you're probably guilty of what I did, which is to recall my own perceptions of interviews at the time.  Posting a link to youtube and saying search for designers actually reveals a ton of videos.  I was merely asking if you had one specific one you thought we should watch related to the above commentary.


----------



## variant (Aug 8, 2011)

I just got done reading Minimalist D&D and concluded with: what the hell? I sincerely hope this is not the direction D&D 5.0 is heading.

I mean, I guess one could take out skills, but one could take out levels, classes, and even dice as well... I mean why have abilities at all or roll anything? You could just announce that you succeed or your DM could.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 8, 2011)

Bleys Icefalcon said:


> 4e is a thoughtful detailed, balanced system, unfortunately, it's not really DnD - not to those of us that have bled their way through all of the versions since even before there was any official system.  It's too far away from, and turns it's back on the Gygaxian way of play - where the game is a mystery to the players.  That's DnD.



I started playing D&D in the early 1980s with Moldvay Basic, Cook Expert and then Gygax's AD&D. I've never played "Gygaxian" D&D. Influenced by the admonishments in the rulebooks, and in Lewis Pulsipher articles in White Dwarf, I tried to, but had no real interest in or talent for running it and my players had no real interest in playing it.

For the sort of play that I enjoy, 4e is a better system than AD&D. It's very obviously not aimed at Gygaxian play. But to infer from that that it's not D&D seems to give greater weight to Gyax's design intent, or preferred approach to play, rather than to the full range of stuff that people were actually trying to do with classic D&D back in those days. Reading Forum in Dragon Magazine from that time, and looking at the articles, I think there was a range of different approaches being taken - and if I had to characterise what I believe to have been the dominant trend, I would say it was a drift from Gygaxian play to setting-heavy, system-focused simulationism. I'm reluctant to say, though, that it therefore wasn't D&D.



Bleys Icefalcon said:


> If I know there are trolls in the next room, and I know the trolls will do nothing until I open the door, no matter what, then I have time to ride my pony back to town
> 
> <snip>
> 
> everyone having a kumbuyah session and mutually running the game is all well and good, but it ain't DnD.



Well, a GM who (i) establishes potential conflict based on signals (more or less explicit) sent by the players, and who (ii) frames those scenes in such a way that the PC in question is able to ride back to town on a pony, isn't doing a very good job of GMing in the "modern" fashion.

Nothing in the 4e DMG suggests that the game should be run like that. (Admittedly, it doesn't say a lot about scene-framing in general.)

Also, the idea that a GM will establish potential conflict based on signals (more or less explicity) sent by the players isn't that new. "What is Dungeons and Dragons" was published by Puffin (Penguin) Books in 1984. From memory, each of its 3 example PCs has conflict built into his or her backstory (the fighter is from a family kicked off their farm; the wizard has a rival college of magic; and the halfing I think has some sort of tale of down-and-out urban squalor). And the sample adventure for these 1st level PCs incorporates elements of the rival college of magic. It's not quite Burning Wheel, but it's not random generation, or pure sandboxing, either. Character-driven play, with GMs creating situations focused particularly on those PCs' conficts, has been around for a while now.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'd say a game session can probably be boiled down to "scenes" not "encounters". A subtle distinction, but an important one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't agree that 4e's rules are more prescriptive. They just prescribe different things. (Moldvay Basic had a whole checklist to go through for scenario design. And both Basic and AD&D had discussions of dugneon design, treasure placement etc which (i) seem fairly presriptive to me, in the sense that they tell me what the designer thinks a good dungeon will involve, and (ii) seem somewhat prescriptively to presuppose that "the dungeon" will figure prominently as a focus of play.

I do agree that 4e focuses on different things. I think you're right that an encounter is a scene in which there is a goal and one or more obstacles - and hence conflict (or "a challenge", to use 4e jargon). The PHB and DMG make it clear that exploration - "scenes without challenges" - is important but subordinate, a bridge between challenges. And there is a clear suggestion in the DMG that exploration for its own sake be downplayed, as potentially boring.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm still not seeing where preplay vs. play is a point of difference. I'd agree that 4e focuses on a "different sort of play", but I'd also say that improvisational storytelling (i.e. playing on the day) isn't it.





broghammerj said:


> With 3E I could dream up a character idea and pour through the rule book to find find a class, feats, weapons, magic items, etc to create him.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When I tried to do the same with 4E I found that I had a collection of combat powers.  The rest of the stuff could be hand waved or "role played" without any supporting rules.  The non-combat portion of the game seemed less important.



I can only speak to my own experience, and do my best to make sense of the experiences of others. What broghammerj says here seems to me consistent with what I was saying. I would want to add - until you've played that PC, not only will you not know his/her noncombat stuff, but you won't know the combat stuff either. (The retraining rules in 4e are in my view essential, given that - except for very simple builds like ranger archers - it is hard to know how something will play out until you build it and try it.)

I think that in 4e, both combat and skill challenges (the two core action resolution engines) support "playing on the day" - learning new stuff about the gameworld, the PCs, the NPCs, _in the course of play_. They're fairly obviously modelled on/inspired by other game systems with that explicit goal (for skill challenges this is transparent!). The 4e designers are on record as having regard to the indie design scene (here is Heinsoo; here is Mearls). I think they set out to turn D&D into a "modern" game, and did a fairly good job of it.



Ahnehnois said:


> the rules of earlier additions have much more of a "toolkit" feel that let you do what you want, while the 4e mentality is much more (again) proscriptive.



I don't agree with the "do what you want", but I do agree with the "tookit" vs "proscriptive". I see a resemblance to the Burning Wheel rulebooks, which are full of advice to stick with what the designers have included, because it is in there to make the game a better game.

I think this is reflective of different play focuses in the mechanics. When the mechanics are conceived of as primarily serving a simulationist purpose, then the "tool kit" approach makes sense. If you want to simulate something different, or differently, you tweak and twiddle. As a result of this sort of thing, Rolemaster has probably a dozen or more initiative systems in print, and HARP has 3 or 4 different combat systems.

When the mechanics are focused more on non-simulationist metagame goals - of distributing narrative authority in certain ways, for example, or mediating between creation and exploration in certain ways (and I think these two goals are related) - then to me at least it makes more sense for the designers to say "Hey, we've got these procedures here which, if you follow them, will give you the experience we're offering. Don't follow them, and we offer no guarantees." With these sorts of mechanics, the promise is "If you follow them, you'll get the experience you want from this game." Whereas the classic simulationist mechanics are more along the lines of "Here's a suggestion as to how you might model this - if you want a different model, tweak away to your heart's content". Different goals, different guidelines. To me, this is indicative of the different approach of the 4e rules.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'd agree that's true of adventures, and that 3e/PF focus more on adventures. Most people don't use them; but they're good for people who don't have time to prep.



My impression is that Paizo, and PF, were built on adventures. Indeed, that Paizo's reason for going ahead with PF was to keep in print a set of rules that people could use to play their adventures.



Imaro said:


> In the first statement you seem to state that Pathfinder (the rules) focuses on adventures and further define adventure as... play where the invention and meaning have already been determined prior to actual in-game play by whoever authored the adventure...
> 
> Now for discussions sake lets ignore the fact that the statement above implies that any game having pre-made adventures (including 4e) should have this as it's default playstyle, which I think is erroneous in the extreme...
> 
> Next you seem to state that 4e is designed to focus on a different sort of play (without defining said type of play) then disregard the 4e adventures as doing a poor job of showcasing whatever this type of play is...



I said that PF, the game - which includes both rules and adventure paths - seems to be focused on adventures. Certainly, fans of Paizo seem to mention their adventuers frequently as a strong point. Whereas, at least on these forums, I rarely see fans of 4e mentioning WotC's adventures as a strong point of the game.

As for the style of play that 4e supports, I believed that I've discussed it often enough, in threads in which you have participated, that I would have thought it might be well enough known by now, at least by anyone to whom it matters. (Posts #262 and #278 in the is-D&D-about-combat thread give a reasonable account of it.)



Imaro said:


> So for PF, the adventures define, or at the least are representative of the type of play the rules create. Yet in 4e you claim adventures are actually a poor example of what type of play 4e was designed to facilitate. This seems like a double standard to me
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now whether you personally play in the games expected playstyle is a whole different argument of course.



What's the double standard? I don't particularly care for 3E, and therefore assume that I wouldn't particularly care for PF either. You, as far as I can tell from your posting history, don't particularly care for 4e. I'm trying to diagnose a difference between them, to do with their different orientations towards exploration and creation. You yourself, in the thread about kobolds and their "shifty" power, seemed to accept that there was such a difference, given that, in that thread, you complained that 4e generates too high a burden of creation for GMs and players.

What do _you_ think is the difference between 3E and 4e?



Imaro said:


> Maybe 4e's adventures are very much indicative of the type of play the designers expected for 4e and designed its rules to accomodate. (I mean very few if any people actually complain that the rules as used in most of the 4e modules are prone to errors or misused, so I don't think the modules do a bad job of actually showcasing the rules).



Actually, nearly everyone who comments on WotC's 4e modules complains that they don't reflect the encounter design guidelines in the DMG and DMG2.



Imaro said:


> the above is a more realistic conclusion then believing that the same people who designed the game rules are incompetent in using said rules to create adventures in the game's expected playstyle.



Given that no one seems to like 4e adventures, and that WotC themselves have indicated (at GenCon) that they're planning on revising their approach to adventure writing, I think that the inference to incompetence may well be warranted.

But in any event, 4e fairly obviously doesn't support traditional module design. Just one example - traditional module design depends upon the backstory being a secret within the purview of the GM. For 4e, on the other hand - at least as far as the default setting is concerned - a big chunk of the backstory is set out in the PHB, for the players to take into account when building their PCs. What does this 4e approach remind me of? It reminds me of the advice on "big picture", setting design, character building etc in the Burning Wheel Adventure Builder - which is non-traditional advice.

Coincidence? Projection? Or the result of the 4e team doing what they said at the time they were doing, and taking seriously the lessons of indie RPG design? Different people obviously have different views on this - but given that everyone hates the WotC modules, but some people at least like their ruleset, I prefer to impute competence to mechanical design and incompetence to adventure design.



BryonD said:


> I've never heard anyone, in particular anyone from WotC, promote the game in ways that are consistent with Pemerton's descriptions.



See references above - particularly the Heinsoo one.

And are you really saying that you see no resemblance between skill challenges and the action resolution mechanics in games like HeroQuest and Maelstrom Storytelling? Do you really not see a significant difference in the way that 4e treats campaign backstory, distributing it so liberally through the PC-build rules?



BryonD said:


> Maybe I don't care for 4E because my DM skills are not as elite as Pemerton's and I don't get the whole new tier of game.  (I don't *think* that is the issue, but I'm seriously offering that it may well be.)  But 4E is supposed to be good for brand new GMs, not game design theory post-docs.



You don't need a gametheory post-doc to run a character and situation-based game. I did it as a teenager using 1st ed AD&D rules (bizarrely enough drawing inspiration from Oriental Adventures - although the focus of that book is highly simulationist, this actually produces quite rich PCs and situations, and in play we drifted the Honour mechanics from what I think was envisaged in the design).

The idea that simulationist play, or Gygaxian (=exploration-heavy) gamism, is somehow the easy or default approach, is something I strongly disagree with.



Ahnehnois said:


> If you were going to make a 5e, you'd have to choose whether the rules used these concepts or not, and you'd likely be choosing between pleasing one group of players or another.





Ahnehnois said:


> our respective viewpoints don't exactly suggest (as was the thread topic) that the same edition is ever likely to make both of is happy.



Well, quite. I think we're in agreement here.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 8, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> When 4e came out, I remember a lot of people saying that it plays better than it reads, as if this was something for which an apology was required.



This one's been sitting around awhile, but it's still bugging me. I agree that the rules in play are the substance here, but presentation is important. If I read a scientific paper that draws meaningful conclusions from solid evidence, but which has grammatical errors, confusing charts, or an inappropriate tone, the latter points will probably define my opinion of that paper. Similarly, when I eat out, presentation greatly affects the experience of my meal and if I have a date, that person's appearance affects my opinion of them.

Similarly, if WotC had put out a completely different set of rules with the same artistic design on their books (and the same amount of errata) I wouldn't have bought them on that basis alone. The further away you get from realistic art design, the more you've lost me. The more condescending the tone of the rules text, the more you've lost me. The more errors in that text, the more you've lost me.

Dragon Age II (for example) and 4e are very similar in that while they both made controversial rules changes, they were both error-riddled products that lacked production value. In the D&D world, this is a significant reason that people left D&D for Pathfinder. PF has better-looking books with better-written text (though I don't like their art style much either). For WotC to please everyone, they'd need not just a new rules philosophy, but better books. I think even a fair amount of 4e people would agree with that.



> When the mechanics are focused more on non-simulationist metagame goals - of distributing narrative authority in certain ways, for example, or mediating between creation and exploration in certain ways (and I think these two goals are related) - then to me at least it makes more sense for the designers to say "Hey, we've got these procedures here which, if you follow them, will give you the experience we're offering. Don't follow them, and we offer no guarantees." With these sorts of mechanics, the promise is "If you follow them, you'll get the experience you want from this game." Whereas the classic simulationist mechanics are more along the lines of "Here's a suggestion as to how you might model this - if you want a different model, tweak away to your heart's content". Different goals, different guidelines. To me, this is indicative of the different approach of the 4e rules.



Okay.



> Well, quite. I think we're in agreement here.



No hard feelings.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I said that PF, the game - which includes both rules and adventure paths - seems to be focused on adventures. Certainly, fans of Paizo seem to mention their adventuers frequently as a strong point. Whereas, at least on these forums, I rarely see fans of 4e mentioning WotC's adventures as a strong point of the game.
> 
> As for the style of play that 4e supports, I believed that I've discussed it often enough, in threads in which you have participated, that I would have thought it might be well enough known by now, at least by anyone to whom it matters. (Posts #262 and #278 in the is-D&D-about-combat thread give a reasonable account of it.)




Again, I'm a little confused... what does the business side of the game being focused on adventure paths... have to do with the type of playstyle the rules push for? I've seen published adventures for narrative, gamist and simulationist play based rpg's, so I fail to see how PF being centered around AP's has any bearing on it's default playstyle.

As to your second paragraph, again we disagree... with it's emphasis on balanced encounters & magic items, mechanically defined conditions & powers, etc. As well as it's focus on the encounter as the building blocks of a session of play I find 4e more firmly in the camp of Gamism as defined by the Forge than any type of Narrativism... especially concerning mechanics and what they push for. Overcoming the challenge of the encounter seems to be the focus in default play of D&D 4e. Now whether people find this satisfying or not (or change it to fit their own preferences is a different story.)




pemerton said:


> What's the double standard? I don't particularly care for 3E, and therefore assume that I wouldn't particularly care for PF either. You, as far as I can tell from your posting history, don't particularly care for 4e. I'm trying to diagnose a difference between them, to do with their different orientations towards exploration and creation. You yourself, in the thread about kobolds and their "shifty" power, seemed to accept that there was such a difference, given that, in that thread, you complained that 4e generates too high a burden of creation for GMs and players.




I play and run 4e occasionally, I prefer Pathfinder but I will play and run 4e... in fact I ran for the recent gameday in a strange turn of events at my FLGS where they were short on DM's... and the people I ran for greatly enjoyed it (though I improvised and added alot of my own stuff to the Neverdeath module.).

The problem is that in doing this diagnoses you are conflating default playstyle (4e supports narrativism!!) with business focus (Pathfinder is centered around adventures!!). You are comparing apples and oranges. 

As for the shifty thread... you're drawing a conclusion I never made as to the "burden" of creation for GM's. In that thread I was moreso arguing for the gamism focus of 4e. If you give me an ability called shifty that has a purely mechanical effect that could just as easily be described as something entirely different... and there is no description of what theactual power does... but it is balanced for the combat encounter to be a fair challenge against players of an appropriate level range... that is a focus on the mechanics not narrative of the game.



pemerton said:


> What do _you_ think is the difference between 3E and 4e?




Simulationism vs. Gamism. 3E's focus was on taking how something in the game world should/might/would work, and then finding a mechanic to simulate it... 4e's focus was on creating mechanics that would be balanced and fun on the game side of things and then either vaguely justifying the mechanic with light fluff or leaving it up to the people playing the game to justify said mechanic's fluff side.



pemerton said:


> Actually, nearly everyone who comments on WotC's 4e modules complains that they don't reflect the encounter design guidelines in the DMG and DMG2.




I disagree. They tend to complain about the delve format (not inherent to the mechanics of 4e), The number of combats in a given module (not a property of 4e), the linear choices (again not inherent to the nechanics of 4e), lifeless, cardboard feeling NPC's with non-sensical motiations (but they are built mechanically correct by the rules of 4e). You see these are problems with adventure design, not inherent to the rules of 4e. If a Patfinder adventure was written with these flaws it too would probably be criticized and disliked.



pemerton said:


> Given that no one seems to like 4e adventures, and that WotC themselves have indicated (at GenCon) that they're planning on revising their approach to adventure writing, I think that the inference to incompetence may well be warranted.




Incompetency with general adventure design... yes. As far as 4e and it's default playstyle... I would say no. Their adventures are very much based around overcoming the encounter with your cool bits.



pemerton said:


> But in any event, 4e fairly obviously doesn't support traditional module design. Just one example - traditional module design depends upon the backstory being a secret within the purview of the GM. For 4e, on the other hand - at least as far as the default setting is concerned - a big chunk of the backstory is set out in the PHB, for the players to take into account when building their PCs. What does this 4e approach remind me of? It reminds me of the advice on "big picture", setting design, character building etc in the Burning Wheel Adventure Builder - which is non-traditional advice.




I'm curious... Pathfinder's AP's all come with Player's Guides that allow one to tie backstory, classes, races, etc. into the AP... this would seem to be exactly what you mean by non-traditional module design... yet it's done with 3.5/Pathfinder rules. I am also pretty sure this same thing is also done in the Inner Sea World Guide... again with PF rules. So please explain to me how 4e is better,or any different, than PF in this area?



pemerton said:


> Coincidence? Projection? Or the result of the 4e team doing what they said at the time they were doing, and taking seriously the lessons of indie RPG design? Different people obviously have different views on this - but given that everyone hates the WotC modules, but some people at least like their ruleset, I prefer to impute competence to mechanical design and incompetence to adventure design.




Oh I definitely think they took a *Gamist* approach from indie games because they wanted the game to be fun thus gameplay, in a mechanical sense, became the priority. In fact here's a few quotes pulled from the examples you supplied that seem to support my opinion...



Rob Heinsoo said:


> I think that the most interesting shift for people is that this game does have a different paradigm, in the sense that previously simulation was king. What that meant is that, “Hey, what happens when a monster grapples you?” Those rules were written to some extent with, “okay now what do you do? Well now what happens that? Oh that, and what happens then? Oh that, and that and that. Have you got that?” And now it’s like, look – this game isn’t actually about grappling. It’s about hitting things with swords, and I am going to be fried if I’m gonna sit there and write multi-paragraph rules for something that is not fun.






Rob Heinsoo said:


> We need a simple system to deal with it. What that means is that in play, simulation is still important, but game play has advanced to the point where we consider it quite a bit farther. If we made a system…well an example of this came up last week, but I’m not necessarily going to talk about it, I heard there was an argument being made about a system and I was asked for my opinion. I said, “you know what, don’t tell them that they’re wrong. They’re right, in a simulationist world, the system they want to use is RIGHT. That is exactly what happens in real life, but guess what, it’s a real pain in the ass_._”
> Game players are not going to thank us, and the amount of fun that would be added to the table if we actually did this ‘simulation’ is, my guess would be like one out of twenty players would get this warm rosey glow and say, “I think this is really like reality!” and the other ones would say, “When is it my turn?! Because I am so tired of you doing what you’re doing!” When I say the paradigm was shifted, this is the shift. We’ve moved away from simulation towards gameplay. Now that doesn’t mean that simulation is dead, that means that before 3.5 was on the simulation side of the middle ground, and now we’re on the gameplay side of the middle ground. That’s what I think.




Oh, and that quote from Mearls just says he looks at the ideas from the forge... not which if any, he chose to implement for 4e.

EDIT: Ultimately I think that 4e and 3.5/PF support Narrativism to the same extent in that they basically leave it up to the individual DM and players to interject or not interject this as an important part of their particular game... what they do do however is give you a choice between a Gamist or Simulationist basis to explore these things with. 

EDIT2:  Here's an interesting tidbit from wikipedia on the main conflict between Gamism and Simulationism play...

Gamist-Simulationist friction

Perfect 'Balance' (in the sense of parity in character effectiveness, or a level playing field) is rarely compatible with the full complexities of a self-consistent imagined world. That is, Life is Unfair. For example, realistic swordfighting leads to a high-rate of wound-related mortality, while an unbiased presentation of Tolkien's Middle-Earth would make elves far more powerful than orcs or halflings. Resolving such imbalances requires either a manifestly artificial 'world', or metagame constructs such as hit points, level adjustments, etc. that distort a Simulationist aesthetic.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 8, 2011)

Let's assume that we know there are folks that prefer 4E and folks that prefer PF, if the current sales are any indication, and WotC would continue the trends from 4E. Would 5E draw in a significant portion of the PF crowd, would it further divide the fans, or would it just move over the 4E fans?

If 5E is as big a jump as 4E was from 3E, I suspect the worst kind of rift between the 4E folks and the 5E adoptees. I suspect you would have very few folks leaving the PF branch. Even worse, there's no way for 4E fans to go, as no one can really adopt the 4E rules as they could with 3E (due to the OGL).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 8, 2011)

Another view to take is to be thankful that both 4e and PF exist, and that there is no _need_ for the Hatfields and the McCoys to join in a single game.

Go through the archives here, see how many threads that you can find about incompatible game styles.

Find posts of folks complaining about rules in 3.X _before_ 4e raised its ugly head above the horizon, and other folks claiming that those exact same rules are just fine, thank you very much.

Find posts arguing Gamist v. Simulationist and whether Forge is reshaping games or is just plain annoying.

Now both sides of many of these arguments, debates, trolls, and flame wars have games that fit them better. (Doesn't seem to have ended the debates though....)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mournblade94 (Aug 8, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> This one's been sitting around awhile, but it's still bugging me. I agree that the rules in play are the substance here, but presentation is important. If I read a scientific paper that draws meaningful conclusions from solid evidence, but which has grammatical errors, confusing charts, or an inappropriate tone, the latter points will probably define my opinion of that paper. Similarly, when I eat out, presentation greatly affects the experience of my meal and if I have a date, that person's appearance affects my opinion of them.




Absolutely.  Love the peer review reference!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> See references above - particularly the Heinsoo one.
> 
> And are you really saying that you see no resemblance between skill challenges and the action resolution mechanics in games like HeroQuest and Maelstrom Storytelling? Do you really not see a significant difference in the way that 4e treats campaign backstory, distributing it so liberally through the PC-build rules?



I'm saying I've seen plenty of quotes from the like of Mearls and Collins that fly in the face of your descriptions, and on a much more fundamental game design level.

I'm also saying that I've talked to plenty of 4E fans and your position is unique amongst those conversations.



> You don't need a gametheory post-doc to run a character and situation-based game. I did it as a teenager using 1st ed AD&D rules.



I'm not talking about playing, I'm talking about DMing.  If you want to say that you are no better at DMing now than you once were as a teenager, then who am I to argue?

It doesn't change the point either way.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 9, 2011)

It would seem to me that a few questions need to be answered before I think one could come to a rational conclusion about 5E uniting the DnD masses.

1. The first question is, "Do those who like 4E, feel as passionately about their dislike for 3E as the distaste many 3E/PF players show towards 4E?"

My personal perception is that many 3E/PF fans really don't like 4E at all and feel somewhat disenfranchised about the whole process.  My perception of 4E fans is that they don't hate 3E/PF, but prefer 4E.  If 4E didn't come along they would still be playing 3E.  I just never remember people saying passionately that 3E sucked.  More grumblings and complaints about it being broken at high levels, lost of prep time, etc.  Stuff that affected 3E gameplay, but nothing to quit playing DnD over.  Somehow 4E touched a nerve.

2.  What is the percentage of fans who don't like 4E due to non-game factors (use of DDI, failure to deliver on promised software at 4E roll out, cancelling old edition PDFs, company marketing tactics).

If that percentage is low, then I think a new edition could be a unifying force.  If not then people are more upset at company policy which can be difficult to overcome.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 9, 2011)

I think you have a couple of reasons why folks don't like 4E (or PF for that matter):
1.) Don't like the rules
2.) Don't like the fluff
3.) Don't like the presentation
4.) Don't like the company (decisions regarding multiple factors)

My personal biggest issue is #3, I would have seriously tried 4E if it made chewing through the rules enjoyable and inspiring, but that is a personal opinion. I chew through computer manuals because I have to, I chew through gamebooks because I want to.

3E had a multitude of faults, but you often played the game for a long while before they became evident (high level play and the long prep time at high levels). The multitude of crunch books is something 4E is catching up quickly, in a far smaller time frame, it's just missing a lot of 'fluff' (and what little there is of, is relatively uninspiring imho). PF solved a lot of the nagging issues and made the existing system more 'modern'.

I think the amount of folks that would 'leave' PF is far less then the folks that would balk at a 5E.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> My personal perception is that many 3E/PF fans really don't like 4E at all and feel somewhat disenfranchised about the whole process.  My perception of 4E fans is that they don't hate 3E/PF, but prefer 4E.  If 4E didn't come along they would still be playing 3E.  I just never remember people saying passionately that 3E sucked.  More grumblings and complaints about it being broken at high levels, lost of prep time, etc.  Stuff that affected 3E gameplay, but nothing to quit playing DnD over.  Somehow 4E touched a nerve.



I can only speak to my own opinion, but I think there is something you have missed, here.

It's quite true that I played some 3.X and had nothing against the system at that time (although D&D constituted only a small proportion of my RPG playing from around 1980 to 2008).  I am on record at the Hârn Forum "defending" 3.5 D&D as being a servicable Gamist system, which is to say the best of a fairly mediocre field, but not a system I would use for simulationist "dreaming play" or thematic "boot it into a story" play.

When 4E arrived, however, the situation changed.  4E is, for me, simply the best Gamist engine available.  In that respect, it blew 3.X out of the water in the one region where 3.5 had advantages that I couldn't find bettered in other systems.  Now, there is simply no water left for 3.5 to sail in, for me.  It has nothing that it does well enough to warrant my selecting it to play.  It's not that it is any worse than it was before, it's just that, for every style or "mode" of play, there is a system that I feel is superior enough to D&D 3.5 to make the choice a no-brainer.

A consequence of all this is that, if 5E turned out to be a really fine Simulationist engine, I might well consider it _*alongside*_ 4E (as a Gamist engine).  If it is a superior Gamist engine to 4E (which is old enough that I can see several possible improvements), I might switch to it.  In neither of these cases, however, do I think the "one system to please them all" aim will have been met in the slightest.  Nor, in fact, do I think it's possible for it to be met - but that's just an opinion.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 9, 2011)

if 5E came out tomorrow I would buy it....but we wouldnt quit playing our current campaign to start 5e.

At the end of the day, all I can speak for is myself, will they make most people happy? Nobody knows.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 9, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> My perception of 4E fans is that they don't hate 3E/PF, but prefer 4E.  If 4E didn't come along they would still be playing 3E.  I just never remember people saying passionately that 3E sucked.  More grumblings and complaints about it being broken at high levels, lost of prep time, etc.  Stuff that affected 3E gameplay, but nothing to quit playing DnD over.




I was ready to call it quits with 3E for a few months before 4E was announced. I was trying multiple avenues over the year before that to reduce what I thought was DM burnout and none of those worked. I had finally decided to tell my group that I was going to quit running anything. No one else wanted to run a 3E campaign. And at the time I couldn't find another game system that interested me and provided the adventure support I needed. It meant the end of our weekly Friday night game. For all I knew, forever. Then 4E was announced and struck a chord.

I did love 3E when it came out. I was near the front of the line in the dealers' hall at GenCon. And I enjoyed the game for 8 years. But, over time, I found 1 fundamental flaw in the system that affected the playability for my tastes. I like supplements. I like playing and allowing new races, classes, feats, etc. But the 3E multiclassing rules allowed the system masters in my group to create characters that were leaps and bounds away from those who did not have system mastery. The gap had become too wide for me to provide challenging encounters. I wasn't having fun anymore trying to find proper challenges. And either the system masters were bored because challenges were too easy or the others were frustrated because they were too hard. I know this wasn't an issue for all groups, but it was a huge issue for mine. There is still a gap now that we play 4E, but it is much smaller than before and I find myself still enjoying the game and bringing to it all the aspects that people claim are lacking from it.


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 9, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Dragon Age II (for example) and 4e are very similar in that while they both made controversial rules changes, they were both error-riddled products that lacked production value. In the D&D world, this is a significant reason that people left D&D for Pathfinder. PF has better-looking books with better-written text (though I don't like their art style much either).



I've never actually found Pathfinder all that well written.  It seems needlessly wordy though I think that is just a symptom of copying an existing rule set without improving readability. 


> Similarly, if WotC had  put out a completely different set of rules with the same artistic  design on their books (and the same amount of errata) I wouldn't have  bought them on that basis alone. The further away you get from realistic  art design, the more you've lost me.



Since when has fantasy art ever been realistic?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 9, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> I've never actually found Pathfinder all that well written.  It seems needlessly wordy though I think that is just a symptom of copying an existing rule set without improving readability.



I find they've (PF) created very readable rules text; explaining novel class abilities and covering a wide variety of applications without excess words. I'm not particularly familiar with the flavor text for either game, but reading some of the 4e preview books was a pretty bad experience for me. That said, it's a very subjective judgment I'm making. I feel safe in saying that my opinion is strongly represented in the rpg community, but feel free to start a discussion on writing style or art if you like (it would interest me obviously).

4e errata is a pretty well-discussed topic.



> Since when has fantasy art ever been realistic?



Never. That's the problem.

That said, there's been a gradual style shift over time towards less realistic body shape, more use of fantasy hair gel, and a more cartoonish/anime style in general. There's also the ongoing issues with overly sexualized depictions of female characters, which is (and has been many times) a thread unto itself. On the whole, I think this artistic style poorly represents the game and alienates many potential players. This is true of 4e and PF, as relative to 3.5, let alone earlier versions of the game or some other art that's out there. I would prefer game book art to move in the opposite direction: more real. Obviously, this is another opinion that may or may not be shared by the community at large.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> Even worse, there's no way for 4E fans to go, as no one can really adopt the 4E rules as they could with 3E (due to the OGL).



You could build a near-4E game using the OGL pretty easily, IMO. You start with D20 math and build upwards from there. There are plenty of OGL games with different multiclassing rules, for instance, or different systems of powers for characters.


----------



## broghammerj (Aug 9, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I can only speak to my own opinion, but I think there is something you have missed, here.
> 
> It's quite true that I played some 3.X and had nothing against the system at that time (although D&D constituted only a small proportion of my RPG playing from around 1980 to 2008).  I am on record at the Hârn Forum "defending" 3.5 D&D as being a servicable Gamist system, which is to say the best of a fairly mediocre field, but not a system I would use for simulationist "dreaming play" or thematic "boot it into a story" play.
> 
> ...





You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist.  It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that.  In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)

I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions.  I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force.  The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both.  Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.

This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me).  If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 9, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist.  It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that.  In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)
> 
> I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions.  I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force.  The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both.  Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.
> 
> This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me).  If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.




Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism. 

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 9, 2011)

heretic888 said:


> 3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.
> 
> 4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).



Is anybody, like me, waiting and hoping for Mearls to address this issue in his articles? He's discussed game balance, simplicity vs complexity, modularity, etc. but AFAIR, he's never touched upon this core concept of design intent.

I think that's like asking "Should we put a stop sign or yield sign here, how many municipal by-laws shall there be, etc." before we've pondered the ultimate goal of all these signs and by-laws.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2011)

heretic888 said:


> Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.
> 
> 3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.
> 
> ...




I am going to go ahead and disagree here...  

Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder  much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.  

On the other hand I would say 4e is a Gamist system which can be moded by the DM to be slightly narativist or slightly simulationist but doesn't through it's mechanics favor one or the other... all IMO of course.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist.  It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that.  In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)



Nothing wrong with figuring out what your tastes are.  I would say you should give all the 'agendas' a try, though; I find them all enjoyable, if you accept them for what they are (even though Nar is the one I really 'grok' the least).  "Roleplaying" is an appallingly slackly defined word; it's worth analysing just what it means _to you_, I think.  I see the word bandied about a lot with, quite evidently, a whole raft of diverse meanings.



broghammerj said:


> I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions.  I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force.  The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both.  Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.



I now find 3E, like the versions before it, a rather confused and "dilute" experience.  For a Simulationist-supporting system it supports Gamism moderately well; for a Gamist-supporting system it gives a reasonable nod towards Simulationism.  It's sort of neither one thing nor the other; if I want Sim play I'll choose HârnMaster, RQ3, Traveller or the old DragonQuest systems before 3E, but if I want Gamist play 4E is just so much better.



broghammerj said:


> This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me).  If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.



Yes, I think a lot of the rift is exactly this.  3.x is, perhaps, the only in-print (as PF) system that supports Simulationism at all in the "sub-genre" created by D&D worlds.  I find DragonQuest does it better, frankly, but that game is long OOP; such a shame.



heretic888 said:


> Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.



Yep, I agree with you.



broghammerj said:


> 3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.
> 
> 4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).



I hadn't thought specifically of the Nar link (despite some threads hereabouts), but I think that is a pretty insightful summary, actually.  4E is most obviously suited to Gamist play, but  Ican see that you could drift it to Nar pretty readily.



broghammerj said:


> I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.



No - 2E was pretty heavily Sim leaning - especially with the focus on world publications - and all the earlier systems were fairly incoherent about play agenda.  Even more so than 3E.  To be fair, they were made before anyone really had thought about such stuff.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> Is anybody, like me, waiting and hoping for Mearls to address this issue in his articles? He's discussed game balance, simplicity vs complexity, modularity, etc. but AFAIR, he's never touched upon this core concept of design intent.
> 
> I think that's like asking "Should we put a stop sign or yield sign here, how many municipal by-laws shall there be, etc." before we've pondered the ultimate goal of all these signs and by-laws.




I am very curious about this, and would in fact rather see his "dials" created in terms of adjusting D&D to a particular playstyle rather than the complexity level (or better yet, both if possible.).


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder  much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.



It depends what you compare it with; I think all D&D has been essentially Gamist-supporting, because of hit points, levels, experience points and the whole trope of "dungeoneering".

Sure, you can drift any D&D; you can generally spot a non-gamist focussed DM when they say "of course, we don't use experience points as written..."

Edit to add: I also think the task-resoltuion rather than conflict-resolution in D&D is Gamist-supporting rather than either Sim (where it's optional - arguably better to have aim-based resolution) and Nar (where conflict resolution is simply better).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2011)

heretic888 said:


> Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.
> 
> 3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.
> 
> 4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).



This ends up coming down to how you define your terms.

Bypassing that, I'm convinced that a game that is more kindred in spirit with 3E will appeal to a much larger base than a game that is more kindred in spirit with 4E.  That isn't to say that a 4E approach is anything approaching doomed or anything like that.  And it isn't to say that a "3Eish" game wouldn't lose a chunk of what 4E has now.  But the *prospective* fan footprint would be a lot better.

Though you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  I'm still convinced that 3E does a vastly better job of "doing 4E" than 4E does at "doing 3E".  But, obviously(!!), 4E is vastly better at 4E than 3E is.  So 4E fans who used to be ok with 3E are much less likely to accept a 3E style now.  And, a lot of 3E style fans are quite content for the time being.  So, unless a 3E style 5E was so stunningly awesome as to be overwhelming, it probably would have a hard time being any better than what they already have.

They have to play the hand they dealt themselves and the smart move, for now, is to STICK WITH 4E.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2011)

Balesir said:


> It depends what you compare it with; I think all D&D has been essentially Gamist-supporting, because of hit points, levels, experience points and the whole trope of "dungeoneering".




How do hit points, levels, experience points, etc. necessarily determine whether a game is Gamist vs. Simulationist, at least from the GNS definitions, I don't believe they do... they are just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game... perhaps it would be better if we had some definitions of Simulationist and Gamist to refer to...



GNS Theory said:


> *Gamist* refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity: in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in _Gamism, Step on Up_:
> I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include: "Eat me,"
> (upon winning) "I win,"
> and "C'mon, let's play without these morons."
> ...






GNS Theory said:


> *Simulationism* refers to a style of play where the main agenda is the recreation of, or inspiration by, the observed characteristics of a particular genre or set of source material. Physical reality might count as source material for these purposes, but so might superhero anthologies, or any other literary, cinematic or historical milieu. Its most frequent concerns are internal consistency, analysis or modeling of cause and effect, and informed speculation or even extrapolation to the point of satire. Often characterised by concern for the minutiae of physical interaction and details of setting, Simulationism shares with Narrativism a concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical.
> Simulation-inclined players are more likely to talk of their characters as if they were independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly. (For example, they may be particularly reluctant to have their character act on the basis of out-of-character information, and indisposed to tolerate such behaviour in others.) Basically similar to the distinction between actor and character within a film or play, this stems from the sense of objectivity that a Simulationist strives for. Character generation and the modelling of skill growth and proficiency can be very complex and highly detailed.
> Like Narrativists, Simulationists are highly intolerant of obvious railroading, but for different reasons- because it betrays the implied agreement that "internal cause is king". However, many Simulationist RPGs recommend "Illusionism" to create a story – in essence, the subtle manipulation of in-game probability and environmental data to funnel or nudge PCs toward predefined conclusions. For example, Call of Cthulhu's foremost concern is recreating the mood of brooding horror and cosmic insignificance of the Cthulhu Mythos, and makes heavy use of illusionism to craft grisly fates for the players' characters, thereby maintaining consistency with the source material.
> Much of the Simulationist aesthetic revolves around promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition, with the result that many Simulationist techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. Combat might be broken down into discrete, semi-randomised steps for modeling the input of attack skill, weapon weight, defence checks, armour, body parts and potential for critical damage, separately. That said, however, many Simulationist RPGs focus on the exploration of entirely different aspects of their source material, and may have no concern for realism at all. Toon, for example, is solely concerned with emulating cartoon hijinks. Others, such as GURPS and FUDGE, take a moderately realistic core system as their baseline, which can be extended or modified by optional sourcebooks or special rules.




IMO, 3e/PF seems to strongly support emphasize many of the charactersistics of simulationist play, such as...

1. Modeling of cause and effect (everyone shares the same rules, Str is for melee attks, Dex is for Rngd, etc.).

2. Characters that are independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly... a sense of objectivity that is strived for. (very few if any meta-game mechanics for players... or DM's)

3. Promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition. (There are worldbuilding rules in 3.x) 

4. Techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. (Again very little, if any, meta-game abilities for players and DM's)

5. A concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical. (PrC's with prerequisites)

Now most people will claim that D&D 3.x/PF isn't realistic in its simulationist play... but it doesn't have to be in order to be a simulationist system... 



GNS Theory said:


> ... many Simulationist RPGs focus on the exploration of entirely different aspects of their source material, and may have no concern for realism at all... Others, such as GURPS and FUDGE, take a moderately realistic core system as their baseline, which can be extended or modified by optional sourcebooks or special rules




I also feel that certain aspects of Gamist play just don't exist or aren't as well supported in PF/3.x as they are in 4e...

1. Strong emphasis on parity in character effectiveness (This is 4e's claim to fame)

2. A diversity in options for short-term problem solving (i.e., long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques). (powers for everybody definitely suppports this better than just spells for casters)

3. Randomisation (i.e., Fortune methods) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes. (AEDU structure, seems to support regularly risking higher or lower stakes on an attack roll.) 

4. Games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. (Until recently this was one of the top complaints of many/the majority of WotC adventures released) 



Balesir said:


> Sure, you can drift any D&D; you can generally spot a non-gamist focussed DM when they say "of course, we don't use experience points as written..."




But experience points,as they appear in 4e or 3.x/PF, don't have anything to do with Gamist play since they don't push for Gamist play unless the PC's are aware of them in-game somehow... or if they are divided up dependant upon one's contributions to an encounter as opposed to everyone involved in the encounter receiving the same amount for participating no matter what their particular contribution is... In other words they don't push you to win, only to participate. Of course this was a different case in certain older editions. 

If anything I would say the main Gamist push in all editions of D&D comes from the possibility of death/TPK in an encounter... through this the rules set up a win/loose condition which pushes Gamist play where the PC is trying to "win" by surviving.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 9, 2011)

I wish there existed an actual number of new people to d&D because of 4e vs people that left because of 4e.

That sort of number would be impossible to find, and people on this any many other boards can speculate as to what those figures would be, but the truth is, not even the marketing guys at hasbro know the actual exact figure.


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 9, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I find they've (PF) created very readable rules text; explaining novel class abilities and covering a wide variety of applications without excess words. I'm not particularly familiar with the flavor text for either game, but reading some of the 4e preview books was a pretty bad experience for me. That said, it's a very subjective judgment I'm making. I feel safe in saying that my opinion is strongly represented in the rpg community, but feel free to start a discussion on writing style or art if you like (it would interest me obviously).



Its not really about writing style though.  Its primairly formatting.  I went from 4E to 3E and there seemed to be a drastic jump in how they actually went about communicating information like powers.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 9, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I wish there existed an actual number of new people to d&D because of 4e vs people that left because of 4e.
> 
> That sort of number would be impossible to find, and people on this any many other boards can speculate as to what those figures would be, but the truth is, not even the marketing guys at hasbro know the actual exact figure.



I suspect that the number is lower than at the peak of 3.X, but greater than at the tail of 3.X. That 4e probably did bring in new people, while Pathfinder reawakened interest in the 3.X architecture.

I consider Pathfinder to _be_ D&D for most intents and purposes..

Another, semi-related question might be 'how many people would drop Pathfinder if it were bought and published by WotC, with the current level of support?' (Perhaps under the title Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder.)

Are folks leaving 4e or are they leaving WotC? I suspect that for many old timers it is the latter....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> How do hit points, levels, experience points, etc. necessarily determine whether a game is Gamist vs. Simulationist, at least from the GNS definitions, I don't believe they do...



Of corse they don't - the (published) system used never _determines_ what agenda is in play; Edwards talks rather about *supporting* specific agendas.  My belief is that D&D has always supported a Gamist agenda best, even though many aspects of the system have been conflicted and even incoherent at times.



Imaro said:


> they are just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game... perhaps it would be better if we had some definitions of Simulationist and Gamist to refer to...



All RPG systems are, to some extent, "just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game".  To support Simulationist the rules simply have to do this without unduly encouraging player competitive skill use or thematic input and thus encourage a focus on "stepping up" or "theme addressing".  I think all editions of D&D _do_ encourage "stepping up", because:

a) The trope of "Adventuring" assumes that the PCs will engage in deracinated conflict activity with more-or-less arbitrary goals in order to "progress" (i.e. get more powerful and capable of killing stuff).

b) The rules for combat, exploration and damage involve player skills (resource management, such as hit points, memorised spells, magic item uses, tactics such as flanking in 3E and weapon selection in all editions, etc.)

c) There are rewards that are clear to the *players* for winning encounters - treasure and experience points.  These don't have to be unevenly split - mechanically supported inter-player rivalry in the same group is a hard-core Gamist option, not an absolute requirement for all Gamism.



Imaro said:


> IMO, 3e/PF seems to strongly support emphasize many of the charactersistics of simulationist play, such as...
> 
> 1. Modeling of cause and effect (everyone shares the same rules, Str is for melee attks, Dex is for Rngd, etc.).



It's certainly clear that 3E/PF has more simulationist-supporting elements than 4E, but 'continuity' is a requirement for all roleplaying, not just Sim.  3E/PF certainly make more attempt to "model the game world" as a focus with some priority than 4E does - but compared to games like HârnMaster or Pendragon it's pretty weak fare, I think.



Imaro said:


> 2. Characters that are independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly... a sense of objectivity that is strived for. (very few if any meta-game mechanics for players... or DM's)



The older editions talk a good line, here, but don't really deliver.  What mechanical aspects really have bite, here?

For Gamist play I don't see meta-game mechanics as required at all - it is, after all, all about the game.  Burning Wheel seems more like the benchmark for this - or Pendragon, again.  Or even Call of Cthulhu.



Imaro said:


> 3. Promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition. (There are worldbuilding rules in 3.x)



But in a universe that somehow accommodates "adventurers" that become as powerful as small armies without having the political system fall apart.  Again, I think earlier editions talk the talk for this, but ultimately fail if put under any stress at all; either the PCs are the only uber-powerful characters (in which case who do they fight, and what happens if they decide the 'powers that be' need to be subject to 'regime change'?) or they are not (in which case, why the heck isn't the ruling class exclusively composed of "adventurers" and thus utterly unlike any "medieval" model?).

It's clearly partly a matter of personal aesthetics, but I have, in times past, tried quite hard to make D&D work for me in this respect - with no success.



Imaro said:


> 4. Techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. (Again very little, if any, meta-game abilities for players and DM's)



Huh??  The players determine the actions of their characters, using tactics and resource management in doing so.  "Meta-game mechanics" are not required - just ways for player skill or daring to make a difference (even if the main skill in use is blagging the DM to let you get away with something not specifically covered by the rules - IME a common "skill application" in older editions).

Actually, player and DM ability to "trump" the normal systems for "story" reasons or "character play" reasons are distinctly anti-gamism.  I don't actually think they are the best way to approach supporting Narrativism or Sim, either, but they are at least "admissible" there.



Imaro said:


> 5. A concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical. (PrC's with prerequisites)



Prerequisites are a model of motivations and personality rather than a way to demonstrate system mastery to get the "best" ones?  Yeah, well, I guess you could view them that way.  I have never seen them actually _used_ that way, though.



Imaro said:


> Now most people will claim that D&D 3.x/PF isn't realistic in its simulationist play... but it doesn't have to be in order to be a simulationist system...



Oh, agreed.  The "non-realism" is really nothing to do with why I think D&D is Simulationist-supporting; I think it isn't Simulationist supporting because its system elemets encourage another play agenda and it doesn't, out of the box, model a coherent world setting.



Imaro said:


> I also feel that certain aspects of Gamist play just don't exist or aren't as well supported in PF/3.x as they are in 4e...



4E is much better as a gamist supporting system than 3E - I agree completely.



Imaro said:


> But experience points,as they appear in 4e or 3.x/PF, don't have anything to do with Gamist play since they don't push for Gamist play unless the PC's are aware of them in-game somehow...



Gamist play isn't done by the characters - it's done by the players.  The players are thus the only ones that need to be aware of the incentives towards Gamist focus.



Imaro said:


> or if they are divided up dependant upon one's contributions to an encounter as opposed to everyone involved in the encounter receiving the same amount for participating no matter what their particular contribution is... In other words they don't push you to win, only to participate. Of course this was a different case in certain older editions.



They push you to "step on up" to adventures and encounters and beat them.  Inter-player rivalry is hard-core gamism, but not a requisite for "soft gamist" play.  If you choose for your character to go into business as a storekeeper, you don't get xp, so you don't get levels, so you don't get cool stuff.  Sounds like incentive to "step on up" to the in-game challenges, to me.



Imaro said:


> If anything I would say the main Gamist push in all editions of D&D comes from the possibility of death/TPK in an encounter... through this the rules set up a win/loose condition which pushes Gamist play where the PC is trying to "win" by surviving.



Survive and gain levels, sure.  And get phat loot.  How many D&D gamers have you listened to expounding (at enormous length, perhaps) about their unfeasibly-high-level character?  Or about the named-because-they-are-super-hard monsters they have "killed"?  And did this start with 4E?

I think what you are seeing is the shades around the edges.  When I compare D&D in any edition with games really designed to support Simulationist or Narrativist play, I can see shadows of such support in D&D, but it's all just flitting around a solid core that has always been fundamentally Gamist supporting and incentivising, as I see it.


----------



## Peter FdH (Aug 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Are folks leaving 4e or are they leaving WotC? I suspect that for many old timers it is the latter....




Exactly.  Having played one 4e campaign (the horrible Keep on the Shadowfell and its 2 successors) I personally concluded that the 4e system was great but that much of the support material was very poor.  Most players in my group, however, had decided before even creating PCs that they hated the system.

Along with some dire modules, WotC have alienated the community by not releasing on-line tools that they said they would and changed the successful character builder to the on-line version that drops a lot of the functionality that the community liked.  Their paranoia around letting anyone else near copyrighted material has strangled third party support and community input.  Finally, you have a confusing marketing strategy that has resulted in a core 4e release, an essentials 4e release and a red box release.

I could go on but I think that it's Wizards and not 4e where the problem lies.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder  much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.




Ehhhh.... I dunno. I have a hard time with any game system making use of Character Classes, Character Levels, Armor Class, Hit Points, and Vancian Spellcasting claiming itself to be "Simulationist" at its core. Exactly which "gameworld physics" are all these elements supposed to "simulate"??

However, I suppose its an argument of degree, rather than kind. Gamist With Simulationist Trappings vs Simulationist With Gamist Trappings really amounts to about the same thing, at the end of the day.

That said, I have a really _hard_ time seeing 3.5 (I dunno about Pathfinder never played it) doing anything remotely Narrativist without some serious heavy-duty house rules. The rather rigid linking of Mechanics and Narration/Fluff makes this a difficult undertaking, IMO.



Imaro said:


> On the other hand I would say 4e is a Gamist system which can be moded by the DM to be slightly narativist or slightly simulationist but doesn't through it's mechanics favor one or the other... all IMO of course.




I can only speak from my own experiences, but I find running 4E naturally lends itself to a quasi-Narrativist orientation with very little "modding" or "hacking" on the part of anybody.

A lot of the basis doesn't come from the rules in and of themselves, but how they interact in synergistic ways. This is related to how easy it is to create or customize challenges on the fly in 4E as well as the extreme ease of adjudicating improvised actions via Rule 42. I also find that Terrain Powers, a large supply of Encounter and Daily Powers, Action Points, the abstract nature of Hit Points/Healing Surges, Skill Challenges, and the very soft link between Mechanics and Narration//Fluff all lend themselves to ample opportunities for the players to take narrative control of a scene with their characters, as well as creative opportunity for "filling in the blanks" as far as narration and scene framing goes.

So, I guess you could say 4E is more like a Gamist System With Emergent Narrativism. It just creeps up on you after awhile. ;-)

(... also, the 4E DMG2 _blatantly_ promotes Narrativist play via cooperative world-building and scene framing.)


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2011)

Peter FdH said:


> I could go on but I think that it's Wizards and not 4e where the problem lies.



I can't speak to WotC's problems.  But for a great number of people it *is* the system.

It may be that the two are compounding each other.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 10, 2011)

Peter FdH said:


> Exactly.  Having played one 4e campaign (the horrible Keep on the Shadowfell and its 2 successors) I personally concluded that the 4e system was great but that much of the support material was very poor.  Most players in my group, however, had decided before even creating PCs that they hated the system.



 One of the nicest things that I ever heard about 4e was actually about the adventure path that they were running - War of the Burning Sky. 

In my estimation WotC adventure support has not been that good, even under 3.X. Though I know one huge fan of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

The Auld Grump


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> In my estimation WotC adventure support has not been that good, even under 3.X.



Actually, that is a very good point.  WotC's adventures took a lot of flak during the 3E era as well.  So that isn't a point of difference here.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

@Balesir : I want to address the rest of your post whnen I get a chance but I saw these statements and thought this might be the crux of some of our failure to communicate, as well as why I provided the definitions I did...



Balesir said:


> But in a universe that somehow accommodates "adventurers" that become as powerful as small armies without having the political system fall apart. Again, I think earlier editions talk the talk for this, but ultimately fail if put under any stress at all; either the PCs are the only uber-powerful characters (in which case who do they fight, and what happens if they decide the 'powers that be' need to be subject to 'regime change'?) or they are not (in which case, why the heck isn't the ruling class exclusively composed of "adventurers" and thus utterly unlike any "medieval" model?).




Please re-read the definitions I provided... Simulationist agenda in no way requires realism, they are two different things and this, IMO, is where most people get coinfused.



Balesir said:


> It's clearly partly a matter of personal aesthetics, but I have, in times past, tried quite hard to make D&D work for me in this respect - with no success.




IMO, it seems you want D&D 3.5 to be realistic... not that you were in fact trying to get a simulationist agenda in play from it. At least that's what I get from the above post... I mean Toon is cited as a game with a simulationist agenda... it's not realistic though.

EDIT: I find your first post above akin to asking why doesn't Elric of Melnibone the greatest sorcerer of his age rule the Young Kingdoms as opposed to having adventures... or better yet why do people as skilled as Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser involve themselves in petty larceny... or maybe even why don't Tolkien's super elves subjigate mankind... and so on. The adventurers of extreme power who adventure when they could (and some do such as Conan) become rulers, tyrants, demi-gods, etc. is a trope of Sword and Sorcery fiction as well as some High Fantasy.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> As to your second paragraph, again we disagree... with it's emphasis on balanced encounters & magic items, mechanically defined conditions & powers, etc. As well as it's focus on the encounter as the building blocks of a session of play I find 4e more firmly in the camp of Gamism as defined by the Forge than any type of Narrativism... especially concerning mechanics and what they push for. Overcoming the challenge of the encounter seems to be the focus in default play of D&D 4e.



Overcoming challenges, though, isn't definitive of gamism in the Forge sense. After all, the aim of playin Burning Wheel is to overcome obstacles, and BW is pretty clearly a narrativist vehicle.

The issue with 4e is whether your play group, in overcoming the challenges, celebrates the clever play that achieved it (this would be gamism, and [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted a lot about playing 4e in this fashion) or enjoys the story/theme that is expressed thereby (I post a lot about playing 4e in this other fashion).

I think 4e is limited in its support for really hardcore gamist play because (i) if you play it in this fashion then build can become overwhelmingly important, but build is pre-play rather than play, and (ii) in play, at least in my experience, it is not all that hard for the PCs to win. So it is the _manner_ of winning that brings the interesting stuff with it. I would think that 4e gamist play would be more about showing of a "cool move" in a given context, rather than being the one to save the party from what was otherwise going to be certain death. (But [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] should feel free to correct me on this - I'm theorycrafting, not basing this on serious gamist play with 4e.)



Imaro said:


> Simulationism vs. Gamism. 3E's focus was on taking how something in the game world should/might/would work, and then finding a mechanic to simulate it... 4e's focus was on creating mechanics that would be balanced and fun on the game side of things and then either vaguely justifying the mechanic with light fluff or leaving it up to the people playing the game to justify said mechanic's fluff side.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I definitely think they took a *Gamist* approach from indie games because they wanted the game to be fun thus gameplay, in a mechanical sense, became the priority.



Mechanics that are "fun" on the game side are not, in my view, particularly indicative of any orientation in play. They're just indicative of smooth design.

Gamism, in the Forge sense at least, has nothing to do with "playing a game". It has to do with playing a game competitively.

The fact that 4e has more _metagame_ mechanics, that don't bring their own modelling of the fiction along with them, is a different matter. I think Ron Edwards is right when he notes that metagame mechanics can serve both gamist and narrativist agendas well, and that in several respects (including this one) narrativism and gamism have more in common with one another than either does with simulationism:

Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things: 

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.​


Imaro said:


> Incompetency with general adventure design... yes. As far as 4e and it's default playstyle... I would say no. Their adventures are very much based around overcoming the encounter with your cool bits.



Except they have a tendency towards boring encounters. Maybe I'm looking at too narrow a sample - but Thunderspire Labyrinth, for example, has cool circular paths in both The Chamber of Eyes and The Well of Demons, but as written no encounters exploits those paths. I had to rework the encounters pretty substantially to actually get the value that was there in the maps.



Imaro said:


> Ultimately I think that 4e and 3.5/PF support Narrativism to the same extent in that they basically leave it up to the individual DM and players to interject or not interject this as an important part of their particular game



Well this I disagree with very strongly. 3E is laden with simulationist action resolution mechanics, and with somewhat simulationist NPC and encounter-building mechanics. All of which are potential obstacles to narrativist play, for the reasons indicated in the quote from Edwards above.

I've got no doubt that someone could play vanilla narrativist 3E. But I think it would be moderately hard work, and I think some drifting would be required. You'd probably want to tweak the XP system. You'd probably want to tweak the demographic rules, the monster design rules and the encounter-building guidelines. You'd probably want to look at the treasure distribution rules, and reduce the connection between treasure and monsters. You'd probably also want to reduce the simulationist orientation of the PC build rules. And you'd have to work out how to get conflict resolution out of a task-focused skill system (4e does this via skill challenges; BW does it via "Let It Ride"; 3E has no built-in mechanism for this).

I'm sure there's other stuff that would get in the way too, but these are the main ones that occur to me.



broghammerj said:


> My personal perception is that many 3E/PF fans really don't like 4E at all and feel somewhat disenfranchised about the whole process.  My perception of 4E fans is that they don't hate 3E/PF, but prefer 4E.  If 4E didn't come along they would still be playing 3E.



I didn't play 3E to any significant extent. I play 4e because it is different from 3E. If I wanted to play a simulationist game, or to drift a simulationist engine to narrativism, I would use RM or HARP.



heretic888 said:


> 3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.
> 
> 4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).
> 
> I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.





Balesir said:


> 4E is most obviously suited to Gamist play, but  Ican see that you could drift it to Nar pretty readily.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 2E was pretty heavily Sim leaning - especially with the focus on world publications - and all the earlier systems were fairly incoherent about play agenda.



2E seems to aim at high-concept simulationist play, but unlike eg CoC or Pendragon has crappy mechanics for supporting it, and therefore produces (at least in my experience) railroady adventures and encouragement to the GM to "suspend the action resolution rules" (ie what I tend to think of as cheating) in the interests of the story. I see it as the edition of dysfunctional GM force.

Gygax's AD&D seems to me aimed at exploration-heavy gamist play, with a lot of the action resolution to be handled by negotiation at the table, or by ad hoc mechanical systems, rather than via settled mechanics. The idea of the "skilled player", who is lauded in Gygax's PHB and DMG, seems to be someone who is good at "winning" in this sort of play (contrast this with Tunnels and Trolls, for example, where luck is so important - part of the idea of AD&D, and it's preference for negotiation over dice in many circumstances, seems to be to remove the importance of luck - it's an ongoing debate whether, in luck's place, it gives us gaming the GM!).

As for drifting 4e to narrativism, it's trivial. All I had to do to get my current game going was to tell the players (i) build PCs that are legal by mechanics and backstory of the PHB, (ii) give your PC a loyalty to someone/something, and (iii) give your PC a reason to be ready to fight goblins. Once these PCs have been built, the sytem - in terms of its PC build mechanics, its encounter build mechanics, its monsters (both mechanical design, and integration into the thematic conflicts that are inherent in the default backstory), its action resolution - makes it completely straightforward to run a situation-and-character focused narrativist game. The prevelance of metagame mechanics, and the tight scene framing that the action resolution mechanics support, stops sim/exploration taking over. And the fact that building for theme also means building for mechanical viability, _plus_ the fact (in my experience) that the action resolution mechanics are very forgiving of diverse approaches to resolving encounters (both on the players' and the GM's part), means that gamism doesn't take over either.



BryonD said:


> I'm not talking about playing, I'm talking about DMing.  If you want to say that you are no better at DMing now than you once were as a teenager, then who am I to argue?



I think I'm a better GM now than I was then. But if I tried to run a simulationist game now I'd be better than I was then. I don't think there's anything peculiarly difficult about running a non-simulationist, or non-Gygaxian game. In fact, when I was a teenager I couldn't run a Gygaxian/Pulsepharian game, although I tried, but I could run a vanilla narrativist game.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I'm convinced that a game that is more kindred in spirit with 3E will appeal to a much larger base than a game that is more kindred in spirit with 4E.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm still convinced that 3E does a vastly better job of "doing 4E" than 4E does at "doing 3E".



The first quoted sentence I have no independent view on, nor independent evidence for - all I can go on is the vibe I get from ENworld. That vibe suggests that "larger" at least is warranted. (And maybe "larger" vs "much larger" is just a quibble.)

With the second sentence, again I'll quibble on the "vastly" but do think that 3E could be drifted to narrativism more easily than 4e to simulationism _or_ to Gygaxian exploration-heavy gamism. I don't think the drifting of 3E would be completely trivial, though, for the reasons given in my post above this one.



Imaro said:


> How do hit points, levels, experience points, etc. necessarily determine whether a game is Gamist vs. Simulationist, at least from the GNS definitions, I don't believe they do... they are just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game.



But what do hit points model in the game? This came up in a couple of recent threads - "In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics", and "Unhealable injuries".

Consider a player whose PC has 50 hp left. The player knows that no archer (other, perhaps, than Apollo or his peers) can kill her PC with a single arrow. Indeed, half-a-dozen members of the town guard could let loose with their crossbows and the PC would be fine, and able to run away unhindered. The player also know that her PC can jump over a 50' cliff with no fear of death, and no trouble picking herself up at the bottom and walking or running away.

What does this knowledge, which the _player_ has in virtue of how hit points interact with the action resolution mechanics, correspond to _in the gameworld_? Nothing that I can see. In practice, as far as I can tell, most sim-oriented D&D players treat hit points de facto as "meat", even though many editions of the game have contained text saying that they're not only meat but also luck, skill etc.

My personal view is that Gygax was right in his DMG when he said the idea that a high-level fighter is as "meaty" as a dragon is ridiculous. (For games where hit points really _are_ meat, but which deal with the issue of falling, being shot by a crossbow, etc, in a way that works with this rather than against it, see Rolemaster, or Runequest, or HARP, or . . .)

But the notion that hit points just reflect skill is equally untenable, because that doesn't fit with falling damage, surviving area attacks, etc. The only way I can make sense of D&D hit points is as a metagame mechanic. (4e is the first version of the game to make this explicit.)



heretic888 said:


> That said, I have a really _hard_ time seeing 3.5 (I dunno about Pathfinder never played it) doing anything remotely Narrativist without some serious heavy-duty house rules. The rather rigid linking of Mechanics and Narration/Fluff makes this a difficult undertaking, IMO.



Agreed.



heretic888 said:


> I can only speak from my own experiences, but I find running 4E naturally lends itself to a quasi-Narrativist orientation with very little "modding" or "hacking" on the part of anybody.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess you could say 4E is more like a Gamist System With Emergent Narrativism. It just creeps up on you after awhile.



Yep. In my case, I was interested in 4e initially because I enjoy RPGs and liked to keep up with the news. And as the previews came out it seemed like 4e would be a system that could support narrativist play fairly well. And for me, Worlds and Monsters was the clincher. When I eventually bought the books with the intention of running it, it was narrativist play that I was aiming for.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 10, 2011)

For anyone who is interested, here is my take on 4e as a narrativist-supporting system (there is some extensive cross-posting here from posts 262, 278 and 290 on the "Is D&D about combat?" thread).

[sblock]
*4e and roleplaying*

First, here's a brief take on what I think of as roleplaying. It's from a blog post that LostSoul drew my attention to, and that I see something new and worthwhile in nearly every time I look over it:

One type of player role is when the game requires a player to be an advocate for a single player character . . . When a player is an advocate for a character in a roleplaying game, this means that his task in playing the game is to express his character’s personality, interests and agenda for the benefit of himself and other players. This means that the player tells the others what his character does, thinks and feels, and he’s doing his job well if the picture he paints of the character is clear and powerful, easy to relate to.​
I'm sure that this doesn't exhaust what "roleplaying" might mean for a player in an RPG, but I think it captures a good chunk of what is going on in a lot of games, both mainstream and more avant garde.

Now look at the discussion in the 4e DMG on quests - how a GM designs quests, the importance of player-initiated quests, etc. Here're some sample passages, from pages 102-3:

Quests are the fundamental story framework of an adventure - the reason the characters want to participate in it. They’re the reason an adventure exists, and they indicate what the characters need to do to solve the situation the adventure presents. . .

Quests should focus on the story reasons for adventuring, not on the underlying basic actions of the game - killing monsters and acquiring treasure. "Defeat ten encounters of your level" isn’t a quest. It's a recipe for advancing a level. Completing it is its own reward. "Make Harrows Pass safe for travelers" is a quest, even if the easiest way to accomplish it happens to be defeating ten encounters of the characters' level. This quest is a story-based goal, and one that has at least the possibility of solution by other means.​
I'll agree that that's not quite Burning Wheel, but I see 4e as a little "abashed" in its presentation of what the designers' seem to have had in mind.

This on page 103 of the DMG helps build up the picture, though:

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​
And I think the intention is further suggested by this, from page 258 of the PHB:

Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your
allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.

Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . .

You can also, with your DM's approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character's background. . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign's unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.

When you complete quests, you earn rewards, including experience points, treasure, and possibly other kinds of rewards.​
The DMG, on page 122, suggests what these other kinds of rewards might be:

[Q]uests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.​
There is also this, on pages 18 and 24 of the PHB:

The Dungeons & Dragons game is, first and foremost, a roleplaying game, which means that it’s all about taking on the role of a character in the game. . .

Your character’s background often stays there - in the background. What’s most important about your character is what you do in the course of your adventures, not what happened to you in the past. Even so, thinking about your birthplace, family, and upbringing can help you decide how to play your character.​
How this stuff about character design is meant to fit into the stuff on quests isn't made entirely clear - again, we're not looking at Burning Wheel here - but the picture I get is that the designers envisage PCs who have a place in the fiction - of which backstory is an element but not the most important element - and that the players and GM work together to conceive of quests (ie adventures) that build on and develop this place in the fiction. (That is what the "other kinds of rewards" seem to be about.) And the players engage these quests via advocacy for their PCs.

So anyway, that's what I see as 4e's take on roleplaying, and how the GM and players are meant to work together to bring it about.


*Combat, roleplaying and fiction*

Combat in 4e is a means to the end of roleplaying - part of the "recipe for advancing a level" - but isn't what the game is presented as being about, at least in the passages I've quoted.

But if all decisions in a combat become about tactics, instead of advocating for a particular persona, then roleplaying in my preferred sense has dropped away. The players have instead become some sort of hive-mind, in which a given player's PC just happens to be the game pieces over which that player has pre-eminent control.

Now in a certain sort of game (eg Tunnels & Trolls or D&D played in their most simplistic mode) then a certain degree of advocacy might remain in such a situation - because the player will want to keep his/her PC alive (otherwise s/he has to drop out of the game, at least temporarily) and PCs in simplistic T&T and D&D don't really have personalities beyoned the desires to live, to kill and to loot. So staying alive by killing the monsters _is_ advocating for the first two of these elements of the PC. (The problems in actual play caused by the third of these - the desire to loot - are illustrated by the need, in Gygax's PHB, for an explicit set of guidelines on handling treasure distribution among surviving PCs.)

But once PCs have more complex personalities and backstories than the loss of advocacy during combat lurks as a threat to roleplaying. (In saying it's a threat, I'm assuming that the players want to play an RPG. If they really want a tactical skirmish game linked by improv drama - to borrow some evocative phrasing from Justin Alexander - then there is no problem.)

In my experience (for what it's worth - I'm just one guy GMing a handful of players), keeping character advocacy alive in combat, once PCs become more complex, is achieved by making the stakes of combat overwhelmingly salient to the interests of the PCs in question, _and in such a fashion_ that they are overwhelmingly salient to the players as well. So the players, in pursuing what is salient to them, will find themselves advocating for their PCs.

This is achieved in a few ways. First, the players have to actually be _interested_ in playing their PCs. This is more tricky than it sounds, because it's not unheard of for a player to conceive of an interesting PC on paper, but have no interest in actually playing that PC at the table. (I have had such players in my group - in practice, they tend to have little impact on the group or the game, sitting around doing little until the dice start rolling, at which point they make the relevant tactical contributions before sitting back again to watch others actually play the game.)

In addition to these players, though, are those who _want_ to play their PC but have been burned by past experiences - of GMs punishing them for it (eg paladins being stripped of their paladinhood) or stomping on it (eg GMs railroading over the top of PC-initiated "sidequests" - I use inverted commas because I feel the very notion of a sidequest makes sense only in the context of a GM-dominated railroad).

To encourage these players to actually play their PCs, the GM needs to set up situations, and then follow them through, in a way that actually illustrates to these players, and assure them, that playing their PCs won't cost them (in XP, in kudos, in respect at the table, in interesting things to do) but will reward them.

And combat can be a part of this as much as anything. Drop so-called "filler" combats. Make every combat encounter speak to one or more of the PCs directly. And then set it up so that _the players_ have a reason to play out their PCs' interests and concerns. You want an alignment between the PC build and backstory, the thematic/story concern of the _player_ in putting together that PC, the build of the encounter by me as GM, and the way players and GM together resolve the encounter. 

I think 4e works well for this because (at least in my experience) it is pretty forgiving of a wide range of tactical choices made in the course of play. (I know that some others think that tactically highly optimised play is essential for PC survival, but I haven't seen that.) Also, in 4e if you build a character that expresses your thematic concerns as a player, you can be reasonably confident that if you play that character in a way that expresses those concerns (ie you advocate for your PC) this won't lead to any sacrifice of tactical "oomph".

It's also true that 4e, with its many non-simulationist mechanics, is vulnerable to being played as a pure skirmish game, because its lack of simulationism makes it much easier to drift its action resolution in a direction where the fiction doesn't matter. I think how 4e combat is experienced, in this respect, may depend whether, for any given group, the stuff that is drawn on the battlemap is first and foremost fictional stuff - trees, rubble, fog, walls with doors and windows, etc - or first and foremost mechanical stuff - cover, difficult terrain, obscuring terrain etc. Perhaps in part because my maps are fairly sketchy and my group uses board game tokens rather than miniatures or even WotC's picture tokens, I think that the fictional stuff prevails. And this is reinforced by the resolution of interactions that are not just manipulating the map, but involve the fiction affecting the mechanical resolution - like climbing walls, overturning furniture, opening or closing doors and shutters, etc.

Furthermore, as 4e is written, fiction does matter straightforwardly to resolution in ways that are independent of the battlemap. The rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on. So here we have constraints generated by the fiction affecting the mechanics, not just a self-referential mechanical system with any fiction as optional colour.


*Narrativist 4e*

So far, I've talked about roleplaying in 4e - the players engaging the fiction via advocacy for their PCs - and how combat can be a vehicle for that. But how does the narrativism fit in?

Here's a bit more from From Eero Tuovinen's blog:

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . .

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. . . 

The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. . . 

The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. . .

The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. . .

The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).​
And here's a quote from Paul Czege:

My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details . . . of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . .  I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . .  I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And . . . the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​
For me, these give a good account of situation-and-character driven narrativist play. In particular, they explain what is needed  - namely:

(i) character build rules that will locate the PC in a situation of potential conflict that is thematically engaging;

(ii) scene framing rules/guidelines that give the GM the flexibility to force the issue; and

(iii) action resolution rules that

(a) let the players engage the conflict (via their PCs),

(b) let the GM keep injecting conflict/complication as the scene resolves, 

(b) leave the outcome to be determined by how all this pans out in actual play (no railroading/fudging/cheating/predetermination of the resolution), and 

(c) that _bring the scene to a close_.​
Because (iii) can lead to suprising outcomes, it is also helpful to have guidelines and materials to enable (ii) to take place even if it wasn't known, in advance, what exactly would be required. Also, the reason that the italicised part of (iii) is important is because if the scene lingers on once the interesting stuff has happened, this gets in the way of starting again at (ii).

I find that 4e has a lot of features that help with (i) to (iii) above: a focus on the encounter as the unit of play; robust action resolution mechanics with a strong metagame component; and a lightly sketched but thematically rich default setting.

For example, the GM has a fairly robust toolkit for building engaging challenges - both guidelines (these are better developed for combat than for skill challenges, but I come to 4e skill challenges with at least a passing knowledge of how skill challenge-style mechanics work in other games like HeroWars/Quest) and story elements (again a richer selection for combat than non-combat, but there are plenty of interesting noncombat ideas in the 4e books - as well as a range of mechanical elements that might be included in a skill challenge, Worlds and Monsters has good stuff on how different story elements can contribute to the game).

And once the GM has built these challenges, 4e's action resolution mechanics are heavily focused on the "situation" (the scene, the challenge) as the focus of play. This is expressed in the skill challenge mechanics, which emphasise "the goal of the challenge and [the] obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal" (DMG p 72) and also emphasise "describing the situation and . . . [then] narrating the results" of the players' skill checks (DMG p 74). There is little focus, here, on conceiving of the situation in terms of its outgrowth from "the physics of the gameworld". The focus is on what the players do, via their PCs, to engage the scene and resolve the conflict (achieve the goal) that inheres in it. (Even where this is not spelled out, it is implicit in comments like the advice in the DMG to "fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren’t fun" (p 105).)

In the case of combat, there is also an emphasis on the situation as framed or constructed rather than extrapolated, although in the DMG this is more about _tactical_ matters than _thematic matters_ (Worlds and Monsters is more useful here, in my view). 4e's metagame approach to monster and NPC design (solos, elites, minions, etc - indeed, arguably, its treatment of the whole matter of "levels" as a metagame device rather than an ingame matter) facilitates this. 

And whereas some people seem to think that success in 4e combat depends on highly optimised play - such that gamist considerations about being successful start to crowd out other considerations - as I said above I haven't had this experience at all. I find that - unlike other fantasy mainstream fantasy RPGs I've played - AD&D, RQ, RM - 4e is very forgiving of a wide range of player decision-making during the course of combat (eg where to move, who to heal, who to attack, how to attack them, etc), which means that combat provides a fertile ground for players to express their own thematic points.

And whether in or out of combat, the metagame character of 4e's action resolution mechanics - which a lot of the time lend themselves to being treated as setting parameters on narration, rather than dicatating what is happening in the fiction without the need for interpretation/narration - allow players and GM to narrate what is happening in a scene in a way that drives the story in the direction they want to push it.

A simple example of this point about metagame mechanics: in a recent session an NPC cast Baleful Polymorph on the PC paladin of the Raven Queen, turning him into a frog. As per the NPC's stat block, after a round had passed I told the player of the PC that his paladin had turned back to his normal form. The paladin's turn came up next, and his player had him charge the NPC spellcaster. Speaking for the NPC, I said something like "I'm not scared of you - I already turned you into a frog!" And without missing a beat, the player of the paladin replied, in character "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back". That is, the player treated the polymorph mechanic as a metagame mechanic, and then narrated the result - namely, that his PC is no longer a frog - in a way that further developed his PC's relationship to his god, and his reliance upon his god to see him through in every situation. There wouldn't be the same scope for this if it was just assumed that, because _at the mechanical level the polymorph has to come to an end after one round_, so _in the gameworld_ the polymorph would come to an end after 6 seconds _regardless_ of the Raven Queen's relationship to her paladin.

In both non-combat and combat contexts there is fairly robust guidance as to suitable DCs, damage numbers etc to use. (This is a bit like the sort of guidance HeroQuest/Wars gives in its pass/fail cycle, although not identical.) I find that this helps with both encounter building and encounter resolution. It makes it easy to adjudicate unexpected choices made by the players (eg "We're going to negotiate with these duergar slavers rather than fight them" - I've got DC numbers to support a skill challenge, or "The tiefling paladin is going to charge through the wall of the burning hut to rescue the unconscious dwarf" - I've got DC numbers and damage numbers to support this). This reduces any temptation to fudging, railroading, or saying "no", thereby encouraging players to engage the situation as they see it and do interesting stuff with it. And the forgiving nature of the combat and other tactical resolution mechanics means that I can be confident in setting these numbers that I'm being fair to the players and not likely to run a risk of TPKing them. And it also works well with the metagame character of the mechanics - you can set a DC that is fair, let the situation play itself out, and then add in the narration that supports that outcome as part of the process of play.

Another feature of the action resolution mechanics in 4e, that helps with narrativist play, is that they bring scenes to a close. A skill challenge comes to an end - the players can't keep check-mongering. A combat is at an end, and now a short rest takes place - there is no need for check-mongering around healing. Magical treasure is identified by handling it in a short rest - there is no need for check-mongering around looting. To the extent that the rulebooks don't spell out a "let it ride" implication, subsequent GMing advice has done so. All of this contrasts very much with the approach of a game like RM, or any other game where the action resolution mechanics produce lingering consequences that the players can't afford to ignore (because they produce hooks for the GM to hang "gotcha's from") but which, if not ignored, cause scenes to linger on even when there is nothing more interesting to be gotten out of them.

The final aspect of 4e that I think is there in the box that helps the sort of game I want to play is its default setting. Unlike some other D&D settings, it is laden with thematically-rich conflict (eg Raven Queen vs Orcus - death and undeath; Ioun vs Vecna - magic and secrets; Erathis vs devils vs demons - civilisation, domination, destruction; etc). And this content is distributed throughout the race descriptions, the class descriptions, the monster descriptions, etc. So it is very easy for players to build PCs who are invested in a thematically engaging conflict (and to keep developing and rebuilding them, via the retraining rules), and it is equally easy for the GM to build situations that put those conficts into play. This ties into (i) and (ii) above.

And this lore - both the stuff to which the players have access, and the stuff that the GM sees when quickly skimming over a monster description - is all true. There is no "secret" canon that will derail or wrongfoot players, invalidating their conception of how their PCs are located in the conflicts that they care about. Or that will derail or wrongfoot GMs, invalidating the way they have framed and resolved the situations in their games.

(I personally find that this is a marked difference from earlier D&D worlds. Consider, for example, the World of Greyhawk. Yes, the Scarlet Brotherhood are slave-trading martial artists, so they're fun to encounter and beat up on. But exactly what thematic conflict do they bring to the table without me as a GM having to do any more work? I don't know FR as well, but my impression is that its chock full of secret canon that is likely - designed, even - to wrongfoot the players.) 

Now, unlike the indie games on which I'm modelling my approach, 4e doesn't _mandate_ that the players build PCs that are invested in conflict. And there are _some_ monsters and other story elements that don't scream conflict to me. As a GM, I personally would find it harder to run a narrativist game if the PCs in my game were all halfling rangers of Avandra. (Luckily I don't have a single one.) And even if I had players who built compelling PCs, I could stuff it up by using encounters consisting only of kruthiks and ankhegs (which I at least don't find all that compelling on their own). But the thematic stuff is not hidden - both on the player side and the GM side its easy to find and use. As I posted upthread, to get my game going, all I had to add to the 4e default setting and the 4e rules were two instructions to the players: your PC must have at least one important loyalty, and your PC must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.


*Conclusion*

What is coming together here is some system stuff: (i) features of 4e's PC build rules; (ii) its monster design; (iii) the default story that PCs and monsters bring with them; (iv) features of its action resolution rules. And some participant stuff: (v) the GM adopting a situation+character narrativist approach to encounter design - I'm deliberately building encounters that will pick up on the hooks built into the PCs; (vI) players who want to roleplay by advocating for their PCs; (vii) both GM and players following through on this in actual encounter resolution -  in particular, as GM, in the course of resolution I'm deliberately making choices that will engage the _players_ and let them advocate for their PCs as part of resolving the combat.

Because of the system stuff, the participants don't have to drift, or push against, the system to play in this way. If anything, I feel you might have to push against some aspects of the system to play a different way. (I'm also aware that nearly every feature of 4e that I've identified as supporting the sort of play I'm interested in is one of those aspects of the game that tends to be criticised by those who prefer 3E or PF to 4e. That's why I think "reconciliation" is unlikely.)
[/sblock]


----------



## Balesir (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Please re-read the definitions I provided... Simulationist agenda in no way requires realism, they are two different things and this, IMO, is where most people get coinfused.
> 
> IMO, it seems you want D&D 3.5 to be realistic... not that you were in fact trying to get a simulationist agenda in play from it. At least that's what I get from the above post... I mean Toon is cited as a game with a simulationist agenda... it's not realistic though.



If this is the impression you have then communication has indeed faltered.  I am not talking about "realism" at all; I'll try to explain more clearly on this specific point.  Oh, and I am going, generally, on Ron Edwards' and The Forge contributors' definitions of GNS, rather than a Wiki or ENWorld summary, useful though those summaries might be as introductions.

"Simulationist" play reaches out to simulate *something*.  That something _must_ be consistent within itself for Sim play to really "work".  Some minor flaws are forgivable and, perhaps, inevitable but in general the "world" presented should "make sense" on its own terms.  Toon, for example, does this admirably.  D&D, on the other hand, gets into choppy water pretty quickly without some willing and rigid adherence, by the players, to a number of meta "rules".

Take, for example, the threat of low level monsters.  In D&D we see these left to low level parties to deal with, or attacked with an army.  But, if the inhabitants of this "world" are rational beings, and if the world really works as defined by the game rules, this is utterly barmy.  Send in a single high-level character and the threat will be wiped out inside a day!

A key focus - maybe even a requirement - of Sim play is for the players, through their characters, to explore the game setting.  Not just to wander around it in character, but to explore how it works, to (attempt to) grok what "makes it tick".  To do so requires freedom in what their character does.  RPGs have much vaunted this freedom almost since day 1, and yet it fails for a very high number of cases.  Not only is play as a shopkeeper or town guard likely boring and unrewarding, but deciding, say, to attack the town dignitaries to seize the offered reward without the inconvenience of fighting the "evil" monsters leads to non-sensical situations really fast, IME.  Your (mid-to-high level) characters attack the clerk offering the reward and set off to find and take the money.  Next, either the town guard arrives (and gets slaughtered), of a "town guard" that is somehow as high a level as the PCs turns up, triggering a host of "WTF" questions.  How did these guys get to be the level they are?  Do monster infestations (that germinate levelled "adventurers") pop up on a regular basis hereabouts?  Why aren't these guys dealing with the threat as part of their job?  How come there are any monsters left after (apparently) generations of multiple levelled "adventurers" being generated?

Basically, if the "physics" of the world work as described by the rulebooks, the situations described in the D&D published game worlds (even the 'default' settings) just don't hang together.  They don't represent stable (or even metastable) situations - and yet they are frequently apparently meant to have existed for a fair while.

We can handwave all this away and just live with the fact that the world is a backdrop, in a familiar idiom, for our play.  But that isn't the crux of Simulationist play; it does not allow of any exploring or poking the setting to see how it works.  It doesn't make for a solid sandbox in which to play.  As a result, for Sim play, it works up to a point (as long as we deliberately ignore the parts of the world that don't stand up to scrutiny by a rational mind), but under stress it all falls apart (which is back to what I said above).  It falls apart, not because it is different from the "real world", but because, in the final analysis, it makes no sense on its own terms.



Imaro said:


> EDIT: I find your first post above akin to asking why doesn't Elric of Melnibone the greatest sorcerer of his age rule the Young Kingdoms as opposed to having adventures... or better yet why do people as skilled as Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser involve themselves in petty larceny... or maybe even why don't Tolkien's super elves subjigate mankind... and so on. The adventurers of extreme power who adventure when they could (and some do such as Conan) become rulers, tyrants, demi-gods, etc. is a trope of Sword and Sorcery fiction as well as some High Fantasy.



Sure - but those tales are (almost by definition) not Simulationist vehicles.  Neither do the worlds they are set in adhere to D&D "physics".  At no point is it made clear that Conan reaches 12th level, for example.  Trying to model his adventures with the assumption that he _does_ reach 12th level, in fact, is probably impossible.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think 4e is limited in its support for really hardcore gamist play because (i) if you play it in this fashion then build can become overwhelmingly important, but build is pre-play rather than play, and (ii) in play, at least in my experience, it is not all that hard for the PCs to win. So it is the _manner_ of winning that brings the interesting stuff with it. I would think that 4e gamist play would be more about showing of a "cool move" in a given context, rather than being the one to save the party from what was otherwise going to be certain death. (But [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] should feel free to correct me on this - I'm theorycrafting, not basing this on serious gamist play with 4e.)



Well, although we have had no TPKs, we have had some PC deaths, so there is always that mode of "losing".  Nevertheless, I think what you say here is largely correct.  Milestones are also an intriguing way to measure the "_cojones_" displayed by the party .

Another issue with 4E for hardcore play, incidentally, is the difference between PCs and monsters vis-a-vis damage and hit points making PVP play more swingy.  Not that we have had any of this in the actual campaign play.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think I'm a better GM now than I was then. But if I tried to run a simulationist game now I'd be better than I was then. I don't think there's anything peculiarly difficult about running a non-simulationist, or non-Gygaxian game. In fact, when I was a teenager I couldn't run a Gygaxian/Pulsepharian game, although I tried, but I could run a vanilla narrativist game.



You are significantly generalizing about "non-simulationist" and I'm talking very specifically about your assessments and comments to how you run 4E.  I said your assessments are unique and tied to your knowledge and experience at DMing.  You tried to blow that off as no different than when you were a teenager, clearly implying that the whole thing applies to any reasonably competent beginner.

The your turn around and post your umnpteenth long post referencing multiple game design blogs (and fairly obscure ones if I do say so) and talking about things in forge terms and generally being intensely academic on the whole matter.  

The bottom line is that:
Your point of view is not typical.
Your point of view is not remotely the level of knowledge that WotC made a huge point of marketing 4E to.
I don't challenge that you can find specific comments here and there from a designer or two that roughly aligns with you on 4E, but I've seen plenty of broad general comments on the fundamental core of 4E from designers that run exactly contrary to your position.
I've talked to many 4E fans and your take is practically unique.



And, all that aside, I just think a lot of people are going after a completely different experience anyway. I know I am.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Sure - but those tales are (almost by definition) not Simulationist vehicles. Neither do the worlds they are set in adhere to D&D "physics". At no point is it made clear that Conan reaches 12th level, for example. Trying to model his adventures with the assumption that he _does_ reach 12th level, in fact, is probably impossible.




Wait a minute... these tales are exactly what D&D is trying to simulate. Above you say



Balesir said:


> "Simulationist" play reaches out to simulate *something*. That something _must_ be consistent within itself for Sim play to really "work". Some minor flaws are forgivable and, perhaps, inevitable but in general the "world" presented should "make sense" on its own terms. Toon, for example, does this admirably. D&D, on the other hand, gets into choppy water pretty quickly without some willing and rigid adherence, by the players, to a number of meta "rules".




So if it is simulating Sword and Sorcery fiction or High Fantasy fiction... then doesn't it also simulate the same flaws in those stories that don't make sense? How many powerful Wizards are kings in most of these stories? Why don't powerful figures like Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser, Gandalf, Legolas, etc. take jobs to go out and commit genocide on weaker monsters? Why don't most of them rule the world? Again you want D&D to "make sense" when it doesn't model a genre that holds up under close scrutiny of "making sense". I will again state that this seems more like a desire for realism vs. simulating majority of fantasy stories out there.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Why don't powerful figures like Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser, Gandalf, Legolas, etc. take jobs to go out and commit genocide on weaker monsters? Why don't most of them rule the world?



I don't know much about the first four characters, but considering the motivations that drive Gandalf and Legolas, I would never imagine them signing up for a job of killing monsters for cash or wanting to rule the world. You might transport Gandalf and Legolas into a MMO/WoW-like world and force them to adapt to the grind of kill-cash-improve but then they're no longer the Gandalf and Legolas I recognize.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> I don't know much about the first four characters, but considering the motivations that drive Gandalf and Legolas, I would never imagine them signing up for a job of killing monsters for cash or wanting to rule the world. You might transport Gandalf and Legolas into a MMO/WoW-like world and force them to adapt to the grind of kill-cash-improve but then they're no longer the Gandalf and Legolas I recognize.




This is exactly my point... Powerful heroes hired, whether they are Gandalf, Elric or many others, to commit genocide on weaker monsters (regardless of the reasons) is not a trope of the genre... so why is it that Baelsir feels that in simulating these types of stories/chartacters... D&D does a poor job because it does not address this issue in its own worlds?


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This is exactly my point... Powerful heroes hired, whether they are Gandalf, Elric or many others, to commit genocide on weaker monsters (regardless of the reasons) is not a trope of the genre... so why is it that Balesir feels that in simulating these types of stories/chartacters... D&D does a poor job because it does not address this issue in its own worlds?



I cannot speak for Balesir, of course, but IMO simulationist D&D would attempt to be more like simulating LoTR (ie. characters that are motivated by love of home, defense of what is good, or other real human motivations) and not about simulating a MMO/WoW-like reality (kill-cash-improve). Surely many D&D games are more about kill-cash-improve but I think there's at least a semblance of deeper character motivation in simulationist games.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> I cannot speak for Balesir, of course, but IMO simulationist D&D would attempt to be more like simulating LoTR (ie. characters that are motivated by love of home, defense of what is good, or other real human motivations) and not about simulating a MMO/WoW-like reality (kill-cash-improve). Surely many D&D games are more about kill-cash-improve but I think there's at least a semblance of deeper character motivation in simulationist games.




They can be, but then you have the S&S heroes that D&D also draws inspiration from and many, though not all, of them are motivated by wealth, power and many other "selfish" goals.  My point was moreso that you don't read about these heroes being paid to eradicate a race of monsters that pose absolutely no threat to them... and D&D through it's rules (insignificant rewards for this behavior among other things) simulates that this is not a trope of it's genre.  IMO, of course.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> They can be, but then you have the S&S heroes that D&D also draws inspiration from and many, though not all, of them are motivated by wealth, power and many other "selfish" goals.



Which I still think is simulationist to a point. Eradicating a race of monsters goes beyond simulationist "selfish" goals, I think, because the character is unrealistically exposing him/herself to more harm than really necessary, unless the character is suicidal, and even playing a suicidal character can be simulationist if you approach it from that angle.



Imaro said:


> My point was moreso that you don't read about these heroes being paid to eradicate a race of monsters that pose absolutely no threat to them... and D&D through it's rules (insignificant rewards for this behavior among other things) simulates that this is not a trope of it's genre. IMO, of course.



I don't know, I suspect I'm misunderstanding something here, but I guess it's like calling a gun a "dangerous weapon". Yes you could use a gun to eradicate a race of monsters that pose no absolutely no threat to you, or you could use the gun for self-defense and protect the innocent. D&D rules are sort of like that gun. You could use it to tell different kinds of stories, including "simulationist" ones. I guess my ideal concept of D&D is one that can tell tactical skirmish stories or immersive simulationist ones depending on what the gaming group desires.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 10, 2011)

Balesir said:


> those tales are (almost by definition) not Simulationist vehicles.





Imaro said:


> these tales are exactly what D&D is trying to simulate.



But, as Balesir said, the tales themselves aren't simulationist vehicles. They're stories.

In fact, you can see the potential problems with simulationist treatments of fantasy when you start reading Tolkien glossographies or encylopedias, or you start reading an index to the Marvel universe, and questions come up like "Is Glorfindel II related to Glorfindel I or not?" or "Is The Thing ever able to beat The Hulk at some feat of strength?" These are the sorts of questions that simulationist play is likely to give rise to - indeed, for some versions of simulationism, the whole purpose is to address these sorts of questions - but which the stories _don't_ answer, because answering them is not the point.

In my view you can tell fiction which is being written more for the purpose of filling in the details of the glossographies and indices, rather than for any actual literary purpose. It is poorly written, lacking in plot, and appealing only to dedicated, canon-obsessed fans. Science fiction television drama and fantasy novels are both prone to this sort of weakness, in my personal opinion.

(Again, I'm Balesir will correct me if I've misunderstood the point at issue.)


----------



## pemerton (Aug 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The your turn around and post your umnpteenth long post referencing multiple game design blogs (and fairly obscure ones if I do say so) and talking about things in forge terms and generally being intensely academic on the whole matter.



I'm an academic.

But you don't need to be able to theorise it to do it. (And vice versa. I can talk at some length about aesthetics. I can't write very good stories.)



BryonD said:


> I just think a lot of people are going after a completely different experience anyway. I know I am.



Like I said earlier, I've got no reason to doubt that that is so.


----------



## Darwinism (Aug 10, 2011)

Wow, it was actually more tolerable when entitled nerds were pronouncing 3.X the best ever and that Gygax loved 3.X and would have hated 4E and that only WotC is in it for the money than now when a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals want to use fancy terms to pigeonhole their pretend games into different terms that are actually descriptions of playstyle and not mechanics for the most part.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But, as Balesir said, the tales themselves aren't simulationist vehicles. They're stories.
> 
> In fact, you can see the potential problems with simulationist treatments of fantasy when you start reading Tolkien glossographies or encylopedias, or you start reading an index to the Marvel universe, and questions come up like "Is Glorfindel II related to Glorfindel I or not?" or "Is The Thing ever able to beat The Hulk at some feat of strength?" These are the sorts of questions that simulationist play is likely to give rise to - indeed, for some versions of simulationism, the whole purpose is to address these sorts of questions - but which the stories _don't_ answer, because answering them is not the point.
> 
> ...




I disagree... by this definition realism does in fact constitute simulationism, but I have already quoted passages that make it clear it is not a requirement for simulationist play. I'm sorry but I believe you can in fact simulate S&S and high fantasy stories... and just stating "They aren't simulationist vehicles" when Toon is cited as a simulationist game just doesn't cut it. Give me some reasoning and logic and I'll consider it but pronouncing it so doesn't make it so.

Seriously, how is this any different than Toon being considered a simulationist game? Are the physiology, mating habits, etc. of cartoon characters explained in the game?  Probably not, just as they aren't important to the genre being simulated. You and Balesir are speaking to realism... not simulationism. You two seem to be saying you can't simulate something unless it's realistic, while I'm claiming you very much can.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> Wow, it was actually more tolerable when entitled nerds were pronouncing 3.X the best ever and that Gygax loved 3.X and would have hated 4E and that only WotC is in it for the money than now when a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals want to use fancy terms to pigeonhole their pretend games into different terms that are actually descriptions of playstyle and not mechanics for the most part.




Oh, look... a post that contributes nothing to the discusion in the thread... yet still somehow allows the poster to grab some attention by insulting others in the thread.

First, per your last sentence, no one in this thread claimed that Simulationism, Gamism or Narrativism were mechanics... what we are talking about are mechanics in games that support or don't support said playstyles... but hey pretentious is often substituted for the phrase... "They keep using  big words I don't understand... "  so I get why you might be confused.  Now what were the two words I was looking for that describe your post, oh yeah...

Thread crap, those are the words I was looking for, or is that phrase too entitled, pretentious and/or pseudo-intellectual for you?


----------



## Darwinism (Aug 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Oh, look... a post that contributes nothing to the discusion in the thread... yet still somehow allows the poster to grab some attention by insulting others in the thread.
> 
> First, per your last sentence, no one in this thread claimed that Simulationism, Gamism or Narrativism were mechanics... what we are talking about are mechanics in games that support or don't support said playstyles... but hey pretentious is often substituted for the phrase... "They keep using  big words I don't understand... "  so I get why you might be confused.  Now what were the two words I was looking for that describe your post, oh yeah...
> 
> Thread crap, those are the words I was looking for, or is that phrase too entitled, pretentious and/or pseudo-intellectual for you?




Poor baby feels compelled to try and defend his labeling of abstracts as absolutes

It is also pretty funny that you try and make it seem like I'm the one off-target when your pedantic GNS argument has nothing to do with the thread topic.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm an academic.
> 
> But you don't need to be able to theorise it to do it.



I agree, but that doesn't make it any less true that level of knowledge and experience is a huge difference between you and most. 



> (And vice versa. I can talk at some length about aesthetics. I can't write very good stories.)



Heh, I LOVE making up stories and I used to write a lot.  And eventually it dawned on me that I suck at crafting good fiction.  I think I have great stories, but when I put them on paper they just are not fun to read.  shrug

I think that is part of the reason I've stayed such a fan of RPGs.  I tell my stories in semi-real-time at the table and I see them come to life when I "world build".  I get the creative joy and the deficits in creating quality text are not a problem.



> Like I said earlier, I've got no reason to doubt that that is so.



fair enough.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> Poor baby feels compelled to try and defend his labeling of abstracts as absolutes
> 
> It is also pretty funny that you try and make it seem like I'm the one off-target when your pedantic GNS argument has nothing to do with the thread topic.




Nope, just clarifying the mistakes and misunderstandings in your post... but now that you actually understand what we are discussing perhaps you can...you know... actually contribute something to the discussion as opposed to throwing out "I'm sooo cool" one liners. But then something's telling me real discussion isn't what you're after.

EDIT: Threads drift and the topics drift with it.  Point is I'm contributing to discussion... you're threadcrapping plain and simple.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... by this definition realism does in fact constitute simulationism



I don't see how you're getting that out of my post.

What I said was that, as far as the story of LotR, or the Marvel Universe is concerned, it _doesn't matter_ whether or how Glorfindel I and Glordindel II are related, nor what the relative strengths of The Thing and The Hulk are, _unless this matters for the story_. Whereas in simulationist game play, these are the sorts of questions that become pressing. Because simulationist game play prioritises exploration of the fictional world.

This has nothing to do with realism. It's about internal consistency.

In purist-for-system simulationism, the focus is consistency of ingame causal logic. Rolemaster, Runequest, Classic Traveller, and big chunks (but not all) of 3E are built to with this priority in mind. Realism is a factor here, although not the only factor, because the real world is our main inspiration for what counts as coherent causation.

In high concept simulationism, the focus is on consistency and coherence of the relevant genre tropes and story elements. Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are great examples of this.

Malory, Cretien de Troyes etc, in writing their Arthurian tales, don't have to settle the question of whether Percival or Galahad is the more pious, the more charitable, the more noble of bearing, etc. Once you start statting them up in Pendragon, however, those sorts of issues have to be settled. Likewise in Cthulhu - what is more sanity blasting, a horde of deep ones, or a shoggoth?

It's not about realism - in the real world, there are no sanity blasting aliens, and "nobility of bearing" (at least in Australia, and I imagine America) is a concept with about as much applicability as those that appertain to duling and to honour. It's about consistency and coherence among the story elements.



Imaro said:


> I believe you can in fact simulate S&S and high fantasy stories



Of course you can try to. Balesir's point, as I understand it, is that it is non-trivial to do so. It is particularly non-trivial if what you want to _achieve_ is genre (high-concept) simulation, but the _means_ you use are purist-for-system oriented mechanics.

Cthulhu provides a good example here, I think. As with many pulp or pulp-ish stories (eg Indiana Jones, Tintin), for CoC to work we have to completely ignore economic and institutional questions like "Where do these guys get their money?", "What reasearch institution is paying for all their non-teaching time?", "Why do they never have to meet deadlines for the submission of copy even though it says 'journalist' at the top of the character sheet?" etc. So good high concept design, for a game like Cthulhu, will push these quetions to one side, and shift the focus of the mechanics, and the focus of play, somewhere else. Conversely, if you start a session of Cthulhu with the PC professor being interrogated by his dean as to why he's been remiss in supervising his grad students, and with the PC journalist being sacked for repeatedly missing deadlines, the game is probably not going to head in the genre-appropriate direction.

As I understand [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point, it is that classic D&D, _at one and the same time_, wants to achieve the genre feel of sword-and-sorcery, but wants to use purist-for-system mechanics (demographic models as seen in various DMGs; serious attention to buying and selling of goods and services, including magic goods and services; etc) to get there. And _this_ is what makes it hard to run simulationist D&D. For it to work, there's stuff you have to turn a blind eye to - just as CoC depends on turning a blind eye to the realities of employment as an intellectual or a private detective or a police officer - but the mechanics keep pulling the focus of play back onto those very things.

Now of course one can just ignore the mechanics in question - but now we're starting to talk about how easy or hard it is to drift D&D towards simulationist play, which is a conversation that already concedes a good chunk of Balesir's claim (at least as I understand it).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I agree, but that doesn't make it any less true that level of knowledge and experience is a huge difference between you and most.



In ability to theorise, definitely. In ability to run what I regard as a good game, maybe - I mean, obviously I'm not a novice - but my comparison pool isn't that big, especially these days when I'm not part of a university or convention RPG scene anymore.

To go back to a more general point, I don't see this particular discussion as a matter of _argument_, at least on my side - I just don't have the capacity to gather the relevant evidence. I can only point to things that make me feel like I'm not Robinson Crusoe in my conception of how 4e is designed to be played.

Besides the rules text that I've cited upthread, I can point to posters on these boards - like Pentius, heretic888, nmns, LostSoul, chaochou, Neonchameleon, AbdulAlhazred, Balesir etc - who seem to approach 4e in a way that fits with my general conception of it (a non-simulationist game which emphasies GM scene-framing in a way that is responsive to player priorities as expressed through PC build and play). I can point to Chris Perkins' column on the WotC site - although it's hard to discern playstyle from the sort of accounts Perkins' gives, what he's describing doesn't seem a million miles from how I approach the game. I can point to the approach described in Worlds and Monsters. And even the Andy Collins, Dave Noonan and Mearls quotes that you mentioned upthread - if I've got the right ones in mind, like Collins on class design and Mearls on monster design - I saw at the time, and still see now, as directed to building a game that will support my sort of play (because I see it as an account of how story elements should have their mechanics tightly integrated with the sort of role they're intended to fulfil in resolving conflicts in the course of actual play).

Like I said, none of the above is argument. It's just an attempt to explain of why I don't feel like a madman or a mere troublemaker when I paint the picture of 4e that I do.

One thing that has become clearer to me over the last couple of years is the features of 4e that permit drift away from RPGing towards tactical skirmishing. I try to characterise them in my long post inside the spoiler blocks upthread. It seems to me, though - and in saying this I don't _think_ I'm disagreeing with you (BryonD) - that for those players who have drifted 4e towards tactical skirmish with the occasional bit of colour, a more 3E-ish 5E would not be all that attractive. Because 3E's mechanics, lacking the metagame character of 4e's mechanics, don't permit the same degree of drifting.

And for those, like me, who see 4e's emphasis on fictional situation (as explained in that long post), plus the integration of fiction into resolution in many parts of the system (as explained in that long post), as the key elements of the system that _make it_ an RPG rather than a tactical skirmish engine, a more 3E-ish 5E wouldn't be all that attractive either. Because however exactly we should think of 3E - purist-for-system simulationism, or exploration-heavy Gygaxian gamism - it clearly does not take the same approach as does 4e to the situation, and to the way that the fiction feeds into action resolution.

Which is why I think "reconciliation" will be tricky. If I was to hazard a guess as to how it _might_ be attempted, it would be to build a simulationist-style game that emulates 3E in many respects, but is better suited than 3E to drifting into pure tactical skirmishing. This would then cut loose those who are playing 4e as an RPG in a way that depends upon its differences from 3E. For the reasons I've given, I don't feel that's as minority a position as you do, but it might still be minority enough to be worth cutting loose, from WotC's point of view. (I'm sure Chris Perkins will be able to drift whatever system he's paid to design and play to the sort of game that he wants!)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 11, 2011)

On Gygax hating 4e... I am pretty sure that he would, but then he had some not nice things to say about 3e too.

It really just means that the games either weren't to his taste or that such would be the perception, in the case of 4e.

Either way, you would be allowed to disagree with him.

The Auld Grump


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... by this definition realism does in fact constitute simulationism, but I have already quoted passages that make it clear it is not a requirement for simulationist play. I'm sorry but I believe you can in fact simulate S&S and high fantasy stories... and just stating "They aren't simulationist vehicles" when Toon is cited as a simulationist game just doesn't cut it. Give me some reasoning and logic and I'll consider it but pronouncing it so doesn't make it so.
> 
> Seriously, how is this any different than Toon being considered a simulationist game? Are the physiology, mating habits, etc. of cartoon characters explained in the game? Probably not, just as they aren't important to the genre being simulated. You and Balesir are speaking to realism... not simulationism. You two seem to be saying you can't simulate something unless it's realistic, while I'm claiming you very much can.



I think you are wrong in hte characterisation of Balesir's comments but it does highlight why I dislike the Forge GNS analysis, simulation is an overloaded term with different meanings depending in context that leads to a lot of people talking across each other, to no good purpose.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In ability to theorise, definitely. In ability to run what I regard as a good game, maybe - I mean, obviously I'm not a novice - but my comparison pool isn't that big, especially these days when I'm not part of a university or convention RPG scene anymore.
> 
> To go back to a more general point, I don't see this particular discussion as a matter of _argument_, at least on my side - I just don't have the capacity to gather the relevant evidence. I can only point to things that make me feel like I'm not Robinson Crusoe in my conception of how 4e is designed to be played.
> 
> .....stuff......



 I would not see myself as all that good a DM either but my approach and view of 4e (for what it is worth) is very similar to what pemerton has outlined in this thread, though he sounds like a more awesome DM than myself.

On topic, I would not see myself playing any 5e that was more 3.x like than 4e. Nor would I see any 3.x fan going for a 5e that was build on the 4e chassis.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Wait a minute... these tales are exactly what D&D is trying to simulate.



My point is that (1) I don't think "simulating these stories" is what D&D _has ever_ tried to do, even though it was inspired by the tales and the worlds they are set in, and (2) if simulating these stories _is_ what D&D is trying to do, then it fails catastrophically at doing so.

Gandalf and Elric are not immune to physical harm from "low level" creatures - they simply don't take any because that is not part of the story.  There really aren't any "low level" creatures in the stories, in fact.  Some creatures and characters have weaknesses or lack the strengths that others possess, but "level" per se is not a concept really supported by anything in the books.



Imaro said:


> So if it is simulating Sword and Sorcery fiction or High Fantasy fiction... then doesn't it also simulate the same flaws in those stories that don't make sense? How many powerful Wizards are kings in most of these stories? Why don't powerful figures like Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser, Gandalf, Legolas, etc. take jobs to go out and commit genocide on weaker monsters? Why don't most of them rule the world?



Because their world does not work the way the D&D world(s) work.  If they went out to commit genocide, they might die.  Of course, they would not, if the story the author was telling demanded that they did not, but as far as their world was concerned that would be down to luck (or maybe destiny), rather than the "physics" of the world.

If Gandalf, having shown he can defeat a Balrog, decided (in a fit of hubris) to go out and slay them all, you can bet that no good would come of it.  And nothing in the "physics" of Middle Earth would make Gandalf's demise (and likely disgrace) in the least unlikely, barring the character of Gandalf himself being unlikely to draw erroneous conclusions about his own inviolability.



Imaro said:


> Again you want D&D to "make sense" when it doesn't model a genre that holds up under close scrutiny of "making sense". I will again state that this seems more like a desire for realism vs. simulating majority of fantasy stories out there.



No, I'm wanting any system for Simulationist-focussed play to model an internally-consistent world and, if it is attempting to model any specific genre, one that models the genre world, not attempts to force the genre stories to happen.

This relates to the "impossible thing before breakfast" that Edwards brings up.  What you seem to be asking for here is for genre stories to be generated by simulating the setting where those stories took place.  That can't work.  Many things were assumed to have happened (in the imaginary world) where the stories were set.  "The Story" was presumed, in the conceit necessary for good fiction, to have been simply one particularly interesting series of events that happened there.  By trying to "force the luck" to generate such supposedly unusual events, we break the world model.

To paraphrase Charles Tilly in his excellent book "Why?", "The Truth is Not a Story".  Stories are simply ways we arrange sets of information that seem to us to be extraordinary or noteworthy.  If we try to generate a story by defining the way the world works, we are doomed to failure - which is why successful Narrativist supporting games don't model world physics (as a general rule).



Imaro said:


> This is exactly my point... Powerful heroes hired, whether they are Gandalf, Elric or many others, to commit genocide on weaker monsters (regardless of the reasons) is not a trope of the genre... so why is it that Baelsir feels that in simulating these types of stories/chartacters... D&D does a poor job because it does not address this issue in its own worlds?



The characters in these sources do not go out to deal with lesser threats, whether paid to or not, because there is an actual cost to doing so.  They would, in the world they inhabit, actually be at risk.  Their lives and talents are simply far better risked in tackling the bigger, more important threats.  The fact that they *don't* fall to "lesser threats" is down to the intent of the storyteller, not to the nature of the world they inhabit.  Modelling the world they inhabit would support simulationist play; trying to model the story they took part in would not (at least, not successfully).



Imaro said:


> They can be, but then you have the S&S heroes that D&D also *draws inspiration from* and many, though not all, of them are motivated by wealth, power and many other "selfish" goals.



I highlighted the phrase above because I think there is a confusion, here.  D&D was inspired by these stories; it was wisely enough drawn, however, not to attempt to 'simulate' them, nor even the worlds they were held to take place in.



Imaro said:


> My point was moreso that you don't read about these heroes being paid to eradicate a race of monsters that pose absolutely no threat to them... and D&D through it's rules (insignificant rewards for this behavior among other things) simulates that this is not a trope of it's genre.



Insignificant reward, perhaps, but also insignificant cost.  A few 12th level characters could eradicate an orc village (say) in 2E in, what, a day?  Less?  With no significant risk at all.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In purist-for-system simulationism, the focus is consistency of ingame causal logic. Rolemaster, Runequest, Classic Traveller, and big chunks (but not all) of 3E are built to with this priority in mind. Realism is a factor here, although not the only factor, because the real world is our main inspiration for what counts as coherent causation.
> 
> In high concept simulationism, the focus is on consistency and coherence of the relevant genre tropes and story elements. Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are great examples of this.
> <snip>
> Cthulhu provides a good example here, I think. As with many pulp or pulp-ish stories (eg Indiana Jones, Tintin), for CoC to work we have to completely ignore economic and institutional questions like "Where do these guys get their money?", "What reasearch institution is paying for all their non-teaching time?", "Why do they never have to meet deadlines for the submission of copy even though it says 'journalist' at the top of the character sheet?" etc.



I don't see Call of Cthulhu as the best poster boy of high concept simulationism. 

In CoC, there generally can be a plausible reason for why the journalist doesn't make his deadlines: he's freelance, he's on leave on absence, he decided that there are more important things in life than his career after seeing a Shoggoth (or conversely, he tries to keep his job as denial/coping mechanism). The players don't necessarily have to explore these reasons, they just assume it's there. Depending how far the average person digs, there IS a good reason for it. Thus internal consistency is more or less intact.

I'd argue that a PC who witnesses the near end of the world, comes out completely unscathed sanity-wise, and still makes his journalism deadline as if everything was normal is actually more high-concept than anything else, much like the superhero genre.

A player who roleplays a selfish coward who nevertheless ventures into the cult lair to save a stranger's life is also high concept IMO.

I agree that CoC can often be high concept but not exactly for the reasons I think you implied. Just like 3E is a mix of purist and high concept tropes.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 11, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Gandalf and Elric are not immune to physical harm from "low level" creatures - they simply don't take any because that is not part of the story. There really aren't any "low level" creatures in the stories, in fact. Some creatures and characters have weaknesses or lack the strengths that others possess, but "level" per se is not a concept really supported by anything in the books.



How about the battle where Legolas and Gimli compete for the number of orc kills and don't seem to fear death? That feels like high-level PCs fighting low-level monsters.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 11, 2011)

IMO, no matter what WotC does, there is going to be someone that remains peeved, or becomes peeved by the changes made in whatever the newest iteration of the game may be.

Every person has their own personal preference as to what they like and how they thing D&D should play, and there are a lot of players out there.

In the end I think WotC may end up making a game favorable to a wide audience, but if they think they'll be able to pull off another Golden Age of Dungeons and Dragons, I think that ship has probably sailed.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I'm wanting any system for Simulationist-focussed play to model an internally-consistent world and, if it is attempting to model any specific genre, one that models the genre world, not attempts to force the genre stories to happen.
> 
> This relates to the "impossible thing before breakfast" that Edwards brings up.  What you seem to be asking for here is for genre stories to be generated by simulating the setting where those stories took place.  That can't work.  Many things were assumed to have happened (in the imaginary world) where the stories were set.  "The Story" was presumed, in the conceit necessary for good fiction, to have been simply one particularly interesting series of events that happened there.  By trying to "force the luck" to generate such supposedly unusual events, we break the world model.
> 
> To paraphrase Charles Tilly in his excellent book "Why?", "The Truth is Not a Story".  Stories are simply ways we arrange sets of information that seem to us to be extraordinary or noteworthy.  If we try to generate a story by defining the way the world works, we are doomed to failure - which is why successful Narrativist supporting games don't model world physics (as a general rule).



I liked this post (but can't XP you yet).

Are you suggesting, here, that high concept simulationism is _inherently_ unstable as a design goal, because the mechanics that are introudced to support the creation of genre stories (eg Pendagon passions etc) are in danger, if taken literally, of pushing the world into incoherence?

Edwards doesn't go quite that far in his Right to Dream essay, but he does seem to suggest that high concept design is ripe for dysfunctional play, as the GM uses force to keep the "story" on track. You seem to be raising the prospect of the GM also having to use force to keep the gameworld on track.

My own feeling is that good high concept design will try and dodge these issues by using the mechanics to shift focus, and to subordinate the potential sites of breakdown so they don't emerge in play (as I suggested upthread).



Yesway Jose said:


> In CoC, there generally can be a plausible reason for why the journalist doesn't make his deadlines: he's freelance, he's on leave on absence, he decided that there are more important things in life than his career after seeing a Shoggoth (or conversely, he tries to keep his job as denial/coping mechanism). The players don't necessarily have to explore these reasons, they just assume it's there. Depending how far the average person digs, there IS a good reason for it. Thus internal consistency is more or less intact.



My feeling is that the more the players try to explore this issue, the more pressure they will put on that consistency. So it's fairly important that they _do_ just assume that it is there.

A similar issue in a simulationist LotR game would surround the economy of the Shire. As presented in the books, it (i) is close to autarkic in its economic arrangements, (ii) has a pretty modest population, but (iii) has a standard of living comparable at least to late 18th century Britain. This is more-or-less impossible, as far as realworld economic history is concerned. But nothing in the LotR suggests that there is some non-realworld factor in play to explain the economic viability of the Shire. Rather, the reader is not meant to think about it too much. It's a background, that provides colour to the _real_ stuff.

I see the role of PC profession in CoC as similar - it provides colour, we assume it makes sense without looking at it too hard, and get on with playing the game.

Purist-for-sim players who care about economics will break the LotR game, as the Shire's economy crumbles under the weight of their exploration. They will break CoC too, I think, as they start to investigate the economic and institutional factors that the game itself doesn't support and tends to assume will not be engaged with.

That's not a criticism of CoC as a game. Nor of the putative LotR game. Any more than it's a criticism of LotR itself, or Tintin (the "boy reporter" who never takes notes, never interviews anyone, and never files a story!).

I think this is a good summary of some of these features of high-concept supporting mechanics:

At first glance, these games might look like additions to or specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate . . . things which aren't relevant to the Explorative focus are often summarized and not "System'ed" with great rigor. When done well, such that the remaining, emphasized elements clearly provide a sort of "what to do" feel, this creates an extremely playable, accessible game text. . . when it's done badly, resolutions are rife with breakpoints and GM-fiat punts . . .​


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My feeling is that the more the players try to explore this issue, the more pressure they will put on that consistency. So it's fairly important that they _do_ just assume that it is there.



That's possible, but any exploration of any fictional story will put pressure on consistency. By that reasoning, no medium is purist-for-system because anything might break under enough scrutiny. Hell, even non-fiction documentaries can break under scrutiny.

Perhaps, I'm not sure, the relevant question is *why* do they just assume it is there? If they assume it's there, because they assume there's a plausible reason somewhere somehow, then I think that's more purist. If they assume it's there, because they're afraid to look too hard and break consistency, then it's more high concept. That's my guess anyway.


----------



## Andor (Aug 11, 2011)

You know, it's been a while since I managed to find a D&D game of any flavor. Letely I've been browseing through the books for both 4e and 3e and I realized something.

They are not intended to tell the same kind of stories.

The early editions of D&D always had a sort of wiggle room in how things were set up. You could have your barbarian carving his way through hordes of mooks with nothing but a loincloth and a giant stone spork, and you could have the plucky street thief who found the ring of invisibility and snuck into the palace to win the princeses heart.

Of course in play these collided to produce invisible barbarians armoured like a WWII battleship.

4e ditches the plucky, lucky street urchin. If you want to sneak into the palace you have to do it on your own, through guile, wit and mad ninja skillz. There simply are no rings that will make you invisible for that long.

I can see merit to this approach, honestly. I think I also see why 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me anymore. It's ditched the fiction which lay behind so much of the early games. No more Frodo and the ring of doom, no more Elric and Stormbringer, no more Alladin and the magic lamp.

In truth these events almost never happened in play. But _they informed the world_. They happened in the back ground and you heard about them from NPCs, or read about them in history. And you could daydream about them while flipping through the books.

In 4e the focus is squarely on the characters rather than on what loot they have. But there is a price that has been paid.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 11, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> How about the battle where Legolas and Gimli compete for the number of orc kills and don't seem to fear death? That feels like high-level PCs fighting low-level monsters.



I can see how you might infer that, but I think seasoned warriors have exchanged similar banter even in real world history (where, I assume you will agree, 'high level characters' don't actually exist).  It is done with the (supressed) knowledge that both their lives are actually on the line; it almost becomes a 'macho' way of saying "boy, I'm glad to see you're still alive!"



pemerton said:


> Are you suggesting, here, that high concept simulationism is _inherently_ unstable as a design goal, because the mechanics that are introudced to support the creation of genre stories (eg Pendagon passions etc) are in danger, if taken literally, of pushing the world into incoherence?



I'm not really saying 'high concept' itself is unstable, just trying to distinguish what I think are stable/coherent expressions of it from what aren't.  Pendragon passions, for example, are a perfectly viable part of an Arthurian world setting.  Sure, they are inspired by the stories, but a world in which such things exist (and affect the outcome of events as they do in the game) seems to me to be a perfectly viable world.

Playing Pendragon, you don't necessarily get stories that match those of Malory or deTroyes, but you get characters that seem as if they might have fitted into such stories.  By modelling the world of Arthur and the round Table, rather than by trying to create the characters and stories that they relate, specifically, I think Pendragon succeeds in "emulating the genre".

Players trying to "poke about" in Pendragon and "try stuff" will (usually, IMO) not break the setting, but will generate stories that, though possibly a bit rambling and incoherent as stories, fit into the genre/setting quite well.  In a way that setting up Lancelot et al as "high level fighters" simply wouldn't.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 11, 2011)

Balesir said:


> My point is that (1) I don't think "simulating these stories" is what D&D _has ever_ tried to do, even though it was inspired by the tales and the worlds they are set in, and (2) if simulating these stories _is_ what D&D is trying to do, then it fails catastrophically at doing so.




(1) I'm not necessarily stating what the intentions were behind the design of D&D... what I am moreso talking about is the particular playstyle I feel the rules push for.

(2) I respect your opinion, but just as pemerton gets a totally different playstyle from his ecxperiences with 4e than I have witnessed in gameday, encounters, Chris Perkins podcasts, etc. I have to disagree with this statement.



Balesir said:


> Gandalf and Elric are not immune to physical harm from "low level" creatures - they simply don't take any because that is not part of the story. There really aren't any "low level" creatures in the stories, in fact. Some creatures and characters have weaknesses or lack the strengths that others possess, but "level" per se is not a concept really supported by anything in the books.




I would beg to differ, there are definitley low-level creatures (reavers, bandits, gollum, Orcs, etc.) vs. high-level creatures (Chaos Gods, Bellbane the Mist Giant, Balrog, Nazghul, etc.) in the Elric stories, Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser, LotR, etc.... 



Balesir said:


> Because their world does not work the way the D&D world(s) work. If they went out to commit genocide, they might die. Of course, they would not, if the story the author was telling demanded that they did not, but as far as their world was concerned that would be down to luck (or maybe destiny), rather than the "physics" of the world.




I disagree here as well. Elric, Corum, Legolas, Conan, Gandalf, Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser, etc. don't die... because they are superior to the average man... just as adventurers are a cut (or more depending on level) above the average man. at a certain point against certain opponents they don't ever suffer wounds in battles... not a single scratch... just like D&D.



Balesir said:


> If Gandalf, having shown he can defeat a Balrog, decided (in a fit of hubris) to go out and slay them all, you can bet that no good would come of it. And nothing in the "physics" of Middle Earth would make Gandalf's demise (and likely disgrace) in the least unlikely, barring the character of Gandalf himself being unlikely to draw erroneous conclusions about his own inviolability.




We don't know what would happen if Gandalf did this...because he never does, because this genre doesn't support that trope... Just like D&D. The thing is you've created your own basis that is not supported with any evidence for how these worlds should work.



Balesir said:


> No, I'm wanting any system for Simulationist-focussed play to model an internally-consistent world and, if it is attempting to model any specific genre, one that models the genre world, not attempts to force the genre stories to happen.




You do realize that most S&S stories never had a consistent world to begin with? How do you reconcile that fact with your need for a consistent world in games that simulate worlds that aren't consistent? 

When you examine the Young Kingdoms, The Hyborian Age, John Carter's Mars, etc. they aren't internally-consistent, at least as far as the original pulp stories go. The settings of the original stories have tons of incosistencies throughout them.




Balesir said:


> The characters in these sources do not go out to deal with lesser threats, whether paid to or not, because there is an actual cost to doing so. They would, in the world they inhabit, actually be at risk. Their lives and talents are simply far better risked in tackling the bigger, more important threats. The fact that they *don't* fall to "lesser threats" is down to the intent of the storyteller, not to the nature of the world they inhabit. Modelling the world they inhabit would support simulationist play; trying to model the story they took part in would not (at least, not successfully).




I beg to differ. Again taking Elric... as emperor of the Bright Isles he participates in an attack on raiders who planned to attack his homeland (certainly a "lesser" threat) and he kills the ones he fights without suffering a single wound. This is akin to the world that 3e D&D simulates. Higher level adventurers are at a certain point just not threatened by lower level opponents. 

You seem to be arguing that it is a bad simulation because it doesn't model your own rules for how these make believe worlds should work. the problem is that your rules go against all the lore and examples (the stories) we have of how things work on these worlds. again you are creating some arbitrary measure of the way things in these worlds *should* happen, when you have no proof that your ideas of how or why these things work are true.



Balesir said:


> I highlighted the phrase above because I think there is a confusion, here. D&D was inspired by these stories; it was wisely enough drawn, however, not to attempt to 'simulate' them, nor even the worlds they were held to take place in.




Well I didnt design D&D so I will hold of making abolute statements about the intentions of those who did. What I will say is that the rules of 3e/3.5/PF seem to simulate the tropes and conceits of S&S fiction and to a lesser extent High Fantasy stories.



Balesir said:


> Insignificant reward, perhaps, but also insignificant cost. A few 12th level characters could eradicate an orc village (say) in 2E in, what, a day? Less? With no significant risk at all.




And Elric with Stormbringer could as well... and not suffer a single hit... I guess I'm not seeing your point here.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 11, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> That's possible, but any exploration of any fictional story will put pressure on consistency. By that reasoning, no medium is purist-for-system because anything might break under enough scrutiny. Hell, even non-fiction documentaries can break under scrutiny.




Honestly, this is where the reasoning of pemerton and Balesir is breaking down for me... if you have to simulate an internally consistent world based on inconsistent things... it seems impossible to have a simulationist game... this is why I keep stressing the difference between realism vs. simulationism because I feel they are conflating the two.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 11, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I can see how you might infer that, but I think seasoned warriors have exchanged similar banter even in real world history (where, I assume you will agree, 'high level characters' don't actually exist). It is done with the (supressed) knowledge that both their lives are actually on the line; it almost becomes a 'macho' way of saying "boy, I'm glad to see you're still alive!"



Not when the body count is 41 vs 42. That body count strongly implies the seasoned warriors are inherently better (ie higher level) than their enemies.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Honestly, this is where the reasoning of pemerton and Balesir is breaking down for me... if you have to simulate an internally consistent world based on inconsistent things... it seems impossible to have a simulationist game... this is why I keep stressing the difference between realism vs. simulationism because I feel they are conflating the two.



I don't know, I'm still confused what is the larger point to be honest. I DO see value in trying to simulate an internally consistent world. The emphasis is on *trying*. It will never be perfect, but the result will be more simulationist than if you don't try at all. It's all a matter of degree.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 11, 2011)

"Could WotC actually make most people happy with a new edition?"

What if...staying consistent with the comment that a new edition cycle should be 8-10 years, WotC announces that they are beginning a 5-year open desin & playtest for 5E. A transparent process incorporating direct feedback from fans. The next four years of product continue the 4E line. The fifth year sees the sales of in-print Beta rules.

I'm not sure most people would be happy with the final version of the game, but they might be happy to have been a part of the process. If the responses from the dedicated fans that participate in the open are kept transparent, even those that don't like the end product might still be happy with the new edition as the product of the majority's input.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> pemerton gets a totally different playstyle from his ecxperiences with 4e than I have witnessed in gameday, encounters, Chris Perkins podcasts, etc.



That's a little bit cheeky! I'm not 100% sure about Gameday, but Encounters is a semi-one-shot delve format expressly designed to be little more than a tactical skirmish episode with some colour.

I'm sure BryonD gets a pretty different experience out of his 3E game from the old 3E dungeon delves that WotC used to run, but that's hardly surprising either.

Chris Perkins' podcasts - at least the ones I've seen, which involved the Robot Chicken people - were also one shots with pregen PCs and inexperienced players, and apparently designed and run as a tactical skirmish with colour. Much like the vibe I got from the ENworld mods playing D&D with Gygax.

Read Chris Perkins' account of his ongoing campaign on the WotC website. It strikes me as pretty different from the podcasts, and much closer to the game I'm running.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 11, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> I don't know, I'm still confused what is the larger point to be honest. I DO see value in trying to simulate an internally consistent world. The emphasis is on *trying*. It will never be perfect, but the result will be more simulationist than if you don't try at all. It's all a matter of degree.




I agree that it is definitely a matter of degrees...

but when talking about simulating worlds that are not internally-consistent (which are most S&S worlds and a great many HF worlds as well) how do you ever have a game that is simulationist in the way permeton and Balesir describe it?  It seems then it would be more important to simulate a world that enforces the tropes and genre conceits.  This is something which Balesir seems to hint at in his Pendragon example (especially with his reference to passions mechanics)... which are a mechanics that would seem to lead to play that is more representative of Arthurian stories,  but I'm not sure why "passion mechanics"  for Arthurian stories are better than "High level heroes not being threatened by low-level threats" for S&S stories?


----------



## Imaro (Aug 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That's a little bit cheeky! I'm not 100% sure about Gameday, but Encounters is a semi-one-shot delve format expressly designed to be little more than a tactical skirmish episode with some colour.
> 
> I'm sure BryonD gets a pretty different experience out of his 3E game from the old 3E dungeon delves that WotC used to run, but that's hardly surprising either.
> 
> ...




I wasn't trying to be cheeky... but moreso saying that I have come around to believing that 4e is capable of being run in the narrativist style you run it in.   However there is ample evidence (and from the designers themselves) including actual play that 4e is often run and promoted as pushing an almost purely Gamist playstyle, and appears to be by all accounts satisfying to those who play it that way. 

I actually find Encounters to perhaps be the most important determiner of 4e's playstyle going forward.  It is often new players first exsposure to a 4e game and as you said it is often little more than a series of tactical encounters... yet this is how the company has chosen to market their game.  Even Lair Assault, the new play experience for 4e, is being marketed as a challenging contest for optimizers and buildmasters... in other words competitive play.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I wasn't trying to be cheeky



Fair enough!



Imaro said:


> However there is ample evidence (and from the designers themselves) including actual play that 4e is often run and promoted as pushing an almost purely Gamist playstyle
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Even Lair Assault, the new play experience for 4e, is being marketed as a challenging contest for optimizers and buildmasters... in other words competitive play.



I'm not in any way shocked by the idea of gamist 4e. I continue to feel that it doesn't lend itself especially well to hardcore gamism (see a couple of posts by me and Balesir upthread) but Balesir has made it clear to me how it can support a "softer" gamism of friendly competition to have the coolest build for a situation, or to pull off the best move.

(Two points of contrast with eg Gygaxian D&D and T&T: no individual XP awards; and treasure as an entitlement for play rather than a reward for good or lucky play.)

What strikes me about Encounters and Lair Assault (as I understand them) is that the fiction seems to play so little role. My impression of it is that it is barely more than colour on the tactical skirmish play.

I would envisage those sorts of players subscribing to DDI, so they can build their PCs, but not necessarily running campaigns in the traditional sense.

That said, there may be countervailing forces in favour of the fiction. The Vampire from HoS is said to be very popular, for example. It brings a lot of fictional baggage with it. I wonder if that comes into play in an Encounters game?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I actually find Encounters to perhaps be the most important determiner of 4e's playstyle going forward.  It is often new players first exsposure to a 4e game and as you said it is often little more than a series of tactical encounters... yet this is how the company has chosen to market their game.  Even Lair Assault, the new play experience for 4e, is being marketed as a challenging contest for optimizers and buildmasters... in other words competitive play.






pemerton said:


> What strikes me about Encounters and Lair Assault (as I understand them) is that the fiction seems to play so little role. My impression of it is that it is barely more than colour on the tactical skirmish play.




I've heard the same from my players that do Encounters. I think WotC has paid attention these comments. One of the new announcements regarded a season of Encounters focusing more on roleplaying. It'll be interesting to hear what my friends think of it.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What strikes me about Encounters and Lair Assault (as I understand them) is that the fiction seems to play so little role. My impression of it is that it is barely more than colour on the tactical skirmish play.
> 
> I would envisage those sorts of players subscribing to DDI, so they can build their PCs, but not necessarily running campaigns in the traditional sense.
> 
> That said, there may be countervailing forces in favour of the fiction. The Vampire from HoS is said to be very popular, for example. It brings a lot of fictional baggage with it. I wonder if that comes into play in an Encounters game?







Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've heard the same from my players that do Encounters. I think WotC has paid attention these comments. One of the new announcements regarded a season of Encounters focusing more on roleplaying. It'll be interesting to hear what my friends think of it.




Well I did Gameday last Saturday, where I ran a game. If you want to read about how that happened and/or my experiences there you can check out this post... http://www.enworld.org/forum/5646943-post24.html ... I had a good time but I didn't feel like 4e in and of itself, or the adventure they provided pushed towads the type of play I had heard permeton and a few others talk about 4e having.... so I improved and ad-libbed and modified alot of the adventure to try and get it somewhere near there. 



I also decided to take my son to the first Encounters session yesterday, and what I observed was that two of the three tables could be boiled down to a tactically driven competition between the DM's and players with read aloud text from the module being most of the color or flavor and all attack description/flavor being "I attack with [insert power name]. 

Now the saving grace was that my son and I, along with 3 others got a DM who told us upfront that she wasn't used to running official WotC events and she, unlike the other two tables, started the game by asking us to tell her a little about our characters (which consisted of an Eladrin Bladesinger, Dragonborn Slayer, Half-Orc Slayer, Human Knight and Human Hexblade.). Honestly I was shocked, but also glad that she had decided to scrap the mold most were running it in and do her own thing, it really helped us get a feel for the characters as opposed to the builds and roles in our party. 

She gave us a little time to roleplay in the market square with some of the NPC's... but cut it short because the table next to us had shot through the roleplaying and were already on the combat (even though they started after us) and we could hear everything that was about to happen in the adventure. So into combat we went. Yet even in combat she wouldn't let us get away with just saying the power name, she asked us to describe what was happning. I'm hoping she'll come back next week, even though she said she was only subbing for a DM who couldn't make it. i also hope the themes we took will play a bigger part in the adventure as we progress but in the first encounter they weren't relevant, except in givig us extra cool bits to tackle encounters with, at all. So yeah outside of a DM willing to actively work outside WotC's own structure... I would say your impressions are pretty accurate. 

I guess this is why I, and perhaps many others, find it so hard to look at 4e as being anything but designed for Gamist focused tactical skirmish play, with a light coating of roleplaying... I mean fans of 4e swear it's insulting when you claim this is what 4e is, but in all honesty this is exactly how the company that owns and created it chooses to market it, and with Lair assault it's no longer an excuse of keeping it simple for new players... it's the chosen style, by the company, of official play for experienced players of 4e as well.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm late coming to this thread, so excuse me if I'm commenting on some discussions that happened pages back.

On Mike Mearls' articles discussing GNS theory:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Many Faces of D&D)

He kinda did back in June.


On 4E being gamist, specifically the argument that 4E isn't a game that can be 'lost':

Somebody made the comment that 4E isn't exactly gamist as its difficult to die. The way I see it, death isn't the consequence of failure in 4E. I look at 4E more as a WWE Wrestling match rather than a boxing match. In a boxing match, two competitors face each other, one wins, one loses. In a WWE Wrestling match, the outcome has already been decided, but success or failure isn't based on competition but on entertaining the crowd. In 4E, the players and DM would function as both the wrestlers and the crowd, and the goal isn't so much to be challenging as it is to be entertaining and interesting. I don't see gamist as necessarily having to be either competitive or non-cooperative.

On new players and existing players:

There is one major point of conflict between new and existing players of a game, and that is the depth of the player rules. To appeal to new players, a game needs to allow them to quickly start playing the game on an even footing with existing players. Existing players, however, seem to demand an ever increasing amount of depth. More character options, more fiddly bits, more setting lore, more everything. 3E, 4E and Pathfinder put new players at a disadvantage, as a first time player isn't going to have the grasp of the depth of the rules. I don't even think Core-only 3E really accomplished this. 4E might have done a decent job at that at launch, but was quickly buried in crunch. Essentials was an attempt to create this, but wasn't as appealing as base 4E(with Fighters as deep as Wizards) and got a violently conflicted reception from the established 4E crowd. It feels more complete than 4E did at launch, but is missing a lot of what makes 4E what it is, like the aforementioned Fighter with just as many powers as the Wizard. Now, the modular concept introduced by Mearls might be able to accomplish this, but it will fail if no existing players use it in a newbie friendly fashion, and the big complex deep version becomes the default. I'm also not convinced that trying to make a single game cater to both is practical or wise.

On a simple core with optional add-on complexity:

The danger with this is that the core is tediously boring and uninspiring. Its going to be the first thing people reach for, and it needs to sell people on the game. If it is made too generic to facilitate the add-ons, people are going to tune it out. Something like this has worked in the past, as in White Wolf's base World of Darkness book and the individual games like Vampire, Mage, ect. but in that case the focus was on the add-ons, not the base system, and there was some history backing that up. I'm not sure D&D could pull that off.

On the schism in the D&D community:

I really think there are some irreconcilable differences, the biggest of which is the slaughtering of sacred cows. The 4E community has had some violently negative reactions to 4E bringing back some sacred cows(Magic Missile, Fighters who spam basic attacks). I don't really see any middle ground on this. I'm starting to think WotC might be better off with two D&Ds, one going forward and one keeping the traditions alive(a D&D Classic, if you will).


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 14, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> Wow, it was actually more tolerable when entitled nerds were pronouncing 3.X the best ever and that Gygax loved 3.X and would have hated 4E and that only WotC is in it for the money than now when a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals want to use fancy terms to pigeonhole their pretend games into different terms that are actually descriptions of playstyle and not mechanics for the most part.




I have hated the whole GSN Theory crap ever since it came out.  It is used largely for cases like what this thread has turned into.  Useless navel-gazing.  I don't' find GSN useful at all.  I don't think of my gaming in terms like Gamist or Simulationist.  It's just crap.  

I thought 3.5 was WAY too early and just a cash grab.  I didn't invest very heavily in anything 3.5 onward, I didn't even buy the new PHB.  Instead I gave my money to other like Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.  I've been playing since Basic (24 years now) and I've played every version of D&D and a bunch of other game systems too.  I could care less if a RPG is claiming to try and simulate whatever, I just care about if my friends and I have fun at the table.  4E has been a lot of fun for me, my experiences during 3E were mostly good (altho making higher level characters was a nuisance), but I had some very bad experiences during 3.5.  

When 4E came out, I was glad to se some of the sacred cows made into hamburger.  Traditional Vancian casting was gone, alignments were simplified and had no more mechanical important (unless you were a Divine character, and then it mattered a bit), combat became interesting again.  Friends of mine who previously wouldn't be caught dead playing a Wizard were now quite happy to.  Fighters had something to do that didn't feel like it boiled down to "I swing my sword at it".  

Do I think the next version of D&D will make everyone happy?  Please.  This is the same site that has a guy who is best known for pushing OD&D as the One True Version   Is there math in need of fixing in 4E (among other things)?  Yes.  Is it overall a great game that lets my friends and I have a lot of fun when we get to sit at the table together every 2 weeks?  Yer darn tootin'!  

Play what makes you happy, no edition will please everyone and it shouldn't try to.  Pathfinder doesn't please me so I don't play it.  Taking what I disliked about 3.5 and ramping the power level was NOT what I had in mind for a new edition.  3E was a change.  4E was a change.  Change is good.  I played Human Wizards and Halfling Rogues in 2E and 3E.  I'm still playing them in 4E, plus lots of other fun stuff.  I play w/a different DM, but he's still able to tell the stories he wants to tell.  I suppose the GSN crew would label our current campaign Narrativist b/c we kew in advance we were going to play Revenge of the Giants and so everyone in the party could speak Giant and most had some extra benefits against Large or larger creatures.  Like my Halfling Daggermaster Rogue. 

Sorry, I read just over 7 pages and couldn't take anymore GSN w/o saying something.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Aug 14, 2011)

Gundark said:


> These Legends and Lore articles by Mearls has a lot of people talking. There are people (like myself) who wonder if he is talking about a new edition of D&D, or at least some kind of rules and options/unearthed arcana for 4e. There are others that think that he is just blabbing about game theory with no other motive. I can imagine one of the more asked questions that Mike will be asked is "Where are you going with these articles?"
> 
> Anyhow after reading page after page of discussion about these articles I've been surprised at the number of people who are say"This won't work!!!!" or who say something like "If this is 5e then count me out!!!!" without any sort of sense of how this would even actually look beyond discussion about theory.
> 
> So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?




It matter not what 'Edition' will emerged, it matters what People will accept in this day and age.

Could Wotc get back folks ?

The answer will be--What people playing now? That is the answer.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 15, 2011)

Random thoughts:

The discussion of the demo game reminds me of all the demo games I've been in over the years that have had good roleplaying...
......
......
......
...OK, you've got me. Over the last 30 years I've never seen a demo or in-store game that's had much, if any roleplaying. In store games can make Nobilis and Everway look like tactical games. Despite common opinion, I don't see demos of any sort really giving any real hint of the roleplaying potential of a game. Yes, that includes the local darling Pathfinder. I've never seen more roleplaying coming out of that game.

Thinking of the roleplaying angle, does anybody remember the whole "back to the dungeon" campaign for 3.0? When 3.0 was supposed to be relief from the complexities and amateur thespianism of AD&D?

I'm bemused by the complaints about 4E changing the magic system, since it seems that for the last 34 yearspeople have been complaining about and trying to change the magic system away from Vancian magic. I've seen dozens of attempts, from mana point systems, to fatigue based, to skill roll based systems. Trying to get away from Vancian magic seems to be the origin point of most fantasy heartbreakers, as well as games such as Runequest. Amd then WOTC goes and moves away from Vancian magic, and people complain about that. Huh. I guess even though 3.X didn't fix the magic system, at least they made it overpowered enough to make the power gaming crowd happy.

I'm  also bemused when people complain about 4E   magic being video gamey, and then continue in the same paragraph about how they love Savage Worlds...a system that makes 4E look like a paragon of flexibility. Go fig.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 15, 2011)

While I agree with the majority of what SSquirrel says, I have a question.  [MENTION=5202]SSquirrel[/MENTION], you say:


SSquirrel said:


> I have hated the whole GSN Theory crap ever since it came out.  It is used largely for cases like what this thread has turned into.  Useless navel-gazing.  I don't' find GSN useful at all.  I don't think of my gaming in terms like Gamist or Simulationist.  It's just crap.



...which is fair enough as an opinion.  But this:


SSquirrel said:


> I suppose the GSN crew would label our current campaign Narrativist b/c we kew in advance we were going to play Revenge of the Giants and so everyone in the party could speak Giant and most had some extra benefits against Large or larger creatures.  Like my Halfling Daggermaster Rogue.



...tells me that you don't understand the concept of GNS at all.  Campaigns are not "Gamist" or "Narrativist" at all.  Nothing in the facts you give about aspects of your play 'are' Narrativist or even suggest Narrativist focussed play at all.

So, my question is, what do you base your initial comments about GNS on?  What actually motivates your despite of GNS?  Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing?  Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time?  Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it?  What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 15, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> Sorry, I read just over 7 pages and couldn't take anymore GSN w/o saying something.




98% of the people on this forum don't use GNS's meaning as originally conceived (and later morphed into The Big Model, which is far more conducive to examining play).

Instead, they use bastardized meanings of the terms to try and reflect roleplaying and rules at a fundamentally contrary point to actual GNS. 

"Simulationism" in GNS isn't about how "realistic" the game mechanics are necessarily. Yet, on this forum, you'll find people consistently refer to games as "simulationist" because there is a rule that tries to model the weather or tables for populations and whatnot. 

People consistently refer to 4E here as "gamist", when it's mostly played as a Right to Dream (i.e. simulationist) game, where the focus is on simulating heroic action adventurers kicking ass and taking names throughout a string of connected, linear "set-piece" encounters. And, OD&D is far more Step On Up (i.e. gamist) because it's focus is on player skill, resource management, character survival and overcoming challenges. 

The fact that 4E has action points and OD&D has geographic tables with random encounters has little to do with the creative agenda going on at the table. 

But, of course, people will continue using their bastardized version of GNS in order to describe how 3E is more "simulationist" than 4E because it's grapple rules are more complex... *puke*


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 15, 2011)

Balesir said:


> So, my question is, what do you base your initial comments about GNS on?  What actually motivates your despite of GNS?  Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing?  Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time?  Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it?  What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?




I've read the GNS theory and don't believe it has any real use other than causing arguments.  I listed that specific example largely from someone upthread making comments on how the group making characters knowing X is what the focus of the campaign would be about is an example of Y.  

I have no problem understanding what I'm doing.  When I play any RPG w/my friends I am, hopefully, having fun.  Someone on the internet trying to pigeonhole it means zero to me.  The past roughly decade of internet RPG discussions that end up devolving into people throwing GNS terms at each other have been more than enough to make me hate it.  

Nice way to imply that if I don't understand GNS that I won't understand what I'm doing.  This is a great example of why people hate the theory.  The ones who use it generally come off as rather elitist and know it all.  GNS doesn't enhance anything IMO, it's just a way for some people to throw around terms that they think are important, but inform nothing.


----------



## Andor (Aug 15, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing?  Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time?  Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it?  What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?




I'm not a mod or anything, but that's pretty insulting. It's also completely offbase. GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.

There were GMs and players who knew what they were doing before anyone ever dreampt up the GSN definitions, and there are GMs and player now who can quote you chapter and verse about GSN today and still run a boring game.

As far as not wanting to know... *shrug* Talk to a drama major some time, they'll often tell you that taking classes on cinematography is an excellent way to ensure you'll never enjoy another movie again. Once the tool kit is laid bare, the magic goes away and all you can think it "Hey! He stole that line from the 1962 remake, and using a dissolve instead of a fade ruins the sub-text anyway."


----------



## Balesir (Aug 15, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> People consistently refer to 4E here as "gamist", when it's mostly played as a Right to Dream (i.e. simulationist) game, where the focus is on simulating heroic action adventurers kicking ass and taking names throughout a string of connected, linear "set-piece" encounters.



I have necer experienced 4E played in that mode.  I can quite believe that there are some people who do play it that way, but I'm not at all convinced that either of us know whether or not they constitute 'most' of the players of 4E.

I do, however, think that, compared to other systems I have played, D&D is quite poor at supporting Simulationist play.  The reasons why I explained above, but basically are around experience points, 'levelling up' and hit points.  And not because they are "unrealistic".



SSquirrel said:


> I've read the GNS theory and don't believe it has any real use other than causing arguments.



OK, but what I was asking was what is your belief based on?



SSquirrel said:


> I have no problem understanding what I'm doing.  When I play any RPG w/my friends I am, hopefully, having fun.  Someone on the internet trying to pigeonhole it means zero to me.



Pigeonholing means nothing to me, either - but that is not what GNS as I understand it tries to do.  Maybe you have reached a different understanding of it; I'm interested in why and how you have done that.



SSquirrel said:


> The past roughly decade of internet RPG discussions that end up devolving into people throwing GNS terms at each other have been more than enough to make me hate it.



So the way some internet posters have misused the terms has soured you to them?  I can understand that.



SSquirrel said:


> Nice way to imply that if I don't understand GNS that I won't understand what I'm doing.



Sorry, that was not my intent.  Let me rephrase the point:

- GNS is an attempt to understand the motivations of people while roleplaying

- You say you abhor the 'GNS stuff'

- But you not only don't say why it's a poor way to understand roleplaying, you say things that imply you misunderstand it yourself.

So I asked what your reason for disliking GNS was.  It appeared not to be that GNS is a flawed system of understanding roleplaying - what's left as a reason?  I thought of (i) being opposed to the very idea of seeking understanding, (ii) thinking that "theorising" is just a waste of time and (iii) having bad experiences with those espousing the theories that set you against them.  From your responses so far I am inclined to think it's the last one, but I am still very unsure.



SSquirrel said:


> This is a great example of why people hate the theory.  The ones who use it generally come off as rather elitist and know it all.



This comment, specifically, seems to point to the last explanation.

But my explanations are probably not even a complete list, and hence the reason for me asking, rather than just trying to divine the answer from your posts.



SSquirrel said:


> GNS doesn't enhance anything IMO, it's just a way for some people to throw around terms that they think are important, but inform nothing.



Well, they inform me.  I realise that this might hold no value for you, but your virulence against GNS makes me think that there must be something beyond them "not having value for you" to make you feel the way you do.



Andor said:


> I'm not a mod or anything, but that's pretty insulting.



I have explained above why I didn't think that was the case, but if it sounded that way I apologise for that misstep.



Andor said:


> It's also completely offbase. GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.



Actually, I don't think GNS is either of those things.  It specifically does not talk about systems, it really only addresses a part of what might be called 'playstyle' and it hardly really applies to campaigns.  It's really just about what the players have as the focus of their attention in the moment of actual play.  All the other stuff - the systems and the routines and habits formed by the group - simply may support one or other of the available focuses of attention.  Or may support none of them, specifically.



Andor said:


> There were GMs and players who knew what they were doing before anyone ever dreampt up the GSN definitions, and there are GMs and player now who can quote you chapter and verse about GSN today and still run a boring game.



Absolutely true.  Knowledge of theory has never guaranteed facility with the practical art.  Theory does, however, give a perspective and a clarity of vision that can help a reasonably competent practitioner of the practical art.  Practical art is useful on its own, theory is not, but the two combined will always be superior to either alone.



Andor said:


> As far as not wanting to know... *shrug* Talk to a drama major some time, they'll often tell you that taking classes on cinematography is an excellent way to ensure you'll never enjoy another movie again. Once the tool kit is laid bare, the magic goes away and all you can think it "Hey! He stole that line from the 1962 remake, and using a dissolve instead of a fade ruins the sub-text anyway."



Yes, indeed - and that analogy would be a good explanation of why someone does not wish to bother understanding GNS theories.  But seldom do I hear anyone going around saying that cinematography is "crap" or that it's "useless navel-gazing".  I am interested in what causes that, rather extreme, reaction - not in what causes disinterest.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 15, 2011)

Andor said:


> GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.




You know, one of my really bad 3.5 experiences happened w/a group where one of the members, when we were discussing possibly starting higher than 1st level, whine that if we didn't begin at 1st level we "would never really know our characters".  Really?  For make believe characters in a make believe game?  So we're 4th level, fine, I'll make up a small bit more background.  Voila, I know my character just as well as I would have at first level.  The comments you are referring to strikes me similarly.  If you don't do X, you're doing it wrong.  Non-adherence to GNS appears to be badwrongfun to some.  *shrug*  

Not saying you think that, considering you were defending what I said, just used your comment as a jumping off point


----------



## Balesir (Aug 15, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> Non-adherence to GNS appears to be badwrongfun to some.



I really don't know how you would "adhere" to GNS, but part of the main thrust of it is that *none* of the agendas are "badwrongfun", I don't see where this comment is coming from.  What, in your view, _is_ GNS saying is the "correct" method/mode of play?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I guess this is why I, and perhaps many others, find it so hard to look at 4e as being anything but designed for Gamist focused tactical skirmish play, with a light coating of roleplaying... I mean fans of 4e swear it's insulting when you claim this is what 4e is, but in all honesty this is exactly how the company that owns and created it chooses to market it, and with Lair assault it's no longer an excuse of keeping it simple for new players... it's the chosen style, by the company, of official play for experienced players of 4e as well.



This ties back to some of my upthread comments.

I still find the description of 4e play amongst a handful of people here to be in a stark contrast not just to WotC's comments, but to the play style described and advocated by the great majority of 4e fans I speak to.

It is the sweet spot of the game design.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> I guess even though 3.X didn't fix the magic system, at least they made it overpowered enough to make the power gaming crowd happy.



The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.

My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 16, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I really don't know how you would "adhere" to GNS, but part of the main thrust of it is that *none* of the agendas are "badwrongfun", I don't see where this comment is coming from.  What, in your view, _is_ GNS saying is the "correct" method/mode of play?




GNS doesn't say it, you implied it in your comments, but you have since said we misunderstood what you said, so whatever.  Saying things like "What actually motivates your despite of GNS? Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing? Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time" certainly don't help your cause as they make it sound like you are saying NOT using GNS theory to understand gaming means you won't understand it and they you're doing it wrong.  

I really don't have an overwhelming need to fulfill your curiosity.  Just leave it at the idea that threads devolving from original topics into endless debates about what GNS approach is being used solves NOTHING and turns what could have been a useful discussion into self-important bickering.  IMO of course as always


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 16, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I have necer experienced 4E played in that mode.  I can quite believe that there are some people who do play it that way, but I'm not at all convinced that either of us know whether or not they constitute 'most' of the players of 4E.
> 
> I do, however, think that, compared to other systems I have played, D&D is quite poor at supporting Simulationist play.  The reasons why I explained above, but basically are around experience points, 'levelling up' and hit points.  And not because they are "unrealistic".




I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way. 

You cite experience points as being poor at simulationist play. How so? In early D&D, experiences were a measure of progress, a scorecard if you will. They were handled as individual rewards and each type of character had a certain amount they needed to reach the next level. That's pure gamism. 

However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it". 

That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do. 

Now, no doubt you _can _play 4E in a gamist way. I ran two long-running 4E campaigns. One of them was the former, they leveled up every other session as a pacing mechanic. The other was a sandbox game, where they earned XP for doing specific tasks, and earned it individually (we had a player base of 11-15 rotating players). One was high on simulating action heroes saving the world. The other campaign was straight up competition at the highest level. 

Guess what? They both had XP, levels and hit points. 

Has nothing to do with that. 

GNS is about _instances of play. _

Like I said, it may be largely _my _observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.
> 
> My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.




There are many factors that affect this.

Do you play high level?  The higher level you play at, the more likely it is that power gaps happen.
What about your players?  Are they system analysts?  Do they play the way the 3.X playtesters did?  Are they nice enough to not overshadow the weaker players?  Do they know what CoDzilla is?
What about you? Can you handle a high level game?  Can you design situations where everyone is useful?  Do you know where the system falters and avoid the pit holes?  Do you know what to do when a power gap happens?            

You may not have had those problems, but there are plenty of people who do!  Are they all playing the game wrong?  Is D&D not for them?    

It would help me figure out your table's dynamic if you posted your player's character sheets, but that would take too much work on your part so I'll follow the golden rule on that (aka not asking you to do that because I wouldn't do it either if someone asked me).


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.
> 
> My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.



Well, that seems like a bit of self-selection there.  If I thought that 3E wizards were a huge problem, naturally I'd be more likely to move onto another system.

Powergaming certainly isn't specific to any one system.  Powergamers in 4e know they can build characters that can end a fight in 2 rounds.  Powergamers in 3e know they can end a fight before it even starts.  It's merely a preference.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 16, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way.



Purely anecdotally, I think DMs who post online may have a jonesing for Sim play to an extent.  What their actual sessions consist of, though, I have no idea - and the agenda will be mostly set by the players, I would guess.  But, basically, I have no more real evidence than you, so I guess we'll just have to settle for not knowing.



P1NBACK said:


> However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it".



I have seen this quoted, sure - but that's not playing the rules as written, it's 'drifting', as I imagine you are aware.  Drifting, far from demonstrating a system's ability to support a play agenda, really demonstrates that it fails, as written, to support that agenda (which is why it "had to be changed").



P1NBACK said:


> That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do.



I don't think we can say it's necessarily Simulationist - it could as easily be Narrativist (and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts around here demonstrate this).  But, yeah, 4E can be drifted to support non-Gamist agendas; no great surprise.



P1NBACK said:


> GNS is about _instances of play._



Agreed.  As such, systems and campaigns are not tied to a specific agenda - but they do tend to prioritise and support one specific agenda, as written/intended.



P1NBACK said:


> Like I said, it may be largely _my_ observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic.



Almost as an aside, I think "linear storylines" can fit with Gamist play just fine.  The "story" in this case just becomes a convenient context linking all the challenges together.  The only agenda that really doesn't suit "linear stories" is Narrativism - but some varieties of Simulationism have issues with them, too.  Not that linear stories are essential to Gamist play, mind you - the links and routes between "encounters" can be a game in itself.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 16, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Random thoughts:
> 
> The discussion of the demo game reminds me of all the demo games I've been in over the years that have had good roleplaying...
> ......
> ...




I've just released 3 adventures as a mini-arc set in my Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting for Pathfinder. The start of both the first and second adventures are heavily involved with roleplaying encounters. While there is some combat at the start of the first adventure, much of the encounters in the first half of the first adventure involves roleplaying with mechanics built in to enhance the roleplaying. If you don't motivate the right people with the party's roleplaying skills many delays will prevent them from continuing the adventure.

The start of the second adventure involves 3 different roleplaying encounters involving buying horses from xenophobic merchants, distributing gifts (intended as part of a larger spell being cast) and a diplomatic encounter with the local lord.

These roleplaying encounters are built into the adventure itself - without the necessary roleplaying the storyline can't move forward.

Thus the argument that PF doesn't support roleplaying is simply a choice of your gaming group to do or not do, not a discrepancy in the game system, as my point is roleplaying is easily supported by PF.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> There are many factors that affect this.
> 
> Do you play high level?  The higher level you play at, the more likely it is that power gaps happen.
> What about your players?  Are they system analysts?  Do they play the way the 3.X playtesters did?  Are they nice enough to not overshadow the weaker players?  Do they know what CoDzilla is?



I dispute the claim of "weaker" players.  The presumption there, imo, shows the problem.  Now, I DO play with people who like to be part of a cool story about cool characters rather than trying to "beat" the game regardless of of how disjointed their buold may be.



> You may not have had those problems, but there are plenty of people who do!  Are they all playing the game wrong?  Is D&D not for them?



Oh, I absolutely admit that people have this problem.  It would be silly to argue otherwise.  But it is not a symetric issue.  If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.

There are people who also can't hit a curve ball.  I'm one of them.  No one can it a curve ball with a broken bat.  But blaming may inability to hit a curve ball on the batt is just making excuses.  

The D&D I play is made for maximum adaptability.  I won't call anyone's play "wrong", and if you pay attention to my posts you will know I have stressed that idea numerous times.  

However, there are a ton of people who play the game "wrong" if you add the presumption that trying to achieve the experience *I* desire.  3E can absolutely be abused, the system is not burdened with safety rails that limit options in exchange for reliability.  

If CODzilla is a real problem in your game, then you are not playing a game best suited to your play style.  But your play style is vastly different than mine.  

But in my games, through a wide range of levels, players agreeing to work toward awesome STORIES have a great experience.

If CODzilla is fun to you and is your goal, awesome.  My preferences are different, but they have zero claim of superiority to that.  However, if someone were to claim they are focused on the story AND that CODzilla is a problem, then I WILL question to consistency of those claims.

There is no badwrongfun goal.  But 3E can be palyed toward different goals, and if you want one and play toward another then THAT is probably "wrong".


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I dispute the claim of "weaker" players.  The presumption there, imo, shows the problem.  Now, I DO play with people who like to be part of a cool story about cool characters rather than trying to "beat" the game regardless of of how disjointed their buold may be.



I don't think it has to do with the build though.  The major criticism of 3.5E is that certain classes are capable of doing everything.  And yes you can force it to be a fun experience but then you are basically admitting that you have to kludge the system to make it work.  And before you use the ad hominem of it being a 4E fan please realize that I'm actually reading this off of the house rules of multiple 3.5E forums.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.




Maybe there's another word than 'systemic' to describe the problem then.

My case in particular: My group likes supplements. We do not wish to limit new classes or feats, etc. *We love splatbooks!* No one in the group agrees with or maybe they just don't know how to build a CoDzilla or the overpowerd Wizard of board lore. Some of our players are great at scouring through splatbooks to create power builds. Others are not. The preceding statements are relatively non-edition specific.

3e with the multitude of splats (which remember we love) caused a power gap that made running the game unenjoyable for any member of our group. When looking for the underlying cause, it was the ability to cherry pick in multiclassing that was the driving force behind our problem. Some people fix this issue by limiting splats, but that wasn't an acceptable solution for us. So it would have required a change to a very core concept of the game, the multiclassing rules. Many adjustments were proposed, but all seemed at a minimum to be arbitrary.

With the flaw being "Multiclassing" I consider this to be a systemic problem *for us*.

I guess you could limit systemic problems to those commonly encountered by every single player, but then I doubt that term would be useful as you could probably never find complete agreement on any particular problem.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 16, 2011)

Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 16, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it".
> 
> That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do.
> 
> ...



I wanted to XP this post, but couldn't.

My own view of the 4e XP rules is that they are inherently a pacing mechanic rather than a reward - because they are earned per combat encounter (which the game presupposes the PCs will succeed at most of the time), per skill challenge (whether passed or faild, as per the RC), per 15 minute of free roleplaying (per DMG2) and per quest achieved.

I think this can be used to create a sort of "background context" for fairly relaxed narrativist play. As [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has explained, it can also create a context for gamism - but the gamism won't be of the "more XP/more treasure" variety (a la classic D&D or T&T), at least without drifting from the core 4e rules, but will be of the "Check out my cool build and its moves!" variety.

I think you're right that 4e could also be played as a type of high-concept simulationism, again with the advancement working as a type of genre-preserving background context. I think 4e has features that might push against that, because tending to encourage too much player "activism" (the build rules, the metagame mechanics) but a strong group consensus and/or habits of play could keep them in check, I'm sure (much as BryonD is describing for how his 3E group keep CoDzilla etc in check).


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Oh, I absolutely admit that people have this problem.  It would be silly to argue otherwise.  But it is not a symetric issue.  If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.




I don't know.  I _never_ saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D.  Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death?  ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.")  Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?

What I would suggest is that you've moved away from the parts of 3E that you don't like and have created your own system.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My case in particular: My group likes supplements. We do not wish to limit new classes or feats, etc. *We love splatbooks!*



I LOVE splatbooks.  I don't have the problem.  
I don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I don't know.  I _never_ saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D.  Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death?  ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.")  Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?
> 
> What I would suggest is that you've moved away from the parts of 3E that you don't like and have created your own system.



I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't make much sense.

If PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to not see it.
If lack of PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to see it.

Neither are true and neither compare to the claim that the power gap MUST exist.

I'm NOT saying people don't see it.  I'm sayignt he claims that it MUST be seen by all who play are closed minded and flatly absurd.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.




Board-gamey play and homogenous PCs are pretty close to systemic in 4E.  You're either oblivious of it, or troubled by it.

Gee, simple declarations sure are easy.

And I absolutely accept that there are tons of people for which my statement is false.  

Of course, I'd also say that there are a lot more people who see the flaw in your statement and also the issues I identified pushes more people away from 4E than your issues push away from 3E.  

The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> And yes you can force it to be a fun experience but then you are basically admitting that you have to kludge the system to make it work.



"Force"?  "Kludge"?  Where do you get these words from my quotes?

I do neither.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 17, 2011)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.



...or you accepted that magic this powerful could never be balanced with any nonmagical ability, because _it's magic_.

Many people don't see it as a "problem" that wizards can teleport, polymorph, and grant wishes while rogues and fighters can't. That just makes sense.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't make much sense.
> 
> If PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to not see it.
> *If lack of PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to see it.*
> ...




The bolded section was true for me - it was impossible for me to see PC death.  It never happened and was never going to happen.  It was part of the system we made for ourselves.

I'm not saying that everyone must see the power gap; I'm saying that it's simply an artifact of the system, and one must take steps to change the system in order to get rid of it.  That's how it's similar to PC death for me in AD&D - it's part of the system, but we changed the system to get rid of it.

I could be wrong.  The power gap is true in my experiences, but I'm aware that my experiences aren't that broad.  If you have some examples of your play that show how it's not the case, I'll accept it.

[sblock=My current 3.5 game]I'm playing in a 3.5 game right now, and my main foe - though luckily he doesn't care much about me - is an ancient green dragon vampire (CR 20+).  I'm 12th level*, a fighter-2/wizard-4/spellsword-1/abjurant champion-5.  I am plotting against the vampire - and the young adult red dragon that he sent us against, whom my githyanki companion thinks will serve us willingly - and I have no idea how I'd do that if I wasn't a 10th-level wizard caster.  If I were a fighter, rogue, ranger, barbarian, monk - I'd have no way to deal with him.

* - I wouldn't be if we didn't have access to Plane Shift - I used Lesser Planar Binding to call a Janni as my vizier, and the other PC is a githyanki psychic warrior.  That saved me from five! DC ~23 negative levels as we Plane Shifted to Sigil where I could get access to a Restoration spell.  My Overland Flight couldn't reach to the nearest city before I'd have to start making Fortitude saves.

Cool story, though - since we had two Plane Shifts, I wanted to get back into the dungeon before the NPCs there took the loot and ran off.  We Plane Shifted back to Faerun and I attempted to Teleport back to our previous location - a necromantic circle of great power - and messed it up.  Now we're in a "Similar Area: You wind up in an area that’s visually or thematically similar to the target area."  Pretty awesome![/sblock]


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I don't know.  I _never_ saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D.  Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death?  ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.")  Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?




That would mean that PC death is not a systemic problem in AD&D; that characters only die because how the players handle the system. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 17, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> ...or you accepted that magic this powerful could never be balanced with any nonmagical ability, because _it's magic_.
> 
> Many people don't see it as a "problem" that wizards can teleport, polymorph, and grant wishes while rogues and fighters can't. That just makes sense.




That's not a problem that all.  The problem is that martial characters don't get any (or much) good stuff at high levels.  A wizard get a new level of spells every two levels that area always a huge boost of power while a fighter doesn't have any feats (or few) that are as awesome as a high level spell.    

Pathfinder (and some 3.5 splats) does address this issue somewhat but YMMV on how good a job it does.


----------



## innerdude (Aug 17, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> The problem is that martial characters don't get any (or much) good stuff at high levels.




This is something that, as a personal preference, I'd actually rather see in 5e, if/when it appears, is that high level play be a completely separate component from low- to mid-level play. 

The original BECMI had the right idea--if you wanted high-level, you used the high level supplements. If you didn't, you didn't. 

(As a side note, I've never liked "high level" 3.x (levels 14+) because it leaves the realm of the system's casual gamist/realist roots, and also because most gamers I've met who like "high level" D&D, like it because they want their characters to "be awesome," not because it makes the game any more interesting. I've also never, ever really grokked the whole appeal of planar travel adventures. Like, there's not enough cool/awesome things to do/see/explore on your own planet? YMMV, of course.)


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.



Likewise you don't seem to have much to offer except "Pathfinder is perfect because it's perfect for my (perfect) group".

Ignoring criticism because you've never experienced the thing being criticized isn't particularly helpful and - to me - utterly unconvincing, particularly if at the same time you're so keen on criticizing other systems that don't seem to be "perfect" for your (perfect) group.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The bolded section was true for me - it was impossible for me to see PC death.  It never happened and was never going to happen.  It was part of the system we made for ourselves.



Well in that case it WAS systemic to the "system we made for ourselves".  But that doesn't say anything about the core system itself.  So I don't see how it is relevant.



> I'm not saying that everyone must see the power gap;



So far, we agree...



> I'm saying that it's simply an artifact of the system, and one must take steps to change the system in order to get rid of it.  That's how it's similar to PC death for me in AD&D - it's part of the system, but we changed the system to get rid of it.
> 
> I could be wrong.  The power gap is true in my experiences, but I'm aware that my experiences aren't that broad.  If you have some examples of your play that show how it's not the case, I'll accept it.



That is where we disagree.  I wouldn't say we take any steps to change or avoid the system.

I *did* say that the system doesn't have any safeties to prevent it from happening.  But if you both (a) don't want it to happen and (b) simply play the game in a manner that supports what you want, the conclusion that it is unavoidable is simply false.  Yes, that does require a certain degree of skill from the DM, but I don't call designing a game that expects a minimum basic skill from the DM a flaw.  And absolutely don't call "being a reasonably skilled DM" the same as "taking special steps" because I'd expect the same behavior under "reasonably skilled DM" for any system.  There is nothing "special" going on.  

I do think that 4E actually DOES do special things within the system itself to PREVENT it.  The safties DO exisit there.  And if that is a need, then it is a perk, no debate there.  To me, personally, it isn't a need, and the price is a detrement. 

I also don't claim that the way of playing 3E that I describe has any claim to "the one correct way" or anything remotely like that.  I think 3E very much has a significant degree of variation in approach built into it.  If you WANT to be all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story, then 3E can do that as well.  If everyone loves CODzilla, enjoy your game.  And the ability to mindlessly abuse casters in 3E is clearly more readily acheived than for non-casters.  If you play THAT way then you WILL see the gap and you probably should buff non-casters to support your style.  But from the stsrt I said it CAN happen. 

My point is that claims that it MUST happen are simply wrong.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I LOVE splatbooks.  I don't have the problem.
> I don't know what else to tell you.




I would guess that the one key element in my group's problem does not exist in yours. We have players of varying levels of skill at making powerful characters. If everyone in your group is roughly equal in that skill then you won't see the problem we saw.

I still think this can be a systemic problem because the system breaks down unless certain parameters are met. And in a game where groups differ greatly across the board, that is a detriment. Just because your group falls under the right parameters does not mean the problem doesn't exist (which you've already agreed is true) and, IMO, doesn't necessarily mean the problem isn't systemic.



BryonD said:


> Of course, I'd also say that there are a lot more people who see the flaw in your statement and also the issues I identified pushes more people away from 4E than your issues push away from 3E.
> 
> The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.




Neither "side" can validate how much an issue with each system pulls in or pushes away players except at an anecdotal level. Plus, I think you're equating "3E has systemic problems that led me to choose a different game" with "3E sucks." That's definitely not what I'm trying to say and I don't think the majority of people that discuss the problems they've encountered with a particular are saying "that system sucks."

One difference I think is occurring is systemic vs. taste/style issues. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that based on the opinions you've expressed on these boards you believe 4E is a solid system but it does not meet your tastes or your style. You have a taste/style issue.

I enjoyed playing 3E for many years. The game fits my tastes and my playstyle. If I could have solved my issues with the system I might still be playing it. I do not have a taste/style issue with 3E. I have a systemic issue.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Likewise you don't seem to have much to offer except "Pathfinder is perfect because it's perfect for my (perfect) group".
> 
> Ignoring criticism because you've never experienced the thing being criticized isn't particularly helpful and - to me - utterly unconvincing, particularly if at the same time you're so keen on criticizing other systems that don't seem to be "perfect" for your (perfect) group.



Mischaracterizing my point and group doesn't make your words true.

I'm not ignoring anything.  The claim that it always happens DEMANDS that it ALWAYS happen.  That is false.

I've agreed that it does happen for others, which your reply pointedly ignores.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I would guess that the one key element in my group's problem does not exist in yours. We have players of varying levels of skill at making powerful characters. If everyone in your group is roughly equal in that skill then you won't see the problem we saw.



I Still disagree.

I don't think player skill is important.  I DO think DM skill is important, but much more importantly, I strongly think PLAYER commitment to the same type of play style is quite important.  If the players WANT the story based game a decent DM can make it happen.  I've got a guy in my group now who has been with us about 6 months, never having played 3E or PF before, and only moderate RPG experience with other systems.  It is working great and his lack of skill with the system presernt zero barrier because his attitude is great.



> I still think this can be a systemic problem because the system breaks down unless certain parameters are met. And in a game where groups differ greatly across the board, that is a detriment. Just because your group falls under the right parameters does not mean the problem doesn't exist (which you've already agreed is true) and, IMO, doesn't necessarily mean the problem isn't systemic.



You are pushing this to the point that I practically have to declare the game immaculate to refute you.  No game is perfect.  It CAN happen in 3E.
But, feeling VERY board-gamey CAN happen in 4E and unless certain parmaters are met it will.  Therefore, by your standards, we have just proven that 4E is systemically very board-gamey.

My group finds that meeting the parameters happens without even really making an effort.  So I don't consider that an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Well in that case it WAS systemic to the "system we made for ourselves".  But that doesn't say anything about the core system itself.  So I don't see how it is relevant.




My point was that you can never encounter something in a game by approaching the game in a specific way, even if that "something" is part of the game.  In other words, even though PC death is part of AD&D, that doesn't mean PC death _must_ be part of everyone's game.

I think you agree - if you approach the game one way, you'll see the power gap; in another way, you won't.



BryonD said:


> My point is that claims that it MUST happen are simply wrong.




I agree with that, though I think that your description of play where the power gap appears -  "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair.  I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and _strong_ motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I DO think DM skill is important




I'd call this a backhanded compliment, except there is no complement. Or I feel like the guy who didn't like Blair Witch Project and told that I just didn't get it. I guess I never 'grokked' 3E well enough to avoid this pitfall then, despite being a skilled DM in OD&D and AD&D. And now I am a skilled DM in 4E. All of this is player feedback. I guess I never figured out how to make all the BMX Bandits in my group feel like they were useless next to Angel Summoner.



BryonD said:


> but much more importantly, I strongly think PLAYER commitment to the same type of play style is quite important.




Here I can agree with you. If the skilled character makers are willing to tone down their skills. If the less-skilled character builders are willing to let the other guys make their characters for them. For my group neither solution was fun for them. And since our first priority is being friends that hang out together and play a game, the system needs to accomodate the skill/power gap better, for us. I've already admitted that their may be a better word than 'systemic' for these issues, but labelling it a mere personal issue seems insuffiecient, IMO.



BryonD said:


> You are pushing this to the point that I practically have to declare the game immaculate to refute you.  No game is perfect.  It CAN happen in 3E.




I don't require the game to be perfect and never inferred that. The system breaks down at certain parameters, IME. And there have been many discussions regarding these breakdowns long before 4E was ever announced. E6 addresses on group's following on how to patch this issue with the system.



BryonD said:


> But, feeling VERY board-gamey CAN happen in 4E and unless certain parmaters are met it will.  Therefore, by your standards, we have just proven that 4E is systemically very board-gamey.




Replace "4E" with "Any edition of D&D" and I agree. But this is an accepted systemic issue accepted by those who fall outside the parameters because there is no version of D&D that CAN'T feel boardgamey.



BryonD said:


> My group finds that meeting the parameters happens without even really making an effort.  So I don't consider that an unreasonable expectation.




I'm sorry we don't all live up to your reasonable expectations. 

I made a great effort to provide a challenging game for my players. I tweaked encounters, I changed tatctics, I studied the books to a point where it was verging upon intrusion to the more important aspects of my life. I still ended up with encounters that alllowed the power gamer a one-man team or would prove too challenging for the non-power gamers. The effort became unreasonable within our groups parameters. Could I have "solved" the problem your way by toning down the power gamer? If by solve you mean strip an enjoyable aspect of the game away from a player, then sure.

In 4E the same power gamer has his fun and the other players do too. I don't have as wide of a power gap to cover and find the effort to do so reasonable once again.

Again, my premise is that you have players on the same skill level, although in your case it seems by choice. Good for you.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Here I can agree with you. If the skilled character makers are willing to tone down their skills. If the less-skilled character builders are willing to let the other guys make their characters for them. For my group neither solution was fun for them. And since our first priority is being friends that hang out together and play a game, the system needs to accomodate the skill/power gap better, for us. I've already admitted that their may be a better word than 'systemic' for these issues, but labelling it a mere personal issue seems insuffiecient, IMO.




So your personal issues are too important to just be personal issues.



> Replace "4E" with "Any edition of D&D" and I agree. But this is an accepted systemic issue accepted by those who fall outside the parameters because there is no version of D&D that CAN'T feel boardgamey.




And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E? It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 17, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> *And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E?* It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.




Emphasis mine: I've been thinking this... how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> So your personal issues are too important to just be personal issues.




Aren't everybody's on the internet? 



prosfilaes said:


> And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E? It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.




Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.



Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine: I've been thinking this... how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?




Because BMX Bandit is *completely* worthless when he teams with Angel Summoner. An optimized 4E ranger does not outshine a non-optimized 4E warlock to the point of uselessness. He may outshine a purposefully-gimped 4E warlock, but if a player is willing to make choices that actively make his character bad (low prime stats, training in skills that he has low stats in, choosing feats that help him swing a sword better when his only sword attack is a weak basic attack, etc) then I doubt he will care if he's outclassed and if he does care then I'll guide him away from bad choices.

In 3E the non-optimizers in our group *were not actively trying to make bad characters*.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> .
> 
> In 3E the non-optimizers in our group *were not actively trying to make bad characters*.





While I personally would agree that the rails (for a lack of better words) of 4E tend to be a slightly better guide and do tend to keep things more in the same ballpark, I would also say I've seen plenty of people in my 4E group end up with 'bad characters' without trying.  I've even fallen victim to it myself when I was a new player.  It's not something I feel is unique to 3rd Edition -even if I find myself agreeing that the potential for power disparity was more easily greater in the previous edition.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.




I'm not sure I buy it. Comparing a 1e fighter and 1e wizard comes up with the same basic issues as a 3e fighter and wizard. In any case, the point was that you dismissed the repeated boardgame-like feel as being possible in any game (though it only comes up in complaints about 4e), but you'll admit that the power gap comes up in every game, but somehow it only matters in one.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Because BMX Bandit is *completely* worthless when he teams with Angel Summoner. An optimized 4E ranger does not outshine a non-optimized 4E warlock to the point of uselessness. He may outshine a purposefully-gimped 4E warlock, but if a player is willing to make choices that actively make his character bad (low prime stats, training in skills that he has low stats in, choosing feats that help him swing a sword better when his only sword attack is a weak basic attack, etc) then I doubt he will care if he's outclassed and if he does care then I'll guide him away from bad choices.
> 
> In 3E the non-optimizers in our group *were not actively trying to make bad characters*.




You sir must not be aware of the amount of damage a fully optimized ranger can put out... it makes even an optimized warlock look pathetic... so yeah imagine what it does to a warlock that's made casually... and again, the ranger and rogue (who also is a better striker than the Warlock damage wise) have more skills than the warlock. 

I mean isn't this exactly the same situation some people claimed about CoDzilla at high level.... that an optimized Cleric/Druid, who selected his spells to fulfill the fighter's role was a better fighter than the fighter. The ranger and to a lesser extent the rogue fulfill the role of striker better than a warlock does. In all honesty, even a fighter in 4e (whose suppose to be a defender) if built right can easily out damage a warlock... and defend. 

I guess there's an argument that the warlock will have the arcana skill... but then BMX bandit had a bike and Angel Summoner didn't...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 18, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> I'm not sure I buy it. Comparing a 1e fighter and 1e wizard comes up with the same basic issues as a 3e fighter and wizard. In any case, the point was that you dismissed the repeated boardgame-like feel as being possible in any game (though it only comes up in complaints about 4e), but you'll admit that the power gap comes up in every game, but somehow it only matters in one.




1E had the checks and balances of different XP charts, less spells per day and static saving throw charts. A 1E wizard was not gauranteed success like a power-gamed 3E wizard with inflated save DCs. In addition, I've already said that we didn't have a power gap in 3E because of CoDzilla in our group. None of my players exhibited the ability to create one. The disparity was in the skill level of my players to build characters of too widely varying power.

I've been hearing the boardgame complaint (or some variation thereof) since the days of OD&D. The complaint usually came from someone who played a different game and had an elitist attitude that their game does things better and that D&D is a mere boardgame. The complaint became more common and less elitist with the start of 3E and certainly has increased with the concept of forced movement in 4E. IME the board game feel is easily remedied in every edition merely by not running your game as a board game. That's second nature to any experienced DM.

I did not say the power gap only matters in 3E. I said it was the only edition to date where I found the effort to close the gap not worth it anymore. I put the effort in for a long time before deciding it wasn't worth it. Lest you think me a rabid 4E fanboi, I assure you I came to this conclusion before 4E was announced. 



Imaro said:


> You sir must not be aware of the amount of damage a fully optimized ranger can put out... it makes even an optimized warlock look pathetic... so yeah imagine what it does to a warlock that's made casually... and again, the ranger and rogue (who also is a better striker than the Warlock damage wise) have more skills than the warlock.




And you must not be aware that the optimized ranger in our current group is really good at dishing out damage, but my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.

Edit: Also, I'm sure many people here read my complaint about 3E power gap and picture me whining that another player's character was better than mine. The issue comes from the DM's seat for me. I could not find a way to satisfactorily challenge the high power characters in the group without overchallenging the lower power characters. I could not find a way to satisfactorily challenge the lower power characters in the group without underchallenging the higher power characters. I'm sure other *have* found ways around this that satisfy them, but I could not. I'm sure Bryon will come back around and tell me it's because I suck as a DM.



Imaro said:


> I guess there's an argument that the warlock will have the arcana skill... but then BMX bandit had a bike and Angel Summoner didn't...




My warlock also aces every social encounter we have while the ranger's best chance at diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 18, 2011)

The warlock isn't about pure DPS.  It's more like a hybrid striker/controller.  The damage numbers may not be super high but the side effects of the attacks can be pretty sweet.  The warlock also has good mobility with teleports some powers that make him more durable.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 19, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If you WANT to be all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story, then 3E can do that as well.





LostSoul said:


> I think that your description of play where the power gap appears -  "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair.  I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and _strong_ motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.



I agree with LostSoul here. Rolemaster can have a similar problem to 3E in terms of the martial/magic power gap - although it perhaps also has more _mechanical_ resources to address them, just because there are so many points of contact where RM's rules can be tweaked, and so many optional rules in print that do various bit and pieces of that tweaking.

I discovered this about Rolemaster in just the sort of game that LostSoul describes.

In Rolemaster, it's further complicated by the fact that the "overpowered" magic can also be central to the way in which a PC mechanically expresses the player's conception of the character (this is especially true for Sorcerers and Mystics, I think). Which means that in trying to deal with the mechanical issues you have to juggle with the issue of not undermining the players' conception of his/her PC. I personally haven't experienced this being such a big issue in D&D (in part because D&D doesn't have spell lists like RM), but I'd find it easy to believe that others have.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My warlock also aces every social encounter we have while the ranger's best chance at diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later.



In addition to what VB says, I feel that the warlock has more "story power" overall - after all, s/he is the one how has a pact with an otherworldly being! Whereas the ranger has a bow. (I'm not saying it would be impossible, or even difficult, to build a ranger PC with story traction as well, but the class doesn't have it built in like the warlock does.)

At least in my game, the bigger issue is actually from the chaos sorcerer-Demonskin Adept. Good striker damage. Good social skills. _And_ a lot of story "oomph" (I mean, the guy wears leathers made from the skins of the demons he's killed - and when he gets to 16th level is going to start having periodic glimpses of the heart of the Abyss).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 19, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> My point was that you can never encounter something in a game by approaching the game in a specific way, even if that "something" is part of the game.  In other words, even though PC death is part of AD&D, that doesn't mean PC death _must_ be part of everyone's game.
> 
> I think you agree - if you approach the game one way, you'll see the power gap; in another way, you won't.



Have I ever argued against this point?  I've stated multiple times that I know and accept that some people DO see the problem.  The statement has been made that the gap automatically happens.  I'm saying that is not true.

If the gap automatically happens, then your statement "in another way, you won't" is false.  We both agree your statement is true.  That's my point.



> I agree with that, though I think that your description of play where the power gap appears -  "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair.  I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and _strong_ motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.



I was describing what I thought of as a desirable style of play which could create a need for a real effort in order to avoid the issue.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'd call this a backhanded compliment, except there is no complement. Or I feel like the guy who didn't like Blair Witch Project and told that I just didn't get it. I guess I never 'grokked' 3E well enough to avoid this pitfall then, despite being a skilled DM in OD&D and AD&D. And now I am a skilled DM in 4E. All of this is player feedback. I guess I never figured out how to make all the BMX Bandits in my group feel like they were useless next to Angel Summoner.



Ah yes, the old Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit BS.  I've never seen anything remotely approaching that as anything other than radically absurd hyperbole.  If that term fits ANYWHERE in the conversation from your point of view, then, yeah, you just don't "grok" it at the same level as me.  

I don't know you and I'm not looking to insult anyone.  But that is my opinion of anyone who would say that pattern described their experience.  And if someone says that it trumps any generic claims of other experience.

Can you and I have a debate about the merits of 4E as an RPG with the starting requirement that 4E is clearly just an attempt to clone WOW without a computer?  I'm sure if I, or anyone else, took that postion as an absolute, you would just walk away convinced that you know better but trying to convince me was hopeless, so why bother.




> I don't require the game to be perfect and never inferred that.



Well, as I said you ahve set the bar to an absurdly high level.  If you agree that "4e is a board game" is true and "the power gap always exists" is true, then I think you are using standards that undermine useful conversation 




> Again, my premise is that you have players on the same skill level, although in your case it seems by choice. Good for you.



shrug, I responded to that already and you are just ignoring what I said.  Which is fine.   But ignoring what I said and then repeating a direct claim you have no means of knowing anything about is just foolish.  So be it.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And you must not be aware that the optimized ranger in our current group is really good at dishing out damage, but my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.




So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 19, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Have I ever argued against this point?  I've stated multiple times that I know and accept that some people DO see the problem.  The statement has been made that the gap automatically happens.  I'm saying that is not true.




I'm NOT one of "those people" that say the power gap automatically happens. And I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that it absolutely happens to everyone.



BryonD said:


> If the gap automatically happens, then your statement "in another way, you won't" is false.  We both agree your statement is true.  That's my point.




Are you confusing "systemic" for "automatic?"



BryonD said:


> I was describing what I thought of as a desirable style of play which could create a need for a real effort in order to avoid the issue.




And we're all happy your solution works for you. Your parameters for an enjoyable game are different than others.



BryonD said:


> Ah yes, the old Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit BS.  I've never seen anything remotely approaching that as anything other than radically absurd hyperbole.




My "BS" is actual experience. To remove the ambiguity I'll state it simply again: If an encounter challenged the power gamers in my group, it over-challenged the non power gamers to the point where there characters could not contribute satisfactorally. If an encounter was an appropriate challenge for the non power gamers, it under-challenged the power gamers who were then able to end the encounter before the non power gamers' characters could not contribute satisfactorally. The power gamers would not enjoy the game if they were asked to tone down their characters. The non power gamers would not enjoy the game if the power gamers helped them build their character. Our main goal to playing the game is to get a chance to hang out as friends, therefore splitting the group to find all power gamers or all non power gamers is not a satisfactory conclusion. We tried to find ways to fix the problem that still allowed everyone to enjoy the game, but the problem was tied to a basic element of the system. I call this systemic, you are of course free to call it whatever you want. I know that this is not an automatic problem for all.



BryonD said:


> If that term fits ANYWHERE in the conversation from your point of view, then, yeah, you just don't "grok" it at the same level as me.
> 
> I don't know you and I'm not looking to insult anyone.




Gee. Glad you're not trying to insult anyone with your claims of superiority. What you don't "grok" is the needs my group has from a game that someone is willing to run. I would have been more than happy to give up the DM chair (I'm currently playing 4E Dark Sun) and continued playing 3.5 if anyone else in the group would have stepped forward. They felt the effort was not worth it either. So we found a game we liked. Is the problem automatic? No. Is it a common problem that arose long before 4E was even announced? Yes, see the E6 thread and various others here on ENWorld for evidence.



BryonD said:


> But that is my opinion of anyone who would say that pattern described their experience.  And if someone says that it trumps any generic claims of other experience.




So you're entitled to your opinions and I'm allowed to have mine, but their BS? Isn't this YOU that is trumping MY experience because you never saw the problem? Pot, kettle.



BryonD said:


> Can you and I have a debate about the merits of 4E as an RPG with the starting requirement that 4E is clearly just an attempt to clone WOW without a computer?  I'm sure if I, or anyone else, took that postion as an absolute, you would just walk away convinced that you know better but trying to convince me was hopeless, so why bother.




I'm not starting from absolutes, so your question is moot. I'm just relying upon personal experience, which apparently was "BS" and numerous threads dating back to the pre-4E threads, but those must have just been a bunch of BS too. 



BryonD said:


> Well, as I said you ahve set the bar to an absurdly high level.  If you agree that "4e is a board game" is true and "the power gap always exists" is true, then I think you are using standards that undermine useful conversation.




If you took the time to actually read others' posts instead of assuming a 4venger is just blabbing BS, the maybe we could have a useful conversation.



BryonD said:


> shrug, I responded to that already and you are just ignoring what I said.  Which is fine.   But ignoring what I said and then repeating a direct claim you have no means of knowing anything about is just foolish.  So be it.




I'm was merely relaying what I thought you were saying. Your words probably seem clear to you as you type them, what with your superior intellect and all, but you are not very clear. I would actually be interested in how you avoid the power gap in your games. I still hold that I'm a well-experienced DM while at the same time I'm always open to learning new ways. It might not "bring me back" to 3.5 but you never know if I might need it at some point in the future for my current game.



Imaro said:


> So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.




You sound just like the guy in my group that would normally choose the ranger because of his DPR. He "knows" that his builds are superior to my characters. My beastmaster ranger "sucked." My warlock "sucks." Yet I keep showing just how useful my characters are, funny that.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You sound just like the guy in my group that would normally choose the ranger because of his DPR. He "knows" that his builds are superior to my characters. My beastmaster ranger "sucked." My warlock "sucks." Yet I keep showing just how useful my characters are, funny that.




Good for you, it's too bad that 3.5/PF somehow made it impossible for you to create a character who was in any way "useful" (however you are choosing to define this term).  Some of us however had no such impediments when playing the game.  Different strokes I guess.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm NOT one of "those people" that say the power gap automatically happens. And I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that it absolutely happens to everyone.



Yes, they have.  That is what pulled me into this conversation and it continued after I disputed it.



> Are you confusing "systemic" for "automatic?"



I'm the one who brought the word "systemic" into this conversation and I used it specifically to describe the claim that the issue was an automatic result due to the use of the system.



> And we're all happy your solution works for you. Your parameters for an enjoyable game are different than others.



Thanks
I, and numeorus others for whom the system works, appreciate that.



> My "BS" is actual experience.



Ok, then to also remove ambiguity, IMO you are doign something very poorly.

Play what works for you but don't blame your missing of the curve ball on the bat.



> Gee. Glad you're not trying to insult anyone with your claims of superiority. What you don't "grok" is the needs my group has from a game that someone is willing to run. I would have been more than happy to give up the DM chair (I'm currently playing 4E Dark Sun) and continued playing 3.5 if anyone else in the group would have stepped forward. They felt the effort was not worth it either. So we found a game we liked. Is the problem automatic? No. Is it a common problem that arose long before 4E was even announced? Yes, see the E6 thread and various others here on ENWorld for evidence.



Shrug, it is what it is.  I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.  You are the one saying you have a problem.  

I love E6.  It offers an awesome version of low power fantasy role play built on the D20 backbone.  If someone likes D20 but does find a power gap issue at high levels, then E6 will also remove that issue.  But the existence of E6 does not provide evidence that the power gap is a major problem and far far less that is was a common problem.  D20 as designed isn't INTENDED to be low power fantasy.  My E6 conversations have focused on how it answers THAT desire.



> So you're entitled to your opinions and I'm allowed to have mine, but their BS? Isn't this YOU that is trumping MY experience because you never saw the problem? Pot, kettle.



That isn't even a logical statement.  I'm not trumping your experience.  I am 100% accepting that your experience exists and I'm simply pointing out the implications of it.  If you really do have a BMX problem, then there is a meaningful different right there.




> I'm not starting from absolutes, so your question is moot. I'm just relying upon personal experience, which apparently was "BS" and numerous threads dating back to the pre-4E threads, but those must have just been a bunch of BS too.
> 
> If you took the time to actually read others' posts instead of assuming a 4venger is just blabbing BS, the maybe we could have a useful conversation.



Please, now you are just yammering.  I never called you a 4venger or anything like that.  

I DO consider BMX Bandit BS, and honestly, before this last post I was giving you credit that it wasn't possible that you were being sincere in the claim.  That you now have stressed that this is FACT for you, then I accept that.  But anyone who is remotely in the area of that being not hyperbole but reality is vastly removed from my personal experience.  



> I'm was merely relaying what I thought you were saying. Your words probably seem clear to you as you type them, what with your superior intellect and all, but you are not very clear. I would actually be interested in how you avoid the power gap in your games. I still hold that I'm a well-experienced DM while at the same time I'm always open to learning new ways. It might not "bring me back" to 3.5 but you never know if I might need it at some point in the future for my current game.



You complain about me not reading, but you are the one missing words that I brought into the conversation and missing the points being made.

I, again, will conceed that I had presumed you were being over the top with the BMX Bandit.  And that DOES change my understanding of your position to hear you really meant it literally.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Good for you, it's too bad that 3.5/PF somehow made it impossible for you to create a character who was in any way "useful" (however you are choosing to define this term).  Some of us however had no such impediments when playing the game.  Different strokes I guess.




I didn't get to play much 3E, but when I did I could make a useful character. I mainly DMed and found it difficult to provide a fun challenge for the varied skill levels of my players in a way that was worth the effort involved or in a way that was a satisfactory fix for us. I'm happy others were able to avoid this issue in 3E altogether or had the time to put in the effort or found easier fixes that were satisfactory to them.



BryonD said:


> Yes, they have.  That is what pulled me into this conversation and it continued after I disputed it.
> 
> I'm the one who brought the word "systemic" into this conversation and I used it specifically to describe the claim that the issue was an automatic result due to the use of the system.




I do not think systemic means what you think it means. But I don't want our conversation to devolve into deuling dictionaries. So I think the misunderstanding between us is in the use of the word systemic. I've shared with you my understanding of its meaning and want to be clear that I don't take it to mean absolute. I don't believe others here mean that the problem is absolute either, but they'd have to speak for themselves.



BryonD said:


> Ok, then to also remove ambiguity, IMO you are doign something very poorly.
> 
> Play what works for you but don't blame your missing of the curve ball on the bat.




Yet, plenty of other games; OD&D, AD&D, 4E, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Witch Hunter; do work for me. 3.5 in your analogy, *to me*, is not a bat and is instead a roman pillar. No wonder I can't hit the curve ball.

Your dislike of my game of choice is because it doesn't meet your tatses, but my dislike of yours is becuase I'm doing it wrong? Thank you Mr. Badwrongfun.



BryonD said:


> I DO consider BMX Bandit BS, and honestly, before this last post I was giving you credit that it wasn't possible that you were being sincere in the claim.  That you now have stressed that this is FACT for you, then I accept that.  But anyone who is remotely in the area of that being not hyperbole but reality is vastly removed from my personal experience.




Vastly removed doesn't mean the problem is with the person. Nor does it mean that the problem was not common. And, to be clear, a common problem does not necessarily mean a majority of people encountered it. All I stated was that the issue cropped up often during the initial run of 3E. And for years the advice from those who "grok" the system is mostly denial that the problem exists or claims that we are "doing it wrong" with no substantive advice on "how to do it right." I thought E6 was an attempt at meaningful advice to avoid this problem, but you seem to know more about E6 than I do and claim that it addressed something else entirely.



BryonD said:


> You complain about me not reading, but you are the one missing words that I brought into the conversation and missing the points being made.




I concede that we were using terms in different manners. I'm not trying to pick a fight over your use "systemic" versus anyone else. I understand what you mean by it now and hopefully I've explained what I mean by it.

The part I'm missing is where you actually explained how your group in particular either avoided this issue, now that you know my particulars, or fixed it. I would be interested in learning how you achieved that if you're willing to share. Or if you could point me back to where you already shared this I'd appreciate it.



BryonD said:


> I, again, will conceed that I had presumed you were being over the top with the BMX Bandit.  And that DOES change my understanding of your position to hear you really meant it literally.




I know, I used an "internet catchphrase" that invokes certain attitudes and I should know better. There are ones that set me one edge when I see them here, so I shouldn't do that to others. I should have stated my actual issue plainly from the beginning.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.




Wait... what?

Yes, the warlock does less damage than the ranger but he gets controllery abilities to make up the difference.

Yes, the warlock is a less capable controller than the wizard but he's still a striker and out damaging the wizard quite nicely.

So, even in a group with a ranger, a wizard and a warlock, the warlock's still holding his own.  

By the same token, there has been recognition that warlocks needed some loving, so the recent rules updates did raise the bar for warlocks quite a lot.  The fact that warlocks now do their curse damage multiple times per round means they can start dealing out some serious punishment.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wait... what?
> 
> Yes, the warlock does less damage than the ranger but he gets controllery abilities to make up the difference.
> 
> ...




Yep, we were discussing power gaps, and going by what you posted the Warlock doesn't do any role exceptionally well...  just mediocre at two... thus a power gap, so tell me what exactly don't you understand with the "Wait...what?" comment so I can clarify.  

Now take the Fighter in contrast... He's near the top tier as a striker and is the top tier defender.  You don't see the difference in effectiveness between these two classes?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd - ask and ye shall receive:  Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Warlock Rules Updates)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yep, we were discussing power gaps, and going by what you posted the Warlock doesn't do any role exceptionally well...  just mediocre at two... thus a power gap, so tell me what exactly don't you understand with the "Wait...what?" comment so I can clarify.
> 
> Now take the Fighter in contrast... He's near the top tier as a striker and is the top tier defender.  You don't see the difference in effectiveness between these two classes?




Maybe because we don't agree with your objective statement of "mediocre." I consider my warlock to be, to borrow your phrase, "near the top tier" as both a striker and a controller, with better overall defenses than either the ranger or the wizard. Many of my powers enable the ranger to do the damage he does. In a vaccuum you might convince me, but as part of the team dynamic there is no wide gap between the classes.

As for Fighter vs. Warlock, the Fighter's balance is different because he's on the front line. He can be "top" and "near top" without outclassing the warlock because the fighter is expected to hold the line and suck up the brunt of damage. And he wouldn't do as good of a job at it either without the support of his controllers and leaders.

I think you have a very B&W view of what's "best" and the type of character you enjoy may be clouding that. If one likes DPR, then the ranger is best. If one likes holding the line, the fighter is best. If one likes supporting the team in meaningful ways, other classes fit the bill. The gap only becomes too large, IMO, when a character is unable to make a real contribution to the party, not when you just stand there and compare DPR sizes. At that point one is probably just compensating for something.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yep, we were discussing power gaps, and going by what you posted the Warlock doesn't do any role exceptionally well...  just mediocre at two... thus a power gap, so tell me what exactly don't you understand with the "Wait...what?" comment so I can clarify.
> 
> Now take the Fighter in contrast... He's near the top tier as a striker and is the top tier defender.  You don't see the difference in effectiveness between these two classes?




Which are we talking about now?  Are we talking about warlocks or are we talking about fighters?  Or, do you mean because fighters are possibly a bit over powered, this somehow means that warlocks are bad...

I'm just so confused.

BTW, considering the number of times you and others have pissed and moaned about me "putting words in your mouth" it would help if you didn't put words in mine.  Where did I say that the warlock was "mediocre"?  I did say he didn't out damage the ranger.  That's true.  But, "Outdamage the ranger" isn't exactly the dividing line of mediocrity.

Sure, he doesn't outdamage the ranger, but, he probably out defenses the ranger, out maneuver's the ranger and causes a whole lot more conditions on the bad guys than the ranger.

But, I guess that's just mediocre.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Which are we talking about now? Are we talking about warlocks or are we talking about fighters? Or, do you mean because fighters are possibly a bit over powered, this somehow means that warlocks are bad...
> 
> I'm just so confused.
> 
> ...




In a general sense we are talking about power gaps... And I was in turn commenting that contrary to popular sentiment (at least here though it's certainly different on toher boards), 4e definitely has them. I then went on to use the Warlock as an example... as a sub-par striker and a mediocre (I don't think anyone would say he is top tier as a controller??) when compared to other classes in the same roles. I then went on to contrast the Warlock with the Fighter who is top tier in two roles (Striker and Defender) to further illustrate some of the power gaps in 4e... Does that clear everything up.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, so please clarify do you consider the Warlock a top tier striker? A top tier controller? If not what exactly is he exceptional at? Do you think that the Warlock and Fighter are on the same level power wise?


----------



## Imaro (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Maybe because we don't agree with your objective statement of "mediocre." I consider my warlock to be, to borrow your phrase, "near the top tier" as both a striker and a controller, with better overall defenses than either the ranger or the wizard. Many of my powers enable the ranger to do the damage he does. In a vaccuum you might convince me, but as part of the team dynamic there is no wide gap between the classes.
> 
> As for Fighter vs. Warlock, the Fighter's balance is different because he's on the front line. He can be "top" and "near top" without outclassing the warlock because the fighter is expected to hold the line and suck up the brunt of damage. And he wouldn't do as good of a job at it either without the support of his controllers and leaders.
> 
> I think you have a very B&W view of what's "best" and the type of character you enjoy may be clouding that. If one likes DPR, then the ranger is best. If one likes holding the line, the fighter is best. If one likes supporting the team in meaningful ways, other classes fit the bill. The gap only becomes too large, IMO, when a character is unable to make a real contribution to the party, not when you just stand there and compare DPR sizes. At that point one is probably just compensating for something.




No, I'm looking at it from a role in combat aspect.  I mean if I like skills vs. spells then a Rogue is best in 3.5... yet people claim the Wizard is more "powerful" than the Rogue... right?  I think your preference for Warlocks is clouding your view.  I wonder how well your party would do without your friends Ranger and you as their primary striker?


----------



## Herschel (Aug 19, 2011)

26 pages to answer what could be done in two letters:

n.o.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.



IME, 2e was just as unmanageable as 3e at high levels, it's just that given the exponential XP tables and various other complications it was really, really hard to even get much past 9th level without throwing out the standard XP awards. High-level 2e was pretty much unplayable; high level 3e was merely difficult to run and somewhat complex to play for casters that prepared spells.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No, I'm looking at it from a role in combat aspect.  I mean if I like skills vs. spells then a Rogue is best in 3.5... yet people claim the Wizard is more "powerful" than the Rogue... right?  I think your preference for Warlocks is clouding your view.  I wonder how well your party would do without your friends Ranger and you as their primary striker?




Depends on what he brought to the table in place of the ranger. If he brought something that unbalanced the roles I'm sure we'd suffer. But I'm throwing out conditions that aid the entire party, whereas the ranger is just dealing damage. And he and the others deal more damage because my warlock is there. I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue at this point. A class that at least two of us admits has hybrid roles wouldn't make a good primary striker? That's not a far leap to make, but it is a weak argument to call what occurs between the two strikers a gap.



drothgery said:


> IME, 2e was just as unmanageable as 3e at high levels, it's just that given the exponential XP tables and various other complications it was really, really hard to even get much past 9th level without throwing out the standard XP awards. High-level 2e was pretty much unplayable; high level 3e was merely difficult to run and somewhat complex to play for casters that prepared spells.




That certainly could be. The power gap I've personally experienced is between power gamers and non power gamers. I have not experienced the gap between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. So 2E didn't really cause problems for us. It is my second least favorite edition of D&D though. Actually it might be my least favorite, because I really did enjoy 3E until the power gap issue exhibited. I wished I could have found a satisfactory way to overcome it. It wouldn't automatically have kept me from running 4E, but it would have made my final 2 years of running 3E enjoyable at the least.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> In a general sense we are talking about power gaps... And I was in turn commenting that contrary to popular sentiment (at least here though it's certainly different on toher boards), 4e definitely has them. I then went on to use the Warlock as an example... as a sub-par striker and a mediocre (I don't think anyone would say he is top tier as a controller??) when compared to other classes in the same roles. I then went on to contrast the Warlock with the Fighter who is top tier in two roles (Striker and Defender) to further illustrate some of the power gaps in 4e... Does that clear everything up.
> 
> I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, so please clarify do you consider the Warlock a top tier striker? A top tier controller? If not what exactly is he exceptional at? Do you think that the Warlock and Fighter are on the same level power wise?




This is where I think the misconception comes from. Simply put...

The Ranger does more damage.

The Warlock does more. 
(good damage, status effects, zones, etc.)

Some classes can be tailored more than others. Rangers are about as straight-forward as you can get (and to me, archers are utterly dull) and are pure strikers. 

Warlocks are mose versatile. If in a party with no dedicated controller, they can fill that role some while still doing good damage. If they're in a party that doesn't have other strikers, they can be tailored to max their damage while still getting in some control effects.

As for Fighters, they aren't top strikers and if they maximize their offense they aren't top defenders. They're a good class with a ton of support. 

Roles aren't straightjackets and most classes have secondary roles, depending on the choices one makes.


----------



## darkseraphim (Aug 19, 2011)

To answer the OP:  I think WotC is in a no-win situation, but it's primarily one they built for themselves (along with Hasbro, I believe).  They could make everyone happy by conditionally competing with themselves.  In other words, republish all out-of print D&D works and editions, and to avoid "brand dilution" (or whatever marketers call it) that might hurt the latest edition, only offer older editions through the web and through print on demand.  The latest edition can have brick-and-mortar stores, and heck even all the advertising, to itself.

In refusing to do that, and in taking away old-edition .pdfs, they have angered too many fans and snubbed too many play styles to get everyone back aboard the same train.  I'm not sure how to say more on the specifics without provoking Ye Olde Edition Wars.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Have I ever argued against this point?  I've stated multiple times that I know and accept that some people DO see the problem.  The statement has been made that the gap automatically happens.  I'm saying that is not true.
> 
> If the gap automatically happens, then your statement "in another way, you won't" is false.  We both agree your statement is true.  That's my point.




So you agree that the power gap is part of 3E's system?  And that one must change that system in order to avoid it?


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 19, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> So you agree that the power gap is part of 3E's system?  And that one must change that system in order to avoid it?




For me, I will acknowledge that there can be reasonably built 3.5 characters that diverge problematically in power. 

I see two different readings for the second statement, and I'm not sure which one you meant. You're certainly not obliged to change the system. Many people have played it as is, and for many no problematic power gap has come up. Even if you do have a large power gap, Dannyalcatraz has talked about running a vagabond and a glitter boy in the same party successfully in RIFTS, which is a larger power gap then you can get reasonably in D&D 3.5. And even if the power gap occurs, you can avoid it by restricting which classes, feats, books, etc. are used, or by purely social mechanisms, by producing characters with an eye to avoiding the power gap.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> I see two different readings for the second statement, and I'm not sure which one you meant. You're certainly not obliged to change the system. Many people have played it as is, and for many no problematic power gap has come up. Even if you do have a large power gap, Dannyalcatraz has talked about running a vagabond and a glitter boy in the same party successfully in RIFTS, which is a larger power gap then you can get reasonably in D&D 3.5. And even if the power gap occurs, you can avoid it by restricting which classes, feats, books, etc. are used, or by purely social mechanisms, by producing characters with an eye to avoiding the power gap.




I only meant that you might have to change the system if you want to avoid the power gap, not that you had to change the system in order to enjoy 3E.

I don't think the power gap is always a problem.  The worst thing that can happen is that it robs PCs who don't have high caster levels from making meaningful choices; that can be dealt with by a well-crafted setting where there are multiple avenues of action.  I don't think it's too hard to build that kind of setting - the default one suggested by the DMG's demographics should suffice.

For example, I don't know what I'd do in my current 3.5 game to deal with the threat we're facing if my PC was a pure fighter.  Since we've got a rich setting to work with, though, I could probably come up with something.  It'd probably be more difficult, sure, but that's not a problem.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2011)

Imaro said:


> In a general sense we are talking about power gaps... And I was in turn commenting that contrary to popular sentiment (at least here though it's certainly different on toher boards), 4e definitely has them. I then went on to use the Warlock as an example... as a sub-par striker and a mediocre (I don't think anyone would say he is top tier as a controller??) when compared to other classes in the same roles. I then went on to contrast the Warlock with the Fighter who is top tier in two roles (Striker and Defender) to further illustrate some of the power gaps in 4e... Does that clear everything up.
> 
> I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, so please clarify do you consider the Warlock a top tier striker? A top tier controller? If not what exactly is he exceptional at? Do you think that the Warlock and Fighter are on the same level power wise?




So, the only way a warlock becomes "not mediocre" is if he does as much damage as the ranger AND gets controllery powers?

It's an interesting definition of "not mediocre" but, personally, not one I subscribe to.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 22, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> For me, I will acknowledge that there can be reasonably built 3.5 characters that diverge problematically in power.
> 
> Even if you do have a large power gap, Dannyalcatraz has talked about running a vagabond and a glitter boy in the same party successfully in RIFTS, which is a larger power gap then you can get reasonably in D&D 3.5.




Was that in this thread? I'd be interested to see how he accomplished that in Rifts. I found Rifts to be unplayable. I wanted to play a anthropomorph a la TMNT, while another player played a Dragon. The GM tried to handle this problem by sending tanks after the Dragon (which my character could not scratch) and foot soldiers after the rest of us. Seemed like an OK solution. Except the player of the Dragon turned her attention on the foot soldiers in the second round, wiping them all out in one gout of flame. The rest of us tried to attack tanks at that point, but couldn't even pry the hatches open to get at the soldiers inside. One solution would be to tell the player of the Dragon that she should focus on the tanks, but this would be a major railroad, IMO, and would have totally ruined the game for me whether I was playing my TMNT or the Dragon because of the artificiality of the division.



prosfilaes said:


> And even if the power gap occurs, you can avoid it by restricting which classes, feats, books, etc. are used,




Agreed. But not a good solution if your group likes supplements. I want a game that I can add official supplements to that doen't cause the problmes I encountered. The newest edition of D&D has met that goal for me.



prosfilaes said:


> or by purely social mechanisms, by producing characters with an eye to avoiding the power gap.




Agreed. But not a good solution if the players who are capable of creating powerful characters enjoy doing so and would not enjoy the game if asked to reign themselves in. And not if those who are not as capable of creating powerful characters would not enjoy the game if their characters were built partially or in full by the other players. I want a game that allows the most skilled at making powerful characters to have their fun, while guiding those with less skill or different goals to a capable character, without the wide gap in powers levels. The newest edition accomplishes that for me too. Add to that the melding of ideas from my favorite RPG of all time, Earthdawn, and I have what I like. I'm glad others still have support for the system of their choice.


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yep, we were discussing power gaps, and going by what you posted the Warlock doesn't do any role exceptionally well...  just mediocre at two... thus a power gap, so tell me what exactly don't you understand with the "Wait...what?" comment so I can clarify.
> 
> Now take the Fighter in contrast... He's near the top tier as a striker and is the top tier defender.  You don't see the difference in effectiveness between these two classes?



Nope.  Most classes actually fall under two roles with very few builds falling under a pure role.  The PHB 2 and PHB3 actually does point this out using specific terminology while the PHB 1 generally hints at this.  The fighter is particularly fun because he can double as defender/striker, defender/controller, and just go for a pure defender.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 23, 2011)

I think that it can be safely said that based on the evidence in this thread and in the 5e announcement cancelled at Gencon that no Wizards cannot make an edition that can unite the fandom again.

I think that Steve Jackson Games or at least someone  should come out with a game, D&d trhe Edition Wars.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 23, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I think that it can be safely said that based on the evidence in this thread and in the 5e announcement cancelled at Gencon that no Wizards cannot make an edition that can unite the fandom again.
> 
> I think that Steve Jackson Games or at least someone  should come out with a game, D&d the Edition Wars.



Br4ts & Grogn3rds: 5th Edition. 

The answer is pretty obviously 'no', and equally obvious that neither side wants them to.

The good news is that there is no need - each side has a game that they enjoy. The only problem comes when either side tries to tell the other that they are wrong.

I do not like 4e - but I do not need to.

Permeton does not like 3.X - but he does not need to.

As long as we each accept that the other is having fun, that neither is experiencing 'badwrongfun', then everything is _fine._ It is unlikely that we would encounter each the other in a game at a convention, unless it was neither of our expressed preferences. (In short, he may shoot my Paranoia Troubleshooter in the back, but that's okay, I have already hidden a grenade in his Cold Fun packet....)

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton (Aug 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> It is unlikely that we would encounter each the other in a game at a convention



Apart from anything else, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, whereas I think you're somewhere in the US!

It's probably 15 years since I've been to a convention. My favourite convention games used to be RQ, Stormbringer/Elric and CoC. That's partly because they had the best GMs. And also because they seem to lend themselves well to good oneshots.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do not like 4e - but I do not need to.
> 
> Permeton does not like 3.X - but he does need to.



Given the reasonable tone of the rest of your post, do I take it that there is a "not" missing as a result of mistaken omission, here?

Or were you trying to demonstrate your latter point about "The only problem comes..."?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Apart from anything else, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, whereas I think you're somewhere in the US!
> 
> It's probably 15 years since I've been to a convention. My favourite convention games used to be RQ, Stormbringer/Elric and CoC. That's partly because they had the best GMs. And also because they seem to lend themselves well to good oneshots.



Yeah, it would be a bit of a walk, wouldn't it?...

Paranoia is good for con games too - you can do absolutely rotten things to each other, and all sides will laugh.

CoC is my favorite for the last game on a Saturday night.

The Auld Grump


----------

