# The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

The Escapist has published a series of articles on D&D's past, present, and future.  In them, they briefly interview ex-WotC staff members (and, to be fairly transparent, current competitors) such as Erik Mona, Chris Pramas, Ryan Dancey, and Andy Collins.

So far, they've published _The Ghosts of D&D_ _Past_ and_ Present _(so expect "_Future_" soon - heh.  Witty pun). 

*UPDATE* - _Future_ is now published.  They actually talk to present staff in this one (namely Mike Mearls).

*UPDATE 2* - Ryan Dancey has expanded on his views here in a bonus column.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 28, 2011)

The article offers some pretty broad generalizations, painting those who like 4e as young MMO-players, where those who like previous editions as old folk who played in the early 80s.

Both DMs in my group (me and a friend) have never played a MMORPG, have been playing since the early 80s, and 4e is our system of choice. I've liked 4e even before I started working on it in an official capacity. What I *do* believe is that its launch marketing was a big blunder.


----------



## Dexamalion (Dec 28, 2011)

It's a fascinating read. I remember copying the OGL and showing it to our corporate lawyer at Electronic Arts and asking his opinion. He was not a table top gamer, but was still amazed that a company would divest itself of such rights. 

It's sad that WoTC were so forward thinking and yet unable to continue to support it.

Derek
Dungeon Mapp


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 28, 2011)

Klaus said:


> The article offers some pretty broad generalizations, painting those who like 4e as young MMO-players, where those who like previous editions as old folk who played in the early 80s.




WTF? Generalization? How much in denial can you be? 
Even Andy Collins, the head of development at WotC during the development of the 4e, admits that it has been designed with MMO-Players and their "attention span" in mind.
Generalization or not, these are the facts.  



> Andy Collins was the head of development at Wizards of the Coast during the design and release of 4th edition and told _The Escapist_ back in 2010 that the changes he implemented in _D&D_  were meant to catch the game up with the way that people played modern  games. Collins believed players have a short attention span,  and were,  perhaps, "less likely [to be] interested in reading the rules of the  game before playing." "I'm not just talking about younger players now,  but anybody. We've been working to adapt to that, the changing  expectations of the new gamer."



The Escapist : The State of D&D: Present


----------



## Klaus (Dec 28, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> WTF? Generalization? How much in denial can you be?
> Even Andy Collins, the head of development at WotC during the development of the 4e, admits that it has been designed with MMO-Players and their "attention span" in mind.
> Generalization or not, these are the facts.
> 
> The Escapist : The State of D&D: Present



First: be nice.

Second: *this* is generalization:



> The new game has attracted a loyal audience, especially with younger players, but at the cost of alienating those who grew up with the game of Gygax and Arneson.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 28, 2011)

Interesting article though it's hard to form an opinion on it without seeming that I'll end up taking a side. Therefore, I choose Stratego. Nothing is more frustrating than finding a bomb with a General or Marshal.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 28, 2011)

Klaus said:


> First: be nice.





Indeed.




Klaus said:


> Second: *this* is generalization:






> The new game has attracted a loyal audience, especially with younger players, but at the cost of alienating those who grew up with the game of Gygax and Arneson.





I think there is some confusion here in that some folks will say that "generalization" means something that only true if you don't look too closely ("a statement presented as a general truth but based on limited or incomplete evidence") while others will say it means something that is generally true ("a statement or conclusion that is derived from and applies equally to a number of cases").  It is true that D&D 4E was designed to attact the younger members of the gaming community and that the community of 4E gamers skews younger than the D&D community as a whole.



As to the articles, the first two installments don't really cover any new ground (except to plug Adventurer Conqueror King, which I already knew about and nearly tripled its Kickstarter goal, and seems a very cool project) so I can only imagine there must be some reasson to stretch them out that will become apparent in the finale.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 29, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> WTF? Generalization? How much in denial can you be?
> Even Andy Collins, the head of development at WotC during the development of the 4e, admits that it has been designed with MMO-Players and their "attention span" in mind.
> Generalization or not, these are the facts.
> 
> The Escapist : The State of D&D: Present




I find the whole ordeal insulting. As one of those "younger people", I have never touched an MMO, and the vast majority of people in my age range who have played DnD with me never have either. I started playing 4th edition because 3rd's level of brokeness, and because 4th is a combat beauty.

I don't like being pigeon-holed. By you or anybody.


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 29, 2011)

SpydersWebbing said:


> I find the whole ordeal insulting. As one of those "younger people", I have never touched an MMO, and the vast majority of people in my age range who have played DnD with me never have either. I started playing 4th edition because 3rd's level of brokeness, and because 4th is a combat beauty.
> 
> I don't like being pigeon-holed. By you or anybody.



I can't remeber writing something about you specifically. 

But be it as it may, nothing you said changes the fact that 4e was designed with specific goals in mind. And I have already quoted Andy Collins on what those goals are. Nothing more to say, really.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 29, 2011)

SpydersWebbing said:


> I started playing 4th edition because 3rd's level of brokeness, and because 4th is a combat beauty.




I suppose the all of the people who are STILL playing 3.5 in some form or fashion (including Pathfinder) are playing a broken game? 

Way to edition war there buddy.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

The "future" article will likely be rather controversal.

Considering that the Escapist is primarily a video game site I will keep my prediction to the less dangerous topic of the D&D brand in video games. And here the future doesn't look bright at all.

The D&D brand so far had two "peaks" concerning video games. The first peak were the Gold Box games from SSI (Past) and Baldurs Gate (including spinoffs)/Neverwinter Nights (semi - present).
But D&D as a brand name has been damaged a lot as far as Video games are concerned.

First there was no new game for quite some time (Thanks to the Atari lawsuit) and the one game that did came out was very bad. In the meantime other fantasy universes did come out which overshadowed the D&D brand (Dragon Age). The split of the player base didn't make the D&D name more valuable either.
There is one D&D game in the works, but it is an MMO from Cryptic and when you at least have a little knowledge about MMOs than you know that Cryptic sucks at making them. They usually buy well known licenses they can get for cheap, make a cheap MMO which they finance through lifetime accounts and the instant it is released they drop it and look for a new license.
And even if it is surprisingly good it will still be only a small light compared to the big MMOs.

It will likely take another 10 years before D&D becomes prominent again as far as Video games are concerned. The market seem to shift away from Fantasy again towards Sci-Fi anyway.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 29, 2011)

I think the article excellently shows the dysfunction within WotC - which apparently continues to this day (layoffs, lack of strong direction for the brand).


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 29, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I think the article excellently shows the dysfunction within WotC - which apparently continues to this day (layoffs, lack of strong direction for the brand).




I am not happy with the state of WotC, but I think that this article also shows the deep division among players of table top role playing games.  In some ways, I think that we benefit from having a variety of games to generate ideas and meet the different interests and styles of gamers.

Personally, I doubt that any new edition could unify a fragmented base.  I would like to see good products come out of WotC, as it is good for the industry.  Tastes can be subjective, so I am not sure how a new edition might be received.

What is truly remarkable is how our hobby has grown and changed in the last 40 years or so.  When TSR was in trouble, I feared that D&D might be history.  However, I am confident that our hobby will continue in one form or another.  It is up to us to keep gaming alive as a hobby.  Between introductory products, organized play, and individuals I know who dedicate their time and talent to our hobby, I think that we will see the grandkids of today's gamers likely playing some form of RPG.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 29, 2011)

The article also shows exactly what this thread shows: You can't have any sort of discussion about D&D without people fighting over editions, what they mean and who they targeted. It accurately states the harsh divisiveness.


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 29, 2011)

Rechan said:


> The article also shows exactly what this thread shows: You can't have any sort of discussion about D&D without people fighting over editions and what they mean and who they targeted. It accurately states the harsh divisiveness.




We are divided, but we can try to be civil.  It is not easy, but let's remember that we are ALL members of a relatively small and often misunderstood hobby.  This is why fighting with each other seems silly to me.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2011)

Morrus, we were getting some complaints on the Facebook url for those articles.  I've edited in direct links to the Escapist.  I hope that's okay.


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 29, 2011)

The thing I find most interesting about those two articles is that (whether you agree with it being intentional or not) the author makes it pretty clear that Andy Collins is the reason why 4e is what it is and why it is so reviled by those folks who have stuck with 3.x or Pathfinder.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 29, 2011)

What is difficult for me, as a 4e fan, is the shadow of negativity surrounding it.  

For example, I think that Klaus nailed it on the head about the marketing blunders surrounding 4e's release.  The GSL and the recalling of properties was bad.  Then the end of PDF sales of prior editions' materials was bad as well.  I know that came around a year later, but still.

I think the Escapist article shows a certain amount of bias as well.  While it's hard to not have any bias in a news story, they seemed to have forgotten one key ingredient in news - getting both points of view.  Notice how the article does not reference anyone currently with WotC.  Now, perhaps WotC declined to comment.  If so, then the Escapist should make a note of that in the article.  

I also do not fall into these broad demographics.  I have played D&D since 2nd edition, and yet I gravitate towards 4e.  I should be clear that I am a fan of D&D in every edition, including a few "clones" such as Pathfinder and C&C.  However, my focus these days is on 4e.

While I think 4e is a great version of D&D, a very progressive one at that, the merits of the game will be overshadowed by the negativity in the RPG community surrounding WotC.  It's hard to like a game when all this negativity surrounds it.

My prediction (and just that) is that Monte Cook was hired to "fix" D&D by creating 5e.  His name will lend a certain credence.  Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have the impossible task of bringing back fans of every D&D edition.  I don't see that happening.  Maybe if WotC does a new OGL and sells PDFs of prior editions' materials.  

I could see the PDFs being sold.  But the OGL?  No way.  Oh, maybe we'll get another license, and hopefully one better than the GSL.  But I seriously doubt we'll ever see anything like the OGL again.

Now, to be fair, it doesn't wholly make sense from a business standpoint for WotC to give away their IP.  Still, the right phrasing in such a license should be able to boost sales.  If done right.

See, this is why I should stop reading RPG news.  It just makes me depressed.  I should be enjoying the game, not worrying about the state of WotC, or the RPG industry.

Sorry, folks, just rambling.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 29, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> The thing I find most interesting about those two articles is that (whether you agree with it being intentional or not) the author makes it pretty clear that Andy Collins is the reason why 4e is what it is and why it is so reviled by those folks who have stuck with 3.x or Pathfinder.




Which is funny, because by all accounts I've heard up til this point it was Robert Heinsoo who was the mastermind behind most of what made 4th edition work. Huh.



> I can't remeber writing something about you specifically.
> 
> But be it as it may, nothing you said changes the fact that 4e was  designed with specific goals in mind. And I have already quoted Andy  Collins on what those goals are. Nothing more to say, really.[     /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 29, 2011)

I found the articles interesting; and a decent introduction for anyone not familiar with the issues. I certainly didn't see a lot of bias against any of the games or the gaming companies; it seemed to me like the writer was very diplomatic towards all versions of the game.

I think it rather nicely ties in the perspectives of individual players of the game and that of the business side.

It does perpetuate (as others have noted) the somewhat problematic generalizations about player subgroups, as if there were one group of teenage MMO players and one group of old-timers. There are divides in the community, but age and other gaming experience are not the most important ones.

That said, i'll check back for "Future".


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 29, 2011)

The problem with the article is it seems to be written by a 3e hardcore...maybe a 3e hardcore turned Pathfinder fanatic.

It's not a bad article, but definately flavored against everything but the 3.X series of games.

In the first article I can find many things the old gamers who didn't care for 3e could take issue with.  It takes many liberties by accepting gossip and falsehoods, normally spread by people who could gain from such falsehoods (for example often ignored by these people is that core 2e made money till the day it ended overall from it's lifespan from start to end...at least the core books.  Other items...such as certain dice products...and other misc. sucked the money right out of the company though...things like that don't seem to be considered by those who like to try to say 2e was a losing proposition).

It could be argued 2e lost a majority of the RPG audience...I'd argue that it was simply that the FAD died by the end of the 80s.  2e failed to recapture the nostalgia of all those people.

3e DID AS WELL.  All 3e did was gain the disenchanted roleplayers who were still roleplaying, and gather them back into one fold.  It did nothing to really gather the relapsed RPG'ers from the early and mid 80s.

And that is why I'd say the article is looking at 3e through rose tinted glasses...it has the boxing gloves off for 3e...and has them on for 4e.

It does mention those who are playing Video games today would be the audience it would have appealed to previously...but many of those gamers aren't just the WoW kids...and there in lies the problem.  A majority of those who would have been the key audience in the early to mid eighties ARE playing video games...but they are playing Madden, Call of Duty, and games not seen as typical "RPG types" games.  They are playing Facebook games and Fantasy Football.  Though those playing WoW could be those who would be involved, a majority of those of the original audience would be involved in OTHER things other than WoW or even MMORPGs.

And this is where I take the biggest issue with the article.  Gygax actually turned out to be a MUCH better CEO than I ever anticipated he would, or could be.  I attribute (or blame...however you want to see it) that he was the cause of D&D gaining such fame/notoriety in the the early 80s.  It was his ideas.  I think he was perhaps a CEO on par with Jobs, or Gates, but in the RPG world in relation to brand management and popularizing the game.  

On the otherhand, I don't see him all that great in the actual economic political arena.  I don't think he was prepared with how brutal and savage business politics can be.  IN fact, even though he did a work of genius at getting D&D popular and creating a fad around it...at the same time he was being uprooted and basically devastated in the politics of his own company.

That's where he differs from the above Jobs and Gates...I don't think he even had a fathom of how ruthless people can be to those they formally call friends when money is involved.  He basically got his legs cut out from under him and then hounded till he was out completely.

I also think when he was gone, that was where you see the absolute turn of D&D from Western sensational fad...to a niche game...albeit still a popular one...but still a niche game.

I haven't seen a single CEO that has been in charge of D&D since Gygax that has been able to capture that sensationalism about D&D...ever.

But no one wants to admit that in relation to how the game basically covered the Western world in the early, is something they can't compete with...especially after the 3e release.  These guys wanted to have D&D as THEIR game...not Gary's...they'd use Gygax as a lever to their own popularity...and even attribute his name in the books...but overall...just like a few who held the game's name before them...when push came to shove...it was ALL about themselves...and how they fixed some broken game...when in truth their "fixed" game never even came close to the sensationalistic fad that Gygax started with his upstart game long before they came into the business.

Okay...I think I'm done now.


----------



## Cergorach (Dec 29, 2011)

I've probably played more 2E then 3(.5)E in the last 25 years. 3E was a great improvement rules wise and WotC provided high levels of 'fluff' and art, started playing before it was even released (thanks to Eric Noah). 3(.5)E wasn't perfect, certainly at higher levels things broke down. 4E is mechanically a big improvement over 3.5E, but there are other great detractors: WotC didn't support 'fluff', one campaign per year, and that only consisted of a Campaign book, a monster book, and an adventure. Presentation was lacking, I've seen better presented technical manuals that invited the reader to read more (and not less). The core setting became to magical and 'alien' at the same time through the addition of new races and every class having 'magical' abilities. Even the art wasn't all that inspiring compared to 2E/3(.5)E. I tried DMing 4E, it just couldn't grab/motivate me.

It's not just the 3.5E and Pathfinder fans that say that 4E failed, it's the sales numbers that support those views. The D&D brand has always been the strongest seller in the RPG market, now it's about as big as Pathfinder (a very new kid on the block) and on it's heels are the WFRP/40kRPGs. Sure those figures don't include everything like the D&D electronic subscriptions or the Paizo direct sales, but it gives a neat view that supports the current opinions.

D&D 4E was marketed and designed with the MMO crowd in mind, I doubt that was the only crowd they were aiming at. And the MMO games did something right, they made fantasy RPG mainstream, they did that by using pretty simple rules designs. That is something WotC wanted to hook into and rules wise they succeeded imho, the problem is that they forget to give it a heart. And comparing the move from 2E to 3E to 3.5E to 4E is comparing apples with oranges. 3(.5)E was huge and 4E fizzled (when you look at sales figures). Even the folks that initially went for 4E eventually gave up and went back to 3.5E or Pathfinder. I'm sure the reverse is also true, but if the internet is any indication, that happens far, far less.

If you think that a 'short attention span' is an indication of stupid or immature, you either feel like you belong in that group or you have absolutely no idea how people work in relation to products. I even have a shorter attention span then 20 years ago (now 35), it's not like I've become stupid or even less immature, it's other factors. One of those is the incredible amount of entertainment we've got access to. More entertainment generally means more high quality entertainment, so we can become more critical on what forms of entertainment we spent our time on. 20 years ago I was willing to spent an evening of mediocre gaming for a few great kicks, now I expect and want a whole evening of great kicks and find mediocre gaming not worth my time. Part of that is getting older, we have less time to waste on silly things like gaming and want our free time to be filled with quality entertainment. Folks have families, kids, work, etc.

We have more movies and tv series that have high quality visuals that 'wow' folks, that doesn't mean a great story, but it tends to be better then your average RPG plot. Techniques and graphics have become cheaper and more easily accessible, that also becomes apparent in video games. I currently have a backlog of 200 Steam games with an average price of $5 and includes games such as Mass Effect and Civilization, great titles for peanuts. MMOs are getting F2P, thus also getting cheaper to play. Publishing books is getting cheaper due to digital distribution. All is more easily accessible through the internet. Heck, if I compare Mass Effect 1 to my average RPG gaming night, I prefer ME1 over that average RPG gaming night. RPGs have two big advantages, it's a social event (having a 'fun' evening with friends) and it's more flexible then any computer game currently can be. The problem is that the RPGs big advantage only becomes an advantage if you have a good DM and players that take advantage of the flexibility, if you don't your better off playing a good co-op computer game in the living room.

There are also far more boardgames out there that are high quality and attract the same kind of people that like RPGs. Games such as Descent are relatively cheap, don't require huge amounts of preparation and are still a lot of fun.

I haven't played a pnp RPG in years, busy with work, friends who've started families, difficulty syncing schedules, etc. Not to mention that as a DM I want to provide an exceptional experience, things like equipment card, 3D terrain (Hirst Arts), painted miniatures, good adventure, etc. That takes a lot of prep and often feels more like work then a fun hobby...

I've got 2-3 feet of 4E books that are pretty much unused, the only thing that WotC has released since 3.5E that I've found useful is their prepainted miniatures, that saves me a lot of work. But games like Pathfinder and WFRP2E and the whole 40k series of RPGs give me so much more inspiration the D&D 4E has ever done.

And let's not get started on D&D computer games, the last great D&D RPG was imho NWN1 (2002-2006), NWN2 was decent but less so then NWN1. Daggerdale is just bad. DDO can be a fun MMO, but imho does not really feel like D&D. I shudder to think what the Heroes of Neverwinter Facebook game will become. And the Neverwinter MMO by Cryptic is going to be a crapshoot with really bad odds.

I haven't read a D&D novel in years and I read a lot... If I were to read D&D novels I would probably start with some of the older ones I didn't read at the time.

Campaign settings: What little WotC produced under 4E has been painful, another enormous shakeup in Forgotten Realms (imho they could have better just made a new setting). What they did with Darksun wasn't all that great either. I've always found Ebberon a bit 'Meh!', so I can't really comment on the treatment of that setting...


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 29, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> The problem with the article is it seems to be written by a 3e hardcore...maybe a 3e hardcore turned Pathfinder fanatic.




For the record I've actually run a few games for the author more than a few years ago he was part of a short lived D&D 3.5 game I ran in midtown manhattan. I saw him again a few years ago at a few of the NY D&D Meetups and he was deep into 4E. In fact I'm pretty certain that his name is on the credits of a few 4E 3rd Party books. 

Now I dont know if he fell off the 4E bandwagon later but at the time he seemed to be loving 4E. So no I dont think that he's a 3.5 die hard AT ALL. He might be a bigger fan of the OSR movement but he was definitely a 4E guy.

NOTE: Yup he's in the credits for 2 Goodman Games 4E products: FORGOTTEN HEROES - FANG, FIST and SONG & FORGOTTEN HEROES - SCYTHE and SHROUD.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 29, 2011)

Man either people in this thread we'rent around here for the 4E transition or they have really short memories. I could have sworn there was a contingent of folks around here who were applauding the fact that the D&D 4E were going after the younger, MMORPG crowd (citing that getting new blood in hobby was more valuable than appealing to the old stawarts who have been supportting and playing in the hobby) and kind of took pleasure in the fact that the older gamers were being somewhat displaced by this new game. 

A lot of accusations of "people who dont like 4E just dont like change" were thrown around just as much as "4E is just an MMORPG" was thrown around. Both statements are pretty wrongheaded. But now people are trying to say that's NOT what was going on with the D&D 4E launch? That they were not effectively saying that if you were an older player who likes 4E great hang around but we're really trying to go after a younger/different demographic?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 29, 2011)

Just noticed a big error in the article:



			
				The State of D&D: Present said:
			
		

> Coinciding with the release of 4th edition D&D in 2008, Wizards of the Coast launched an advertising campaign that reached out to MMO players. "If you're going to sit in your basement pretending to be an elf, you should at least have some friends over to help," the text of one ad read over a shot of a bored young man in front of a computer.




Umm, those ads ran in Dragon and Dungeon long before 2008.  I did a bit of Googling, and Boing Boing commented on this in 2005.  

I also notice that while he does quote Collins just below with, 
"the design took inspiration from many contemporary sources. "As professional game designers, we look at all games for lessons," he said last year. "Certainly, the lessons we learn from online games are going to be the most obvious ones because they have a lot of people familiar with the sources, but there's also lessons about turn management from European board games, interface ideas from card games."​
 his next line is:

Pulling from so many different sources, especially videogames, may have worked against the reception of 4th edition D&D. "I think the mistake people sometimes make is to think that we can attract more players if we ape the experience of videogames. I think a better approach is to emphasize what makes pen and paper RPGs unique and fun," said Pramas​
Nice way to be unbiased there.  Hrm, the primary source is telling you that while they did draw from one source, they drew from many others, but, the competitors are saying that they "ape" video games, so, that's the conclusion we're going to draw.  Really?

I have to go with the comments above that this was written by a pretty strong 3e/Pathfinder bias inherent.  The three main people quoted are two competitors and the guy who got sacked because of issues with the launch of 4e.  Ummm, anyone else having a problem with that?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 29, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> But be it as it may, nothing you said changes the fact that 4e was designed with specific goals in mind. And I have already quoted Andy Collins on what those goals are. Nothing more to say, really.






Lum The Mad said:


> WTF? Generalization? How much in denial can you be?
> Even Andy Collins, the head of development at WotC during the development of the 4e, admits that it has been designed with MMO-Players and their "attention span" in mind.
> Generalization or not, these are the facts.
> 
> ...




Except what you quoted does not match your claim. The part I bolded in Andy's quote clarifies his position. Modern gamers, not just the younger players, have a shorter attention span for PnP RPGs thatn they did in prior editions of the game. I don't believe "shorter attention span" is code for "stupid and immature" as claimed by another poster above. I think he and the rest of the design team realized that players of all experience levels, ages, maturities, et al, have various reasons for their attention span towards a PnP RPG being diminished. I know the amount of attention I can spare for the game has been greatly reduced by other forms of entertainment (not video games of any kind), family, and work. I appreciate any modern game to lessen the amount of focus I need to devote to it and still provide an evening of fun.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2011)

Dragonhelm said:


> I think the Escapist article shows a certain amount of bias as well.  While it's hard to not have any bias in a news story, they seemed to have forgotten one key ingredient in news - getting both points of view.




Ah.  You see, when I read them, I didn't think, "news".  I thought, "Op-ed piece".


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 29, 2011)

I think there is a very large difference between: "4E was designed with awareness of MMOs, and was aimed at appealing to that crowd and to drawing in new players" and "4E's audience primarily consists of a new, younger generation, while those who grew up with original D&D have been alienated by it."

Similarly, I _also _think there is a huge difference between, "Awesome! If 4E can bring in new gamers, that is good for the hobby as a whole!" and "Woohoo! I take pleasure in having existing players leave the game!" Feel free to dig up some posts as proof, but I'm doubtful there was any widespread attitude that involved folks actively cheering _anyone _leaving the hobby.

In any case, yes, there were certainly gamers who were alienated by 4E. But also many others who stayed with it. I think the core of the fanbase for it _remains _players who have played D&D for years, rather than consisting of entirely new players - even though it has, hopefully, picked those up too. 

I think WotC's goal was a game that would remain appealing to existing gamers, address many problems folks had with the system, and also draw in new players and revitalize the hobby. Now, you can feel that they failed on any - or all - of those counts, and you can feel that the problems they may have addressed were not ones that you, personally, thought needed fixing. But I am confident they were attempting all three of those goals, with the best of intentions, rather than somehow believing that 'new players' was in some way incompatible with 'retaining existing players'. 

The truth is, insisting that they fired all 'true fans' of D&D is an argument that was old the second it was made, and just an indirect way of trying to undermine those who do support 4E. You can absolutely explain that you do not like 4E, or that you felt abandoned by it. But trying to speak for all old-school gamers, or trying to make generalizations about them - or about any group of gamers - is just going to be inaccurate.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> I think there is a very large difference between: "4E was designed with awareness of MMOs, and was aimed at appealing to that crowd and to drawing in new players" and "4E's audience primarily consists of a new, younger generation, while those who grew up with original D&D have been alienated by it."
> 
> Similarly, I _also _think there is a huge difference between, "Awesome! If 4E can bring in new gamers, that is good for the hobby as a whole!" and "Woohoo! I take pleasure in having existing players leave the game!" Feel free to dig up some posts as proof, but I'm doubtful there was any widespread attitude that involved folks actively cheering _anyone _leaving the hobby.
> 
> In any case, yes, there were certainly gamers who were alienated by 4E. But also many others who stayed with it. I think the core of the fanbase for it _remains _players who have played D&D for years, rather than consisting of entirely new players - even though it has, hopefully, picked those up too.





It probably won't surprise you to know there is a huge distance between "the core of the fanbase for it _remains _players who have played D&D for years" and "consisting of entirely new players."  If by "who have played D&D for years" you mean since at least 2000, you might be missing the point the writer of the article means to convey.  I'm fairly confident that D&D 4E skews younger than any version since 1E was released, that is to say younger than 2E and younger than 3.XE.  I think most people feel it is good to bring new and more people into tabletop roleplaying but I think many of them also wonder if the 4E experience is one of tabletop roleplaying as we all know it.  This, I believe, is why there are so many alternate systems and retroclones and the like available on the market, and why since the advent of 4E there seems to be a great divide between many who have played D&D for years (but won't play 4E) and those who play 4E (whether they started playing D&D in the last few years or have even played for some time).


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 29, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Ah.  You see, when I read them, I didn't think, "news".  I thought, "Op-ed piece".




Fair enough, I guess.  Still, I would think that even in an op-ed piece, they would try to get WotC’s current POV.  

I know that’s what they were aiming for with Andy Collins, but that’s like asking a retired general about the current state of a war.  The general knows of the situation a while back and can give that perspective, but he is not involved in the current state of affairs.


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 29, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> If you think that a 'short attention span' is an indication of stupid or immature, you either feel like you belong in that group or you have absolutely no idea how people work in relation to products. I even have a shorter attention span then 20 years ago (now 35), it's not like I've become stupid or even less immature, it's other factors. One of those is the incredible amount of entertainment we've got access to. More entertainment generally means more high quality entertainment, so we can become more critical on what forms of entertainment we spent our time on. 20 years ago I was willing to spent an evening of mediocre gaming for a few great kicks, now I expect and want a whole evening of great kicks and find mediocre gaming not worth my time. Part of that is getting older, we have less time to waste on silly things like gaming and want our free time to be filled with quality entertainment. Folks have families, kids, work, etc.




This.  100% this.  Us old farts have the families and work.  Our "short attention spans" are externally-induced.  I've run my campaign(s) for the last 8 years or so using published adventures in published campaign settings using published monsters.  I spend the scant few hours a week I have outside of the game (usually 1-2 hrs a night between the wife and kids going to bed and the time I go to bed) thinking about how to cobble it all together into a coherent experience.

As to the youngsters with the short attention spans (whether the 20-yr old hipsters or the tweens) - something that forces them to spend more than 5 minutes on something and to focus can only help them, so in the case of 4e, one could argue that WotC actually contributed to this particular societal problem endemic in western youth.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2011)

Dragonhelm said:


> Fair enough, I guess.  Still, I would think that even in an op-ed piece, they would try to get WotC’s current POV.




"Op-ed" originally stands for "opposite the editorial page" - they're editorials written by people not beholden to the publication's editorial board.  For a standard editorial, the publication's reputation is behind what is said.  For an op-ed, that's not the case.  So, op-eds are under even less burden than a standard editorial to be even-handed in their approach.  If the author wants to, they may abide by some sense of journalistic need to show both sides of a story, but that's entirely the author's whim.


----------



## technoextreme (Dec 29, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> The thing I find most interesting about those two articles is that (whether you agree with it being intentional or not) the author makes it pretty clear that Andy Collins is the reason why 4e is what it is and why it is so reviled by those folks who have stuck with 3.x or Pathfinder.



Really?  Rich Baker is the man who invented the mechanics for 4th edition so the article is wrongity wrong wrong in that regard.  The ironic fact being that my general impression of the evolution of the game was right.  The mechanics in 4th are nothing more than an evolution of the previous editions where you would have powers which would be going off at-will, powers that averaged once an encounter, and powers that basically amounted to about once per day.  Going backwards from 4th edition to 3E/Pathfinder makes it blatantly obvious how it was designed.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 29, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> This.  100% this.  Us old farts have the families and work.  Our "short attention spans" are externally-induced.  I've run my campaign(s) for the last 8 years or so using published adventures in published campaign settings using published monsters.  I spend the scant few hours a week I have outside of the game (usually 1-2 hrs a night between the wife and kids going to bed and the time I go to bed) thinking about how to cobble it all together into a coherent experience.
> 
> As to the youngsters with the short attention spans (whether the 20-yr old hipsters or the tweens) - something that forces them to spend more than 5 minutes on something and to focus can only help them, so in the case of 4e, one could argue that WotC actually contributed to this particular societal problem endemic in western youth.




Again, what is up with this? The vast majority of people that I know who are younger who play 4th play it because it's a good game that scratches the fantasy itch. Most of them don't actually see the WoW similarity (including the people who PLAY WoW!), and the rest of them just don't care. Some don't even play 4th! Some of them play Pathfinder, because they want something different. Others play Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu (sp? Can NEVER seem to get that name right), 2nd edition (rather popular, actually), World of Darkness, etc. The people who play these games are just as capable as a grognard. As one of the younger generation I can vouch for whatever the kids are up to. 

Most of them are working jobs with school, starting families of their own, are taking care of whatever family they have, etc. My point? We're not exactly sitting around. We probably have the same amount of working nerds that your generation does, with the same amount of people who are doomed to stay in their mom's basements for the rest of their existence. So please get off your high horse, because there's all sorts of wondrous things that can be said about grognards that I wouldn't even imagine bringing up because they're condescending generalizations that are not only NOT true, but are insulting. 

I respect "you and yours". Please respect "me and mine". Thanks.


----------



## delericho (Dec 29, 2011)

The thing I found most interesting in the article was that even R.A. Salvatore was so open about having major issues with 4e. The rest of it wasn't really new or surprising.

It certainly hasn't changed my view of 4e in any way - a game I enjoy playing, but not one I'd run, and certainly not my favourite edition of D&D.

But I find this thread rather more worrying. If the divisions in the Edition Wars are still as deep as they seem to be, then any 5e is almost certain to fail. And that would mean the end of D&D. Shame.


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 29, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Really?  Rich Baker is the man who invented the mechanics for 4th edition so the article is wrongity wrong wrong in that regard.




Maybe you should be telling the author of the articles that since he badmouths Andy in both the Past and Present articles.  Then again, perhaps, given a lot of the hate for him that I've seen before, the author could just be in that camp.



SpydersWebbing said:


> The people who play these games are just as capable as a grognard. As one of the younger generation I can vouch for whatever the kids are up to.
> 
> Most of them are working jobs with school, starting families of their own, are taking care of whatever family they have, etc. My point? We're not exactly sitting around. We probably have the same amount of working nerds that your generation does, with the same amount of people who are doomed to stay in their mom's basements for the rest of their existence. So please get off your high horse, because there's all sorts of wondrous things that can be said about grognards that I wouldn't even imagine bringing up because they're condescending generalizations that are not only NOT true, but are insulting.
> 
> I respect "you and yours". Please respect "me and mine". Thanks.




You are completely missing the point.  What the articles' author attributes to Andy Collins is that 4e was developed because of the idea that they marketed it to the current generation of gamers who are allegedly shallow and vapid with the attention span of about 5 seconds - while also trying to draw market share from older gamers while at the same time alienating those who chose to stay w/ 3.x.

So which is it?  Older gamers or newer gamers?  If both, then the author insinuates that Andy Collins thinks ALL gamers have short attention spans.

For those of us who don't have short attention spans, our "get to the pointedness" is due to not having the same amount of time we had years ago to devote to game prep.  For those who do have short attention spans, why would you ever purposely try to reduce their attention spans ever further by selling a game designed to play into it instead of, say, 1e, where you actually had to read whole paragraphs and do some basic addition and subtraction?  The efforts to make D&D accessible and acceptable during the publication of earlier editions took the approach that playing D&D exercised your brain.  Now, they are (according to the articles' author, attributing to Andy Collins) marketing a game designed to foment even shorter attention spans.


----------



## Therise (Dec 29, 2011)

It's funny... the whole Andy Collins thing...

I've been playing RPGs since the original Chainmail morphed into D&D, and the *very last thing* I'd ever consider my fellow gamers to have is short attention spans.  Or to jump around willy-nilly from product to product.

In fact, every single gamer I've ever known has been highly detail-oriented, often researching books for hours to come up with exactly the character type, background, and history they want.  My friends have always put a lot of thought and effort into their characters, or if they're DMing they'll come up with complex and convoluted plots.

Additionally, I've not known any of them to rapidly get bored and switch from one RPG to another, here to there.

So I've always wondered where Collins got his impression, and from whom.


----------



## korjik (Dec 29, 2011)

How is playing an MMO for several hours at a time a short attention span? Am I just getting old to think that 3-4 hours of gaming is plenty?

Attention span is not the issue, it is pacing and the non-roleplay aspects of PnP games that is the issue, if it is an issue at all. By pacing I mean that if the action is too slow, then people get bored. The difference between a PnP and a MMO is that if one gets bored in the MMO, one can change what they are doing much easier than in a PnP game. By non-roleplay aspects, I mean the bookwork that must be done to play, like developing adventures and even just figuring out what you want to do when you level up. The options in an MMO are presented right up front, where in a PnP game you may have to look through several books to know about your options.


----------



## Therise (Dec 29, 2011)

korjik said:


> How is playing an MMO for several hours at a time a short attention span? Am I just getting old to think that 3-4 hours of gaming is plenty?



That's part of what makes this so odd.  To really get anywhere in World of Warcraft, you have to have pretty focused attention for hours at a time.  People with short attention spans would likely lose interest in things pretty quick, and stop leveling, stop trying to farm for gear, what have you.

I'm not saying WoW is hard.  Far from it.  But getting leveled and getting good gear, that takes time and focused attention.  Pretty much the opposite of having a short attention span.


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 29, 2011)

Therise said:


> That's part of what makes this so odd.  To really get anywhere in World of Warcraft, you have to have pretty focused attention for hours at a time.  People with short attention spans would likely lose interest in things pretty quick, and stop leveling, stop trying to farm for gear, what have you.
> 
> I'm not saying WoW is hard.  Far from it.  But getting leveled and getting good gear, that takes time and focused attention.  Pretty much the opposite of having a short attention span.




Actually it is more akin to repetitive assembly line work.  Not much skill, not much thinking, just wash-rinse-repeat.


----------



## Cergorach (Dec 29, 2011)

It's about catering to folks with a short attention span, mainstream MMOs en computer games in general tend to cater to folks with a short attention span. They don't need to be to complex, detailed or difficult, I believe the term 'themepark' gets used a lot. These don't have to be bad things, those have a place in entertainment and for RPGs might actually be a good thing. 4E is not complex, not exactly detailed and certainly not difficult, it's 4E's only strengths imho...

See it more like the action movie (all action all the time) vs. the foreign language romantic movie which has far to much conversation in it. The action movie makes a poor romantic movie and vice versa, but they both have their own entertainment value and attract different crowds.

4E is catering to a different crowd then Pathfinder is, is 4E as popular as 3(.5)E was, no. Is it a bad game, no. Is it less profitable then WotC expected, yes. GURPS isn't my kind of game, imho it suffers from the same issues as 4E D&D, unattractive presentation, crunch over fluff. Does that make it a bad game, no, just an unpopular game. But it is still enjoyed by many and has it's own niche in the RPG community.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 29, 2011)

It's things like this that make me feel like the best move would be for WotC to just put everything up on PDF, maintain DDI, and otherwise kill the game and use it for IP fodder.


----------



## Zaran (Dec 29, 2011)

Dragonhelm said:


> Fair enough, I guess. Still, I would think that even in an op-ed piece, they would try to get WotC’s current POV.




Well, if they are doing a Future article perhaps that will be when we get the POV and basically rebuttal from WotC. What else can an article about DnD's future be unless they get it from the donkeyhorse's mouth?


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 29, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm fairly confident that D&D 4E skews younger than any version since 1E was released, that is to say younger than 2E and younger than 3.XE.




Oh, I'm absolutely certain of that, but I think that has almost certainly been true of every edition compared to the one before it. Admittedly, I wasn't around for the transition between the original game and 2nd Edition, so I'm not sure what that transition was like. 



Mark CMG said:


> I think most people feel it is good to bring new and more people into tabletop roleplaying but I think many of them also wonder if the 4E experience is one of tabletop roleplaying as we all know it.




I think it is perfectly reasonable for many folks to feel that 4E isn't their cup of tea. I find questions of whether it is 'tabletop roleplaying as we know it' to be downright silly, myself. And I think trying to make the claim that the divide is between "true fans of D&D" and "fans of the current edition" is a false comparison to make. There are folks who played the early editions and felt 3rd Edition was a problem, but 4E returned to what they liked. There are folks who felt 3rd Edition and 4E alike are abominations. There are those who refuse to even speak of 2nd Ed. Etc. Yes, the number of different factions and games may have grown - some of that inevitable as more editions come out, some of that due to, yes, various mistakes WotC made in the launch of 4E. 

But as often as I've seen claims about who it is supporting each game, I've very rarely seen anything to support those claims. That there is a divide... yeah, that is certainly true. But whenever I've seen people trying to describe what each side of that division consists of... it often feels like folks don't want to accept that there can be people, playing a game they don't like, who are gamers with exactly the same roots as them. And so they need to invent a new, imagined brand of gamer, who must be the ones playing that game, because it is "all about the MMO", or "dumbed down for younger players who never played D&D before" or whatever. 

Now, sure, not everyone is saying that. But some of the article's generalizations seem to fall into that category, and there are certainly those in this thread who have tossed about similar concepts. I just don't think the divide is, or even can be, so simply delineated. 

Most of the people on each side are likely more similar than they think - they just happened to prefer different games for different reasons, and that's that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2011)

SpydersWebbing said:


> ...
> Except that lower attention span is a nice way of saying stupid and immature. Also accusing someone else of being in denial over personal experiences?
> ...





For some reason you are taking some comments personally, and look as if you are spoiling for a fight. Don't do it. Don't take it personally (nobody writing anything on the escapist or here knows you).

If you do, you'll find yourself booted from the thread, but I'd rather not do that.

Thanks


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 29, 2011)

> "Hasbro restructured itself internally to focus on its most successful brands," said Dancey. "Brands that did $50-$100 million a year in revenue were considered 'core,' and smaller brands were going to be marginalized. Marginalized businesses get downsized in headcount. They may also be mothballed, or sold."
> 
> The sad truth was that D&D was in danger. "Wizards has a $100 million brand - Magic: the Gathering. It tried to convince Hasbro that it could have two, by amping up D&D to that level," continued Dancey. "D&D was not a $50 million a year business, nor was it likely to ever become one on its then-current trajectory. So the reaction of the folks working on RPGs at Wizards is totally understandable - they felt their jobs were at risk."



Good to see some of the numbers behind Hasbro's game of Profits & Pinkslips!


----------



## Kobold Boots (Dec 29, 2011)

Bah to the whole edition war thing..

My own group played 4e for a full year and decided we wanted to spend some time playing Pathfinder.  We had laughs with 4e and we're having laughs with Pathfinder.

When there's a 5e we'll have fun with it, and when Pathfinder eventually does a full version revision we'll have fun with that.  

By the way, there are other games out there doing the same crap and those are fun too.

Can we all find another topic to bitch about please?  It's old.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Oh, I'm absolutely certain of that, but I think that has almost certainly been true of every edition compared to the one before it. Admittedly, I wasn't around for the transition between the original game and 2nd Edition, so I'm not sure what that transition was like.





I've been around (from the outside looking in, admittedly) for the transition from (O)D&D (original) to BD&D (Basic) and 1E D&D (Advanced) as well as the transition from 1E D&D to 2E D&D.  I've been a regular at conventions through those times and it is my feeling that 1E and Basic saw a lot of expansion including many younger players joining in the fun.  I wouldn't characterize what I saw with 2E as skewing younger, though without hard numbers or any clues that could have been had if there had been a vobrant Internet, I'd say it is difficult to say.  I think 1E probably skewed older than Basic and that Basic kept their crowd while 2E maybe drew some new players but mostly canabalized from 1E, those who felt 2E addressed problems they saw with 1E.




MrMyth said:


> I think it is perfectly reasonable for many folks to feel that 4E isn't their cup of tea. I find questions of whether it is 'tabletop roleplaying as we know it' to be downright silly, myself.





People can make a lot of claims about what each edition did and did not manage to present but as someone who was a wargamer before there even were RPGs (and who still is alongside my RPGing), as someone who plays many wargames and RPGs, year in and year out for forty years, I can certainly understand what people are saying when they express that 4E isn't the same tabletop RPGing experience they had 12, 20, 30, and even 35 years ago.  You might think it is silly, because it doesn't fit your own experience, but it is very much at issue for many, many people nonetheless.

The fact of the matter is that 4E is very much a ruleset that focuses far more on tabletop miniatures combat than any other edition ever has, and this is coming from someone who has played them all with multiple groups, in home games and at gamedays and at conventions for the last four decades.  I've heard those who wish to defend 4E as a tabletop RPG and I don't doubt that their individual games might be very much about RPGing with limited use of the rules for tabletop miniatures combat.  But, it's been very clear through all of the pre-release previews and through the design blogs and from the ruleset itself that 4E was meant to and does have a combat miniatures focus.  This doesn't make it a bad game but it does make it very different from the tabletop RPG experience that past editions of D&D engendered.  3.XE moved it in that direction and 4E picked up the ball and ran with it.  To deny that opens someone to questions about how much they really wish to have a meaningful discussion about the course of D&D design over its brand lifetime.


The arguments about this being dumbed down or that being about someone's attention span don't fly with me, so leave me out of those debates.  I'm a fan of all sorts of games for their own merits, those that require quick decisions and near-realtime reactions even with complex rules and those that have simple rules where players can sit and debate for hours over minute decisions if that is the group's personal prerogative.  Some games are designed well to do one or the other and other games fail to do either well.  As far as I am concerned, all versions of D&D have been well designed in their time, cutting edge, and the hyperbole over the quality of the players in one camp or another is all hogwash.  There's a spectrum in all camps of gamers, from casual players to those who are expert.  D&D rulesets (all editions) have always managed to be welcoming to all skill levels of players, IMO, and those distinctions are beyond the purview of what I personally would like my corner of this discussion to include.




MrMyth said:


> Most of the people on each side are likely more similar than they think - they just happened to prefer different games for different reasons, and that's that.





And in that we seem to agree, as you can clearly see from what I have posted.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 29, 2011)

Is there a mirror somewhere?  The site seems down.


----------



## technoextreme (Dec 29, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> It's about catering to folks with a short attention span, mainstream MMOs en computer games in general tend to cater to folks with a short attention span. They don't need to be to complex, detailed or difficult, I believe the term 'themepark' gets used a lot. These don't have to be bad things, those have a place in entertainment and for RPGs might actually be a good thing. 4E is not complex, not exactly detailed and certainly not difficult, it's 4E's only strengths imho...
> 
> .



4E is pretty dam complex. Its just that unlike other games the complexity is focused in the right direction because it didnt let you flail around as you struggle to learn the mechanics like older games.
Edit:
Also I find it hilarious that 4th edition gets knocked as being a tactical combat game which if you read previous editions was always what the game was.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 30, 2011)

Dragonhelm said:


> Fair enough, I guess.  Still, I would think that even in an op-ed piece, they would try to get WotC’s current POV.
> 
> I know that’s what they were aiming for with Andy Collins, but that’s like asking a retired general about the current state of a war.  The general knows of the situation a while back and can give that perspective, but he is not involved in the current state of affairs.




They may not have had the option. Former WotC employees may be able to comment as they desire, but WotC can control the author's access to current employees.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Also I find it hilarious that 4th edition gets knocked as being a tactical combat game which if you read previous editions was always what the game was.





Anyone who knocks 4E as a tactical combat game doesn't realize just how good a tactical combat game it is, certainly has much more focus on that aspect of gaming than previous editions as I have made clear.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 30, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Also I find it hilarious that 4th edition gets knocked as being a tactical combat game which if you read previous editions was always what the game was.



Minute long combat rounds are not indicative of tactical combat.


----------



## technoextreme (Dec 30, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> Minute long combat rounds are not indicative of tactical combat.



Probably more indicative of how bad previous editions were because holy crap was there ever a focus on combat.
Edit
In fact the first version of D&D was a rebranding of a tactical wargame.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 30, 2011)

delericho said:


> But I find this thread rather more worrying. If the divisions in the Edition Wars are still as deep as they seem to be, then any 5e is almost certain to fail. And that would mean the end of D&D. Shame.



If you want more worrying, just look at what folks want for 5e. 

Complexity to a single page of rules to dials of complexity, from no character creation at the start to full complication, no Vancian vs. all vancian, no classes to hard class definitions. 

It's _all over the place_ with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2011)

Rechan said:


> It's _all over the place_ with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.




Yah. If they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing noone.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yah. If they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing noone.




   If I were in charge of D&D, I'd stick with the 4E direction, put most of the backstock up in PDF/PoD format, do a "Classic/Collector's Edition" reprinting of OD&D and/or 1E with the best of the old adventure modules, and accept that most of the fans who could have been brought back with a more 3E-esque system have signed their souls over to Paizo at this point.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 30, 2011)

One thing I find amusing is that the article talks about the beauty of the OGL, but then in the next section talks about how WOTC now has a strong competitor in Paizo.

But the thing is, Paizo is only a competitor because the OGL exists.

I can understand the desire for the OGL as a way to increase the RPG market, but I think Paizo is a strong example of why a business would be so hesitant to do an OGL.


The one aspect in the article I found most interesting was idea that Dnd competing with itself is not a new thing. The developers felt that pressure even at the creation of 2e.


----------



## delericho (Dec 30, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> One thing I find amusing is that the article talks about the beauty of the OGL, but then in the next section talks about how WOTC now has a strong competitor in Paizo.




Funny thing is that Paizo is one of the companies that isn't directly attributable to the OGL. They came into being because WotC decided they were going to cancel the mags. It is likely, but not certain, that they wouldn't exist without the OGL - it's just barely possible that we'd still have a Pathfinder without it, albeit a very different one.

But without the OGL, we wouldn't have Mongoose, or Green Ronin, or Malhavoc, or Necromancer/Frog God. Which means no Conan, or Babylon 5 RPG, or Dragon Age, or Mutants & Masterminds, or WFRP 2e (and, thus, no 3e or Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch), or...

Hell, there would be no EN Publishing, and quite likely no EN World.

All the supplements and games that those companies produced created massive excitement for 3e. Without them, 3e would not have been the massive success that it actually was.

So, there would probably be no 4e. It's likely that Hasbro would have cancelled D&D long since.

But, even if it survived, D&D would be very different. With no OGL companies to provide a way in, and with the magazines cancelled in 2003 (no Paizo, remember), there's no obvious route for people to get into the industry. Oops.

In particular, Mearls came to prominence due to his work for OGL companies (notably Mongoose, then Malhavoc, and _then_ WotC). Remove his contributions, and 4e looks very different from what we have. And, since he's now effectively running the whole show...

It is easy to see the OGL as an error, and think that D&D would be better off without. But that is an easy _mistake_ to make.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2011)

Rechan said:


> If you want more worrying, just look at what folks want for 5e.
> 
> Complexity to a single page of rules to dials of complexity, from no character creation at the start to full complication, no Vancian vs. all vancian, no classes to hard class definitions.
> 
> It's _all over the place_ with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.




Oh, absolutely.  With a bit of luck, 5E will hew mainly towards a single vision (even if it's not my vision).


----------



## Jeffrey (Dec 30, 2011)

It's an interesting series of articles and the input here from many has been insightful.

However, in order to stem any misgivings anyone may have about the future of D&D, specifically 5th edition, I'd like to make the following announcement:

In anticipation of my imminent hiring as President and CEO of WOTC in 2019 (@ eight years from now) I would like to state that design work has begun on D&D 6th edition and I'll take this opportunity to assure all of you here that already many of the faults inherent in the 5th edition rules have been corrected and, to be honest, you were not having fun playing that way anyway. 

And yes. If you ask, I will hire some of you.

But _my name_ is the only one that goes on the cover.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> /snip I'm fairly confident that D&D 4E skews younger than any version since 1E was released, that is to say younger than 2E and younger than 3.XE.
> 
> /snip.




Is there any actual evidence of this?  Any at all?  I mean, between the two Paizo Dragon questionnaire's, they pegged their readership at about 22 years old (actually, the second questionnaire, after the release of 3.5, had the average age drop from the first).

I mean, when WOTC and Ryan Dancey did their first market research,  65% of those they interviewed were under the age of 25

Do we really think that 4e's demographic is younger than that?  What evidence is there of that?  Just how young do you think the 4e demographic is?  Teen?  Pre-teen?


----------



## Olorin (Dec 30, 2011)

The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Is there any actual evidence of this?  Any at all?  I mean, between the two Paizo Dragon questionnaire's, they pegged their readership at about 22 years old (actually, the second questionnaire, after the release of 3.5, had the average age drop from the first).
> 
> I mean, when WOTC and Ryan Dancey did their first market research,  65% of those they interviewed were under the age of 25




Of course, many of  those in their original market research are now in the 30's or older, and we don't know what proportion stayed, jumped ship, came on board, introduced their children etc.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 30, 2011)

Interesting read with the "future" article.

If WotC makes a 5th edition, it should build on the 4E experience, but I would imagine - based on Mearls' comments - that it will have a basic core to it that is reminiscent of 1E (with 4E's tactical strengths) and build on that.   

Those playing Pathfinder (that were happy with 3.5) are pretty happy with Pathfinder (not to mention happy with Paizo) so going back to D&D/WotC seems unlikely at best.

Paizo fans like Paizo/Pathfinder because of the way Paizo treats them.  WotC, being the corporate entity that it is, is not capable of responding to its fans in the same way, and thus, it will likely be impossible for them to ever generate that kind of sustained goodwill again.  (Although releasing PDFs of the old editions would be a very good start.)


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 30, 2011)

Olorin said:


> The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future




I'm intrigued by the future article - Mearls definitely is on the same page as me when it comes to handing back the reigns to the DM so it'll be interesting to see whether or not there are specific rules differences between PCs and NPCs in 5e or if the entire flavor of the game will revert back to OD&D or 1e.


----------



## bhandelman (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> The fact of the matter is that 4E is very much a ruleset that focuses far more on tabletop miniatures combat than any other edition ever has, and this is coming from someone who has played them all with multiple groups, in home games and at gamedays and at conventions for the last four decades.




Then you must not have read the rules for the earliest edition, which suggested you use Chainmail to act out combat, or you have the same memory problem a lot of people here do.

4e is different than previous editions, as was 3e.  I remember reading all the arguments back in 2000 about how 3e was just emulating Diablo, was too combat focused, etc etc etc.  How many times did you see "The best RPG session I ever played in we never threw a single die" statement pop out?  Remember the hate the Sorcerer class got?  Or that Half-Orcs were now a default race?

I know this is the internet, and we like to forget anything before the recent past, but almost every argument I see thrown against 4e I saw 12 years ago.  Thanks to Google Groups, I can show you posts from August of 2000 on rec.games.frp.dnd that go on and on about all the same things.  The only difference now is because of the OGL, 4e has to compete with a previous system that is still supported.  The closest thing to Pathfinder back then was Hackmaster, which was mostly a parody product to begin with, so you didn't have the same level of problem competing with a previous edition.

I understand people that don't prefer 4e.  It is different in a lot of ways, and when you get invested in a game you are perfectly happy with you don't want to change it, but please stop making statements like "4e isn't DnD".  4e isn't how YOU like to play DnD, and that's fine, but there are lots of people who do like it.  Making snide remarks about those fans doesn't make things any better and just helps further divide things.  If I can play a game of 4e at my local hobby store at a table next to a group of Pathfinder players who are next to a table of WHFRP while someone else may be playing Dragon Age and no one is fighting or arguing or bragging how much better their system is, then I don't understand why people on these message boards can't do the same.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 30, 2011)

Olorin said:


> The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future



And there is the voice of WotC. 

I think Mearls has a difficult, perhaps an impossible, job in front of him, trying to unite the gamers with 4e. I certainly have no interest in ever running, or even playing, the game.  For me, they focused on the wrong things.

If WotC really isn't working on 5e... then I think that the schism will remain, and 4e and Pathfinder will continue to melee for the top spot.

I hope that WotC does try to fix some of the blunders made in regards to 4e's marketing, in particular a good, solid, starter set to introduce new players to the hobby. We need as many gateway drugs games as possible - Pathfinder Beginner's Box helps, and if WotC would produce a like product then everyone wins. Don't just make a marketing toy, make it worth _keeping._

But my hopes, at this point, are low. I think that any real attempt to close the divide will be resisted both by upper management and by some of the more vocal fans on the two sides of the Edition War.

I really need to bring my blood sugar up, I am just way too depressed right now, low sleep and a last minute change to my work schedule are not helping.

At least I have a game tonight.

The Auld Grump, pity party! Pity party! Wah, wah, wah! Sorry 'bout that.

I should focus on the fact that there _are_ two games, that both sides of the schism have something to play.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 30, 2011)

The Future article confirms my suspicions that the author really does want to shill his own product. 

BUT, it's also contains some interesting tidbits. It sounds more and more that 5e might be a "stripped down D&D," with modules to add stuff on top of it.


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 30, 2011)

> _Magic_ has seen a boost in popularity from the success of the Xbox Live game _Duels of the Planeswalkers_.  A large percentage of players will get hooked on the digital game and  then be inclined to purchase a booster deck of cards - or twenty. "One  of the big questions facing the medium now is what is the _Duels of the Planeswalkers_ for _D&D_?" said Mearls.



I think this is crucial!
Baldur's Gate [1998] was my gateway drug. (Along with Planescape: Torment [1999] and Icewind Dale [2000])

And I firmly believe that without these three games the 3e wouldn't have been such a success.

D&D needs a new video game series. Preferebly one that gets a 90%+ rating from reviewers.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 30, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> D&D needs a new video game series. Preferebly one that gets a 90%+ rating from reviewers.




Agreed - I didn't realize the Atari deal was done with.  That is huge, good news.  I also like what I read from Mearls in this article; it sounds like they've taken the lessons they've learned to heart (and not just the 4E lessons).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 30, 2011)

> "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.





> "Let's just play D&D," he said. "Just cut all the  that can get in the way, and say 'Look, we have all these different ways you can express yourself in the game,' and let's just give people what they want. Don't trick people into things they want or just come up with something new for the sake of it. [Let's] get back in touch with what makes role-playing games great, what makes D&D great."



Every time I see these sorts of quotes, I wonder to myself, "Do they get it, or are they just becoming better politicians?"


----------



## Matt James (Dec 30, 2011)

Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.



> "I think the tabletop RPG  market is enduring a kind of death. I think it is transforming into  something that isn't a viable commercial business for more than a  handful of people," said Ryan Dancey, former VP of RPGs at Wizards and  marketing guru at White Wolf/CCP. Dancey was instrumental in developing  the OGL before the 3rd edition era of _D&D_, but he foresees  the RPG industry becoming a dead hobby like model trains. "Kids stopped  playing with trains, and the businesses that remained dedicated to  hobbyists who got more disposable income as they grew up, until the  price of the hobby was out of reach of anyone except those older  hobbyists. Eventually, it became a high-end hobby with very expensive  products, sold to an ever-decreasing number of hobbyists. As those folks  die, the hobby shrinks. That is what is happening to the tabletop RPG  business."


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.



Unlikely.


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.



Sounds plausible at first. But I can't see this happening any time soon.

Again: because of video games. As long as games like Skyrim are coming out there will be people out there who will get hooked and start researching "roleplaying" online. It's a small step from there.

Also: inappropriate comment removed- Plane Sailing, enworld admin


----------



## bhandelman (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.




Unlikely for the same reason he listed model trains dying.  The model train industry is dying because they priced out beginners.  The RPG industry will never be more expensive than the cost of a book and a set of dice, because if WotC were to charge $300 to play DnD there will always be another RPG at the standard prices or lower.  The market may shrink as other hobbies become popular, but there is no reason it would ever die the same way as model trains will.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 30, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> Unlikely for the same reason he listed model trains dying.  The model train industry is dying because they priced out beginners.  The RPG industry will never be more expensive than the cost of a book and a set of dice, because if WotC were to charge $300 to play DnD there will always be another RPG at the standard prices or lower.  The market may shrink as other hobbies become popular, but there is no reason it would ever die the same way as model trains will.




I wonder how much of his comments had to do with the MMORPG he's trying to stand up.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I wonder how much of his comments had to do with the MMORPG he's trying to stand up.




I think it's really the other way around; he's working in MMO's because he thinks that is the way of the future.  Ryan has believed P&P gaming is dying for a long time now.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> Then you must not have read the rules for the earliest edition, which suggested you use Chainmail to act out combat, or you have the same memory problem a lot of people here do.





I played Chainmail before (O)D&D was even available.  Lots.  But how much of the three little books are devoted to combat? There's this line on the bottom of page 18 of Men & Magic, the first of the three little booklets, that explains what the column in the character class tables means:



> Fighting Capability: This is a key to use in conjunction with the CHAINMAIL fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein. An alternative system will be given later for those who prefer a different method.




The alternate system they give comprises the lower half of page 19 and upper half of page 20 of Men & Magic.  But just to be clear, there is stuff on other pages that feeds into this.  It's just not as much a focus of the three little booklets as the 4E rules devote to combat.  Even if we include the 45 pages that make up Chainmail (setting aside that which pertains to mass combat) to the 120 pages of (O)D&D, the combat system is not a huge focus.  For another clue to focus, take a look at spell lists from various editions and games and estimate for yourself what percentage of the spells are designed to be used in combat situations (keep a side tally of those that are useful both in and out of combat).  It's easy to do with the page and a half of spell tables in (O)D&D but I leave it to you as I am sure you have the three little booklets right beside your well-worn copy of Chainmail as I do . . . _if memory serves_. 


*edit* Interestingly, I played a couple of games of Chainmail just last March at Gary Con and will likely play again this March.  I also played a number of games of each edition (except 2E) of D&D in 2011.  It's interesting to play them all in such a short span and get the chance to compare them more closely.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.




They might. I wouldn't be shocked honestly. As tech keeps pushing the boundaries eventually they will start having games that work so well with the computer playing the part of the GM there will be no need. How soon that happens is anyone's guess though.

Of course model trains still exist. I still know of a couple of stores and I know they still have conventions and such. Granted the hobby is a shadow of it's former self and the average age keeps going up and up but it still exists.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.




Well, clearly he's got it wrong in one major aspect - the price issue.  I, at least, don't see anything like the rise of the cost of entry that he suggests.  The typical video game is running like $50 when first out, so RPGs are quite competitive, as the book a player needs is still only $30 or $40.  And with electronic distribution, the cost of getting products out to folks is apt to go down, not up.  

Tabletop RPGs may go the way of the dodo, but not because they price themselves out of entry. 

And, I think he misses a major point - human beings still have a need for actual in-person interaction.  When every person has A/V gear that comes close enough to having a real, breathing person in the room with you, then maybe.


----------



## Pour (Dec 30, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> They might. I wouldn't be shocked honestly. As tech keeps pushing the boundaries eventually they will start having games that work so well with the computer playing the part of the GM there will be no need. How soon that happens is anyone's guess though.




I think I'm going to have to take the exact opposite stance here. As technology keeps pushing the boundaries of social interaction, facilitating conversation and cooperation from anywhere at any time, RPGs will experience a golden age like nothing prior. I hope it'll be D&D that does this, but it could be anyone, even a current unknown. 

I don't believe AI will ever eclipse the living DM, at least not until I have a robot butler and machines headline comedy clubs, but I think I know what you're alluding to from a rules/calculations standpoint and I think Mearls addresses this need to return to the DM as creative font AND arbiter. For many of us, though, I don't think that's a problem, but he's talking about making it the baseline assumption of all games... tricky if you don't have a skilled DM. Just one of the many balancing acts he's left with.

RPGs through social media is the natural evolution of a very social hobby, with many benefits and really no draw backs (you can still play in person, too). I've played online since high school, and it's provided me with steady, creative games, and a certain ease of play/interaction that live games weren't able. Now, more than ever, I have the tools to run some really visually games, with all manner of short cuts and aids, though it worked even back in 2000 with mIRC and FreeDraw (I still use mIRC, actually, hehe).

I see people all over playing turn-based games on phones, handhelds, and consoles, as well as live matches, throughout the course of their days and in their free time. There is an essential human element, and a spirit of cooperation or competition, that really engages us. I think that's the heart of RPGs, as well, which gives me hope they'll be moving hand-in-hand with social media into the future. Right now we're seeing the awkward first steps, is all, as old media companies try and utilize the confounding new medias in a way that engages the public. Like I said topside, so long as there's a love of fantasy, science fiction, horror, imagination in general, there'll be people working to unite our loves and technology. 

The nice thing, is, when they do, there will still be a need for places like EnWorld and people like us, familiar with the roots, adept in gaming, even if the particular methods have changed. There will always be such things as a great game, that feeling we get, plots, NPCs, treasure, monsters, traps. That's not going anywhere. All that changes is accessibility, which should really only threaten the abnormal elitists.

*leaps over Dancey and onto the pulpit* Let go of your fear, my friends! We are not obsolete! We are COMPATIBLE! Social media, technology, will breathe MORE life into this glorious hobby.


----------



## bhandelman (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I played Chainmail before (O)D&D was even available.  Lots.  But how much of the three little books are devoted to combat?




I wasn't arguing page count, I was showing that a focus on using tabletop miniatures has always been there, something you inferred was new to 2008.  You were expected to use a wargaming system to play it originally, so I'm not sure how intending you to use miniatures in 1974 could be understood any other way.



Mark CMG said:


> The alternate system they give comprises the lower half of page 19 and upper half of page 20 of Men & Magic.  But just to be clear, there is stuff on other pages that feeds into this.  It's just not as much a focus of the three little booklets as the 4E rules devote to combat.  Even if we include the 45 pages that make up Chainmail (setting aside that which pertains to mass combat) to the 120 pages of (O)D&D, the combat system is not a huge focus.  For another clue to focus, take a look at spell lists from various editions and games and estimate for yourself what percentage of the spells are designed to be used in combat situations (keep a side tally of those that are useful both in and out of combat).  It's easy to do with the page and a half of spell tables in (O)D&D but I leave it to you as I am sure you have the three little booklets right beside your well-worn copy of Chainmail as I do . . . _if memory serves_.




I actually do have copies of the three books from the white box (6th printing, mine refers to haflings and such), but not Chainmail.  I haven't been able to buy it, though I have gone through copies owned by others.  If you are willing to part with yours for a reasonable price I would be more than interested.

All of your stuff about combat focus I don't find very valid.  I've never seen a DnD game that didn't focus on combat, whether using miniatures or not.  Again, it goes back to those arguments I always heard people make about gaming sessions where nary a die was thrown.

My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out.  The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.


----------



## enrious (Dec 30, 2011)

I think computers will replace tabletop games when Poker becomes online only.

(There's a lot of reasons why people play tabletop, but when it comes down to it IMO, it's the social aspect.  Just like Poker.  Only hopefully with less knives drawn or bottles broken.)


----------



## enrious (Dec 30, 2011)

I think computers will replace tabletop games when Poker becomes online only.

(There's a lot of reasons why people play tabletop, but when it comes down to it IMO, it's the social aspect.  Just like Poker.  Only hopefully with less knives drawn or bottles broken.)


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Interestingly, I played a couple of games of Chainmail just last March at Gary Con and will likely play again this March.  I also played a number of games of each edition (except 2E) of D&D in 2011.  It's interesting to play them all in such a short span and get the chance to compare them more closely.



I would very much like to hear about that!


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> I wasn't arguing page count, I was showing that a focus on using tabletop miniatures has always been there, something you inferred was new to 2008.  You were expected to use a wargaming system to play it originally, so I'm not sure how intending you to use miniatures in 1974 could be understood any other way.





Ah, the risk of something "inferred" is the problem.  Truth be told, minis were used very little in early D&D.  As someone who played in Lake Geneva in the GenCons in the D&D and AD&D games run mostly by TSR employees and those pressed into service by TSR, I can say that minis were mostly just used for marching order and for showing basic positioning of the characters in rare situations when things were very complex.  It's also how we handled things in our home games back then for the most part.  This, very unlike our Chainmail games which were every bit treated as tactical wargames, moving the figures according to their movement rates and checking ranges and determining who could get into melee combat, etc.  Sound familiar?  It wasn't until 3.XE that I saw this used prevalently on tabletops during RPG sessions as a general rule at home, gamedays, and conventions.  Some few did but it wasn't the norm.  As to the page count and looking toward things like spells, those are merely clues to the focus of a game though they are born out in the cases I mention.





bhandelman said:


> I actually do have copies of the three books from the white box (6th printing, mine refers to haflings and such), but not Chainmail.  I haven't been able to buy it, though I have gone through copies owned by others.  If you are willing to part with yours for a reasonable price I would be more than interested.





Funny guy.




bhandelman said:


> All of your stuff about combat focus I don't find very valid.  I've never seen a DnD game that didn't focus on combat, whether using miniatures or not.  Again, it goes back to those arguments I always heard people make about gaming sessions where nary a die was thrown.
> 
> My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out.  The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.





Tactical combat with miniatures was how Chainmail started out and how it was focused.  But the first RPG merely used Chainmail as a framework for the combat portion of the game and was meant to be a different type of game in other respects.  Monsters *&* Treasure is devoted to more than just monsters (which makes up about half the book) but are you saying that you only ever played in games where "monsters" were combatted?  Depending on your alignment, many of the monsters would be things you would not wish to fight.  Many of the monsters are better not fought, depending on your level, and negotiating would be the path to take in any number of remaining situations.  Anyway, like I said in the previous post, much of what is on the other pages can feed into combat but that's not the focus of the game so much so as exploration.  That's really just a matter of the rules as written, though, and cannot take into account how you specifically played it (and I've written up thread regarding my stance not being about how any individual happens to play).


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2011)

I'm of mixed feelings about these articles.

I don't actually disagree with anything anyone said (except maybe Ryan Dancey), but it does look like the first two articles were carefully written to criticize 4E and doesn't include any quotes from anyone who isn't a direct competitor of the game.  What did they *expect* Erik Mona to say?  

The third article does include Mike Mearls, so at least we get a more balanced viewpoint.  And that, to me, reads as a "paving the way for a new edition" article, in the same way that recent DDI columns seem to be.

Dunno.  All in all, I don't think it's a particularly useful or informative series of articles.  It tells us that the publishers of _Pathfinder_ and _Mutants & Masterminds_ don't think 4E is all that great, and that Mike Mearls is looking at why folks complain about 4E - something that has been clear for a long time given the tenor of various DDI columns over the last few months by both him and Monte.  No real information there at all.

All in all, the articles don't actually say anything at all.  The folks who write Pathfinder aren't keen on 4E, and Mearls has been looking at what the issues are?  Yeah.  We know.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> I would very much like to hear about that!





Paul Stormberg has run a number of scenarios at Gary Con using the Chainmail rules including last year's Battle for the Brown Hills and the previous year's Fight for the Moathouse, both of which will ring familiar to gamers (or can be googled for their significance).









Here's what he is running this year -

http://www.garycon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=746


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 30, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out.  The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.





Mark CMG said:


> Monsters *&* Treasure is devoted to more than just monsters (which makes up about half the book) but are you saying that you only ever played in games where "monsters" were combatted?  Depending on your alignment, many of the monsters would be things you would not wish to fight.  Many of the monsters are better not fought, depending on your level, and negotia.



The Giant's Bag, a D&D encounter from 1975, refereed by Rob Kuntz, players, Gary and Ernie Gygax.


----------



## Jeffrey (Dec 30, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> The RPG industry will never be more expensive than the cost of a book and a set of dice. . .




Agreed, even more so if you consider that borrowing/using a friends book and dice at the game table, which I suspect many did when first getting into this hobby, drops the dollar cost to zero.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> The Giant's Bag, a D&D encounter from 1975, refereed by Rob Kuntz, players, Gary and Ernie Gygax.





Good stuff!  (Out of XP for now.  I'll have to owe you one for this fine example of the noncombat focus of early D&D.)


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Paul Stormberg has run a number of scenarios at Gary Con using the Chainmail rules ...



Thanks.
But I am more interested in your thoughts about that:


> I also played a number of games of each edition (except 2E) of D&D  in 2011.  It's interesting to play them all in such a short span and get  the chance to compare them more closely.



Though this might be worth a new thread.


----------



## Erik Mona (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.




I think it's wrong, obviously.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> Thanks.
> But I am more interested in your thoughts about that:
> 
> Though this might be worth a new thread.





I might need to write up some blog posts about it over on the CMG Blog Triad as we get into the new year.


----------



## Cergorach (Dec 30, 2011)

Ryan said:


> "I think the tabletop RPG market is enduring a kind of death. I think it is transforming into something that isn't a viable commercial business for more than a handful of people,"




Which isn't exactly weird. I'm pretty sure RPG paper book sales are in the toilet compared to the 3(.5)E era. Paper/printing is getting more expensive, people have high expectations and the writing/editing/illustration/design costs on a high quality RPG title is huge. More and more people demand ebook sales instead of physical book sales (such as myself, no room anymore in the bookcases).

Computer games are getting better and better visuals, are getting more flexible, and are getting budgets in the AAA+ movie ranges. Sure they might seem more expensive at release then pnp RPGs, but they are not. PHB + DMG + MM is $105, Pathfinder + Bestiary is $90, any FFG 40k core rulebook is $60. And that's without an adventure (you don't expect new gamers to produce their own adventures right out of the gates) or dice (or terrain and miniatures if you want a visual experience). Skyrim might be $60 on release, you might require a console, but it's playable on a PC and most folks have one. Having a PC that runs all the Skyrim eyecandy is a whole other story, you can make that as expensive as you want. Sure there are discount stores for both sides, but the PHB is still $23 after 3-4 years,  AAA title like Mass Effect 1 & 2 are $5 during the Steam sale, same goes for titles like Oblivion and Fallout 3. Many a MMO is now F2P.

A RPG game is only fun when you have a decent to good DM, so there are a lot of folks that play in groups with not so decent DMs. The choice is quickly made to go play that fun video game instead of that mediocre RPG session.

Let's also not forget that folks have been social without RPGs for years, they can play many other games, and the market for quality board games is huge. And just talking to each other can be fun as well...

So we have less demand for physical books and higher costs, so from a classic commercial business point of view RPGs are dying. You might notice that most recent successful RPGs are tied to other hot properties.

Sure pnp RPGs will never die out, but the market will change significantly. More ebooks, less physical books, more projects funded through community efforts, more open source, etc. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if 4E is the last pnp edition for a couple of decades, if the property gets any more damaged Hasbro might just decide to put the property on ice (and that can be a long time)....


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> Which isn't exactly weird. I'm pretty sure RPG paper book sales are in the toilet compared to the 3(.5)E era. Paper/printing is getting more expensive, people have high expectations and the writing/editing/illustration/design costs on a high quality RPG title is huge. More and more people demand ebook sales instead of physical book sales (such as myself, no room anymore in the bookcases).
> ...




As you say, it will change (more ebooks is the biggest example) but they are still PnP RPGs. They aren't video games, or even virtual tables.  The market for small publishers is a million times larger than it was 15 years ago.  Thousands make money from it, and dozens make a living from it. 

So I believe the evidence suggests the opposite is true; the only difference is if you limit it merely to retail print products. But so many have shown that you don't need those, and that a PDF strategy is perfectly viable.


----------



## Cergorach (Dec 30, 2011)

Morrus said:


> As you say, it will change (more ebooks is the biggest example) but they are still PnP RPGs. They aren't video games, or even virtual tables.  The market for small publishers is a million times larger than it was 15 years ago.  Thousands make money from it, and dozens make a living from it.
> 
> So I believe the evidence suggests the opposite is true; the only difference is if you limit it merely to retail print products. But so many have shown that you don't need those, and that a PDF strategy is perfectly viable.




Sure the market is way bigger for small publishers, but a lot of small publishers are a short step away from vanity publications that are very far from a '_viable commercial business_' model. 

I would say that ENWorld is one of the better performing small publishers, but would you characterize it as a _viable commercial business_? Would you advice investors to invest in a small publisher as a _viable commercial business_?

I would rate a _viable commercial business_ as a business where you get a return on a product range within a reasonable period of time at a decent hourly wage.


----------



## darjr (Dec 30, 2011)

Morrus said:


> The folks who write Pathfinder aren't keen on 4E, and Mearls has been looking at what the issues are?  Yeah.  We know.




That's it for me, except I get this feeling from the last article that it isn't Mearls searching so much as stating that he's made some conclusions. That he has conclusions about what happened and what is going on and an idea about what to do about it.


Is it just me?


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 30, 2011)

Pour said:


> I think I'm going to have to take the exact opposite stance here. As technology keeps pushing the boundaries of social interaction, facilitating conversation and cooperation from anywhere at any time, RPGs will experience a golden age like nothing prior. I hope it'll be D&D that does this, but it could be anyone, even a current unknown.
> 
> I don't believe AI will ever eclipse the living DM, at least not until I have a robot butler and machines headline comedy clubs, but I think I know what you're alluding to from a rules/calculations standpoint and I think Mearls addresses this need to return to the DM as creative font AND arbiter. For many of us, though, I don't think that's a problem, but he's talking about making it the baseline assumption of all games... tricky if you don't have a skilled DM. Just one of the many balancing acts he's left with.
> 
> ...




To be fair I was talking way in the future. I think once computers get to a certain point it will happen. I doubt I will still be alive then though.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

darjr said:


> That's it for me, except I get this feeling from the last article that it isn't Mearls searching so much as stating that he's made some conclusions. That he has conclusions about what happened and what is going on and an idea about what to do about it.
> 
> 
> Is it just me?





Nope.  Not just you.  It's like the old saw for trial attorneys about never asking a question for which you don't know the answer, interviews (articles, blogs, etc.) done by persons in a corporation are a form of marketing and rarely are they done without some sense of what has already been decided regarding the direction the corporation is heading.  WotC seems to be feeling out the best way to present what they have already determined regarding how they plan to proceed.  We'll know more after the D&D XP later in January, IMO.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Dec 30, 2011)

*Mearls needs to know what a true Storytelling Game is all about*

From the recent Escapist Magazine article about the future of RPGs:

"I have a theory about RPGs," Mearls said. "When 2nd edition really got focused on story [in 1989], we had what I call the first era of RPG decadence and it was based on story. The idea that the DM is going to tell you a story, and you go from point A to point B to point C. The narrative is linear and [the DM is a] storyteller going to tell you a static story, and you would just get to roll dice occasionally."

Now, I counter with a quote from the World of Darkness corebook:

"Storytelling games involve at least two, although preferably four or more players. Everybody involved in the game participates in telling a group story — the players create and act out the roles of their characters, and the Storyteller creates and reveals the plot, introducing allies and antagonists with which the players’ characters interact. The players’ choices throughout the course of the Storytelling experience alter the plot. The Storyteller’s job isn’t to defend his story from any attempt to change it, but to help create the story as events unfold, reacting to the players’ choices and weaving them into a greater whole, introducing secondary characters and exotic settings." (The World of Darkness, page 22)

Now my soapbox:


This so called "Age of Decadence" was an age where in order to compete with the games coming out of the White Wolf Games Studio, TSR had to put more focus on the story, because dungeons weren't enough anymore.  It was a Renaissance in games not a step backwards as he makes it sound like it was.  Only the worst of Storytellers would run linear stories.  Everyone became part of the story and the DM was less of a god and more of facilitator.  And just because you put down the dice didn't make it any less of an enjoyable experience.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

I ran a mini campaign of Prince Valiant, the Storytelling Game last summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant_(role-playing_game)

Be sure to read this review (with particular attention toward "SUBSTANCE III – GAME MASTERING, I MEAN, STORYTELLING" -

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9189.phtml

Once you get beyond the basic game, the Advanced version is meant to be shared storytelling.  This review is a bit one-sided against that type of play but the rest of the review is very complete.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 30, 2011)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Only the worst of Storytellers would run linear stories.  Everyone became part of the story and the DM was less of a god and more of facilitator.  And just because you put down the dice didn't make it any less of an enjoyable experience.




Agreed. I see my campaign as a shared work of coauthored fiction. I set the stage and the players improvise within the scene I have set. Mind you, the extras (NPCs) will often try to steal the scene.

When designing an adventure, it is easy to begin with "go from point A to point B to point C" but with the knowledge that players will often go from A to G to Z and back to B, otherwise you end up with the infamous "Oh no! It's that unfinished portion of the dungeon we feel mysteriously compelled to avoid!".


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 30, 2011)

I will point out that Dragonlance, very much what Mearls describes, predates Vampire by the better part of a decade. 2e continued that trend, and was developed in the shadow of the first really successful franchise that TSR had in years, aside from AD&D itself. 'Hey, this worked, let us do more of it.'

The Auld Grump


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> Sure the market is way bigger for small publishers, but a lot of small publishers are a short step away from vanity publications that are very far from a '_viable commercial business_' model.
> 
> I would say that ENWorld is one of the better performing small publishers, but would you characterize it as a _viable commercial business_? Would you advice investors to invest in a small publisher as a _viable commercial business_?
> 
> I would rate a _viable commercial business_ as a business where you get a return on a product range within a reasonable period of time at a decent hourly wage.




Without wanting to share private finances with you - yes. We do very well. 

Without knowing the details of other small companies' financial details - I'd say yes, there are a couple dozen doing similarly well, and a small handful doing better.

Which is not much different to 20 years ago, except that now there's another 500 "making some beer money" enterprises in addition to them, who would not have had a viable outlet 20 years ago.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 30, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I will point out that Dragonlance, very much what Mearls describes, predates Vampire by the better part of a decade. 2e continued that trend, and was developed in the shadow of the first really successful franchise that TSR had in years, aside from AD&D itself. 'Hey, this worked, let us do more of it.'
> 
> The Auld Grump



Yep. Between the Dragonlance modules, the constantly-advancing FR timeline (with novel events being reflected in later products), the Grand Conjuction of Ravenloft and even the advancing timeliens of Greyhawk and Dark Sun, TSR had a LOT of the "follow the storyline" syndrome.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 30, 2011)

There was a point in late 2E where the advetures were very much on railroads (The Ravenloft adventures were some pf the worst offenders, Some of the FR adventures as well).  Folks around me had abandoned D&D as players seemed to feel that it was "hack'n'slash" play and the "real roleplayers" were moving away from the clunky system for things like GURPS and WoD, whose systems seemed more robust and allowed for deeper immersion into the fantasy realm.

 I remember in the games of Vampire I was drifting to, because of the game's structure, there wasn't even a need for modules; many times the characters own personal struggles made the idea of some grand quest seem ludricious and unfulfilling as such prepackaged fare did not account for the group dynamic.  It felt "false" because the activities couldn't be tailored by designers 3,000 miles away from the groups playing their games.

In the end, TSR did had a problem with 2E, but it wasn't that it was asking people to tell stories.  It was that the system was starting to show it age and wasn't really catering to its actual audience.


----------



## Derren (Dec 30, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> I think this is crucial!
> Baldur's Gate [1998] was my gateway drug. (Along with Planescape: Torment [1999] and Icewind Dale [2000])
> 
> And I firmly believe that without these three games the 3e wouldn't have been such a success.
> ...




Unlikely to happen.
WotC won't invest enough money for AAA games (tens of millions, in some cases more than 100 million) and doesn't really have the experience to do it themselves.

There also aren't really any big RPG developers left who don't have their own setting or are already under contract. And the game studios/publishers themselves don't have much interest in D&D because the last D&D game tanked with the fanbase practically got halved with 4E. Maybe if WotC practically gives away the license for free if the publisher agrees to make at least one game with X budget. But they will hardly agree to that.

But maybe a miracle will happen and WotC can get CD Projekt or Obsidian to do a D&D game or can find enough old Black Isle/Bioware employees to start a new studio. But so far the only notable D&D game in the pipeline is that Neverwinter MMO. And it is Cryptic so it won't be AAA. Even a B-game would be a surprise from them. And I don't think that there will be any other D&D game any time soon.

(I am also a bit perplexed at the decision to make the Neverwinter game an MMO. Sounds like something a bean counter would decide after reading a news story about WoW. D&D has a very high reputation for single player games with added multiplayer, but non as MMOs. Also the MMO market is very unforgiving and imo oversated. A good single player 4E game with added toolbox and DDI connectivity would have served the D&D brand better)


----------



## Viking Bastard (Dec 31, 2011)

I think a better strategy for a gateway video game would be something akin to that _Duel of the Planeswalkers_ game. A Virtual Table built around a simplified version of D&D on a platform Xbox Live or another equivalent.


----------



## delericho (Dec 31, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> Unlikely for the same reason he listed model trains dying.  The model train industry is dying because they priced out beginners.  The RPG industry will never be more expensive than the cost of a book and a set of dice...




The big cost of getting started with D&D isn't financial, it is in all the reading you need to do.

Before a new group can get started, _someone_ has to read the better part of 1,000 pages of core rules, and the rest of the group need to be familiar enough with a very complex system to create characters. Then they need to create characters, and create an adventure (or buy and read a pre-gen, meaning yet more reading). And then they get to _start_ having fun.

The alternative _should_ be the Red Box, which provides a quick and easy way in to the game. Unfortunately, the Red Box is pretty much worthless. It is only very recently that we've finally gotten any decent starter set (for Pathfinder) - there's been a gap since the mid-90s.



Morrus said:


> ...but it does look like the first two articles were carefully written to criticize 4E and doesn't include any quotes from anyone who isn't a direct competitor of the game...




Note that the 'Present' article quotes both R.A. Salvatore (author working for WotC) and Andy Collins (ex-WotC, but not a competitor).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 31, 2011)

delericho said:


> The big cost of getting started with D&D isn't financial, it is in all the reading you need to do.
> 
> Before a new group can get started, _someone_ has to read the better part of 1,000 pages of core rules, and the rest of the group need to be familiar enough with a very complex system to create characters. Then they need to create characters, and create an adventure (or buy and read a pre-gen, meaning yet more reading). And then they get to _start_ having fun.
> 
> The alternative _should_ be the Red Box, which provides a quick and easy way in to the game. Unfortunately, the Red Box is pretty much worthless. It is only very recently that we've finally gotten any decent starter set (for Pathfinder) - there's been a gap since the mid-90s.



I've seen this raised before and it puzzles me. People-even average ones-are capable of learning a great deal very quickly, even if they don't realize it. Many players are introduced to the game by someone who already knows it; I don't know that a bunch of newbies picking up some books and trying to play is all that common (it's debatable as to whether it could or should be).

More than that, many people play rule-intensive games, watch complex TV shows, and engage in time-consuming hobbies of all stripes. I don't see rpgs as an aberration in this regard. I see a niche for a beginner product, definitely, but I think it's only a niche.

Of the people who have considered the game and rejected it, how many were motivated by fear of learning all the rules? Very few, I'd say.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 31, 2011)

bhandelman said:


> Then you must not have read the rules for the earliest edition, which suggested you use Chainmail to act out combat, or you have the same memory problem a lot of people here do.




Did you actually play d&d back in the mid 70's? Because I did, and despite all the times I see people nowadays saying "oh, the rules tell you to use chainmail for combat", i don't think anybody did. Certainly none of the people I gamed with, heard about or knew via APAs. 

The significance of the chainmail meme astonishes me. It is almost as if people read this on the Internet over the last couple of years and accept it as gospel. It wasn't and it isn't. Really.


----------



## caudor (Dec 31, 2011)

Whoops, posted deleted content in wrong thread.  Sorry.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

delericho said:


> The big cost of getting started with D&D isn't financial, it is in all the reading you need to do.



Not if you're the parent buying the books for a kid. Parent walks into a store, asks what they have to spend to get a kid _without a group yet_ into D&D, the store owner will point to the PHB, MM and DMG. That's $90. That's a lot to drop on a "We don't know if he'll like/do it".

And if you're a kid, $90 is a large drop in the bucket.

Hell, _I_ want to give the new books to a kid and _I_ feel $90 is a lot.


----------



## nedjer (Dec 31, 2011)

If it's Monte Cook; shouldn't it be Mike Mearls instead of the offhand/ dismissive Mearls?


----------



## R_Chance (Dec 31, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Did you actually play d&d back in the mid 70's? Because I did, and despite all the times I see people nowadays saying "oh, the rules tell you to use chainmail for combat", i don't think anybody did. Certainly none of the people I gamed with, heard about or knew via APAs.
> 
> The significance of the chainmail meme astonishes me. It is almost as if people read this on the Internet over the last couple of years and accept it as gospel. It wasn't and it isn't. Really.





I've played since 1974. We played Chainmail before D&D came out, both historical medieval miniatures and fantasy. My current PF / 3.5 / homebrew campaign setting is based on the fantasy campaign setting I developed for Chainmail fantasy miniature campaigns.

We always used the "alternative" combat rules for D&D using a twenty sided die as opposed to the two six sided system in Chainmail. I always thought it was superior for a game based on individual combat.

Even in a group of miniature enthusiasts like us I don't remember anyone using / advocating using Chainmail for anything except large scale miniature battles.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I've seen this raised before and it puzzles me. People-even average ones-are capable of learning a great deal very quickly, even if they don't realize it. Many players are introduced to the game by someone who already knows it; I don't know that a bunch of newbies picking up some books and trying to play is all that common (it's debatable as to whether it could or should be).
> 
> More than that, many people play rule-intensive games, watch complex TV shows, and engage in time-consuming hobbies of all stripes. I don't see rpgs as an aberration in this regard. I see a niche for a beginner product, definitely, but I think it's only a niche.
> 
> Of the people who have considered the game and rejected it, how many were motivated by fear of learning all the rules? Very few, I'd say.




A fear?  No.  But I'll happily admit that the barrier to me buying new games is that I don't have the time or inclination to learn the new rules; and I don't think I'm alone in that.  That, frankly, is why a brand works.  It's why it works on me (most of the time - there are always exceptions).  WotC is perfectly aware of this psychology, although may have stretched it too far with 4E and overstepped.

That's why there will be a D&D 5E and not a new WotC-produced _Caverns & Dinosaurs_ 1E.  Because - although it may have been damaged in the last few years and not as effective as it once was - people will assume they can step easily into it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 31, 2011)

Morrus said:


> A fear?  No.  But I'll happily admit that the barrier to me buying new games is that I don't have the time or inclination to learn the new rules; and I don't think I'm alone in that.  That, frankly, is why a brand works.  It's why it works on me (most of the time - there are always exceptions).  WotC is perfectly aware of this psychology, although may have stretched it too far with 4E and overstepped.
> 
> That's why there will be a D&D 5E and not a new WotC-produced _Caverns & Dinosaurs_ 1E.  Because - although it may have been damaged in the last few years and not as effective as it once was - people will assume they can step easily into it.



Yes, but that's the perspective of a conoisseur-someone who knows games. Is a child or young adult who considers playing D&D and has never played a tabletop rpg before motivated by the same things?

Frankly, I think most beginners don't remotely realize the complexity of the rules or the depth to which a D&D game can be developed. They get into the game slowly and stop at whatever level of depth seems right. There are a lot of casual D&D players out there who never really learned the rules well, they just trust their DM (they're not on EN World though).

I think their questions about the game for a prospective player are more social. Does playing this game make me part of a group I don't want to be part of? Will other people judge me if I do it? Will my life change for the worse? Frankly, I think a simple set of D&D rules is just as stigmatized as a complicated one, which is to say, very much so. That's the rate-limiting factor in recruiting new players.

That's my opinion, anyway, from my experience. I'm sure there are many on this subject.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Frankly, I think a simple set of D&D rules is just as stigmatized as a complicated one, which is to say, very much so.




I certainly believe it was in the US in the 80s.  I didn't experience it while I was growing up in the UK, though; and I certainly don't as an adult.  A little curiosity, but no stigma at all.  Geek is chic, y'know! _ Doctor Who_ is mainstream TV!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Dec 31, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Not if you're the parent buying the books for a kid. Parent walks into a store, asks what they have to spend to get a kid _without a group yet_ into D&D, the store owner will point to the PHB, MM and DMG. That's $90. That's a lot to drop on a "We don't know if he'll like/do it".
> 
> And if you're a kid, $90 is a large drop in the bucket.
> 
> Hell, _I_ want to give the new books to a kid and _I_ feel $90 is a lot.




Well, yes and no.

I wouldn't spend that kind of money on my son's friend at a birthday party. 



But if my son wanted to learn to play the guitar or trumpet, I'd go for it at that price. (or even up to $200 if he was serious).


If he wanted a season of sports lessons at that price, fine.


If he wanted to engage in my very favorite hobby with me at that price...hells yeah!



$90 is both a prohibitive and trivial amount of money...and that distinction is made by the priority of the object the money is spent upon. 



My son (age 6) already has inherited one of my 2e monstrous manuals, my 3.0 monster manual, and the WotC book of dragons and book of monsters (can't remember full titles and I'm not waking him up to find out).

That's approximately $30, $30, $20, and $20, if I'm estimating correctly ($100 for NOT EVEN PLAYING THE GAME). I'm not rich. I'm sharing my own hobby and it's history with my son (he also has my old MASK and Transformers toys...none of which are in Ebay condition). 


He knows the types, breath weapons, and ecologies of the dragons (chromatic, metallic, and gem). He has favorite dragons (mercury and crystal). He has favorite other monsters (medusa, hydra, catoblepas-lol-, thokka/thoqqua--for some reason, and more). 


I dunno...I guess I'm rebutting that gamer dads are unwilling to drop $90 on a game to share with their sons (where sports dads might drop $500 on lessons, practices, equipment, et. al. for their own sons).


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> ...
> 
> I dunno...I guess I'm rebutting that gamer dads are unwilling to drop  $90 on a game to share with their sons (where sports dads might drop  $500 on lessons, practices, equipment, et. al. for their own sons).



A _gamer_ parent is a whole hell of a lot different than a non-gaming parent. My comment was aimed primarily at non-gaming parents. I know someone who works in a game store. This was a recent conversation:

Parents: "HI we were thinking our son might like D&D, so we're looking for books for Christmas; what do we need to get him started?"
Clerk: "Does he have a group?"
Parents: "No."
Clerk points to the three books.

The parents went with a Munchkin card set instead.


----------



## bhandelman (Dec 31, 2011)

Derren said:


> (I am also a bit perplexed at the decision to make the Neverwinter game an MMO. Sounds like something a bean counter would decide after reading a news story about WoW. D&D has a very high reputation for single player games with added multiplayer, but non as MMOs. Also the MMO market is very unforgiving and imo oversated. A good single player 4E game with added toolbox and DDI connectivity would have served the D&D brand better)




Neverwinter Nights, back in the old school AOL pay by the hour days, was the first graphical MMO I ever heard of.  At the time, all we ever played were MUDs, Neverwinter Nights was this amazing concept of playing an RPG on the computer with other people.  People would waste hours online (paying for every single one of them) hoping for a spot to open up so they could jump into the game.  To say that DnD, and specifically Neverwinter, are not names associated with MMOs isn't true at all.  Granted, this was 20 years ago, but they were the only decent game in town for years.


----------



## bhandelman (Dec 31, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Did you actually play d&d back in the mid 70's? Because I did, and despite all the times I see people nowadays saying "oh, the rules tell you to use chainmail for combat", i don't think anybody did. Certainly none of the people I gamed with, heard about or knew via APAs.
> 
> The significance of the chainmail meme astonishes me. It is almost as if people read this on the Internet over the last couple of years and accept it as gospel. It wasn't and it isn't. Really.




My point wasn't that everyone was using Chainmail to play the game.  My point was that 4e is not the first edition to use miniature combat rules.  Originally, the game recommended you use Chainmail.  Soon after, the alternate system became the norm.  I didn't get this from a meme, I have a copy sitting right next to me.  There are points throughout the original rulebooks where it says things like "noted in the CHAINMAIL rules" or "as detailed in CHAINMAIL".  One of the spells, Conjure Elemental, required CHAINMAIL.  Goblins and other monsters have the statement "as described in CHAINMAIL" attached to them.  Whether you guys like it or not, DnD is descended from a wargame and originally used miniatures.  The game didn't stay that way, but to argue that it wasn't played that way until 2008 is false, as is the argument that combat was not the focus of the game until 4th edition.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 31, 2011)

New players don't need to drop $90, though.  Most of the time they just need to drop $20 (which was the introductory price of the 3E PHB).  If they do a starter set of some kind, the introductory price goes down as well - I was introduced via one of the D&D boxed sets which only went up to 3rd level, but hooked me until I was able to find a AD&D PHB.

Also, if you're learning with experienced players, oftentimes you don't need to spend anything; you borrow books until you decide if its worth it or not.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 31, 2011)

delericho said:


> Before a new group can get started, _someone_ has to read the better part of 1,000 pages of core rules...




I beg to differ. My first 4e experience came out of the 16 page startup rules, or however long they were, in Keep on the Shadowfell. Heck, the first boxed set I played out of didn't have 1000 pages of rules if you includes the module. 

The problem is that there is a lack of easily-accessible condensation of the rules for a first-time player. The Red Box _should_ have a 30-page basic ruleset, including enough to make and play pcs up to level 3 (at least) and a basic overview of roleplaying, in it, but the current version... fails.

It doesn't require 1000 pages of reading, it just requires knowing which 16 or 30 pages you really need to read to get started.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Of course, many of  those in their original market research are now in the 30's or older, and we don't know what proportion stayed, jumped ship, came on board, introduced their children etc.




That would be my point though.  Fifteen years ago, the hobby was dominated by late teens and early 20 somethings.  What evidence do we have that the demographic now is any younger than that?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

Are we actually debating whether or not D&D is a combat focused game?  Really?  Still?  What is it?  1989 again?

Is 4e heavily dependent on minis?  Oh sure.  It's taken the 3e presumption that you're going to use minis and extrapolated rules around that presumption.  Which does make it a more mini-centric game.  Trying to play 4e without minis would be... difficult.  Certainly more difficult than any other edition.

However, I'm still really bewildered why this would suddenly make D&D more focused on combat than other editions.

Look, when the rules for determining who goes first in combat are _*longer*_ than the rules for determining whether or not someone likes you?  That means you have a game that is focused on combat.  And in every edition of D&D, the rules surrounding initiative are longer and more complex than the rules for diplomacy.


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 31, 2011)

I found the last article interesting mostly for what it said about WotC's positions -- admitting that 4E made some mistakes and that the market is deeply divided.  I honestly doubt that Mearls could say anything else, as it would not seem credible.  

Still, I doubt that the market can be reunified.  People have gone their separate ways.  A new edition may generate some sales, but I don't think that it is easy to rebuild lost trust or brand loyalty.  I want to see good products come out of WotC as it is good for our hobby.  However, we will manage.

This week I picked up a few things at a local game store and the owner told me that a young man who stopped in a few weeks back for a Pathfinder Society game (I helped him play one of the pregenerated iconics) came back and brought the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.  I think that perhaps products around the price of the Beginners Box to the Basic Set to a PHB or PF Core Rulebook will work as an introduction.  So, I expect to see one more local gamer -- and I hope that he will meet as many good people and make as many friends as I have through this hobby.  At the end of the day,  I hold firm to the conviction that all of us have more in common than we might think.  Perhaps what unites us as gamers is ultimately more powerful and important than what divides us.  My hope is that the teen who came in may one day be teaching his kids how to play RPGs.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Are we actually debating whether or not D&D is a combat focused game?





Nope.  I explained that 4E is more focused than any previous edition on tactical miniatures combat and then a debate was begun to shift the argument away from the level of focus to whether there always had been a focus at all.




bhandelman said:


> The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.


----------



## Alphastream (Dec 31, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Second: *this* is generalization:



That was just the most obvious (and obviously incorrect) generalization. The number of 4E players that grew up on Gygax is huge. Coupled with the success of Encounters at bringing back old players, you have a really high number of 4E gamers that played with AD&D or earlier. 

Overall, I honestly felt the article was useful. It is a snapshot of a view and a possibility.  

But, the article is unfair if it is taken as gospel. There is just a lot the article doesn't cover, and the author has potential reason to show bias. The article focuses too narrowly and ends up saying little as a result beyond suggesting the demise of D&D. Meanwhile, wizards has had many successes the past three years. Paizo is likely the only company that doesn't absolutely drool over Wizards' revenue, and even Paizo likely has a number of things they wish they could do as well (for example, in-store programs, advertising, or convention support).

I do take heart that the "future" article seemed to turn things around and wish for a more unified community. A shame he didn't provide some ways that could happen and write an article that helped make it happy. For example, we could easily re-spin the entire article to read "several RPGs have been strong, including indie games and notably Paizo... could this, coupled with an innovative Wizards, strengthen the industry in years to come?"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

> The game didn't stay that way




Ah, that's the rub. 

Because circa 2008, with James Wyatt telling me that talking to guards, exploring ruins, and interacting with the fey were not fun and should be skipped, I could almost here him saying, "Let's just pretend that this is a minis combat game, mkay? Don't worry about talking to giants -- giants are there to provide 10 rounds of minis combat."

And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"

And that's part of why 4e has trouble resonating with me. All editions of D&D have been pretty combat focused (you need rules for things you do a lot of!). What has made them interesting to me is that there is more than that. The game didn't stay CHAINMAIL. 4e seemed to come out in places and tell me rather explicitly that I was doing it wrong, by using it as a vehicle for something much broader than a combat engine. 

Of course, it's not an absolute statement. There are parts of the game that don't hew to that (problematic though Skill Challenges and Rituals are). It's just an indication from the rules, and a few choice bits of advice. It's a tone.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Because circa 2008, with James Wyatt telling me that talking to guards, exploring ruins, and interacting with the fey were not fun and should be skipped, I could almost here him saying, "Let's just pretend that this is a minis combat game, mkay? Don't worry about talking to giants -- giants are there to provide 10 rounds of minis combat."
> 
> And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"
> 
> And that's part of why 4e has trouble resonating with me. All editions of D&D have been pretty combat focused (you need rules for things you do a lot of!). What has made them interesting to me is that there is more than that. The game didn't stay CHAINMAIL. 4e seemed to come out in places and tell me rather explicitly that I was doing it wrong, by using it as a vehicle for something much broader than a combat engine.




Were we reading different books? Did James Wyatt say that to you personally?  I never got that impression.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 31, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Were we reading different books? Did James Wyatt say that to you personally?  I never got that impression.




Can we not start this argument...again...for the umpteenth time??

Lets just leave it at the following: 

The passage in question can be interpreted a number of different ways, and discussion of those ways has never, *ever* resulted in anything other than eventual mod-text in the thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

mudbunny said:
			
		

> Can we not start this argument...again...for the umpteenth time??



It's a little weird that it keeps cropping up. It's not like getting that impression should be shocking or unexpected by this point.  

In deference to the above message, I'll only say that it doesn't take a madman to see 4e circa 2008-9 as rather explicitly a minis combat game. If you want to seek the discussions, they're out there. Start a thread in General, if you're confused, and I bet you'll get a lot of response.  It's more than the particular quotes as well. From powers to monsters to rituals to magic items to skill challenges to the early adventures, it wasn't hard to infer that the game's intent was to be played like that. 

If that wasn't the intended message, then they didn't communicate their intent well. If that WAS the intended message, it's probably the wrong message to communicate. 

And I think if Mearls & Monte are smart (and I believe they are!), they'll ensure 5e is explicitly designed and described to be as much about talking to guards and faeries as you want it to be. I'm pretty optimistic about what the future holds!


----------



## fjw70 (Dec 31, 2011)

A very strange article. The following quote (attributed to Mike Mearls) seems really strange.

"It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say."

How is the DM more of a rules guy in 4e when the rules are the most clear of any edition. And if the DM is just the rules guy then who is creating adventures and describing the world and giving life to he NPCs. I have a hard time thinking Mearls really said that.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 31, 2011)

There was a quote in there about comics that got me thinking:  the state of roleplaying games is somewhat like the comic field right now:

You have the well-known Marvel and DC (D&D and Pathfinder), and some other less well-known publishers (Image, Dark Horse, etc. which would be akin to SJG, WW/Eden, etc.).  

Nobody is attempting to force all those comic book readers under one monolithic world that has Batman rubbing elbows with Captain America and the X-Men and the Justice League trying to take down the combined Legion of Doom and Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.  Sure, sometimes we see team-ups or crossovers, but that's a very rare thing these days.

Instead, each publisher takes their comics in the direction that (hopefully) their fans enjoy.  They aren't trying to (overtly) steal each others fans, and fans can freely read DC, Marvel or whatever without having to be devoted to one superhero universe or the other.

The roleplaying game community should take a long look at that; we've now got a variety of systems that appeal to the different styles of play we each enjoy.  We don't need to try and unite both sides in some misguided attempt to force our ideals on everyone else.  We can survive having multiple versions of D&D just like the comic industry - or movie industry - or video game industry, if we back off and stop trying to tear out each other's throats and just play the damn game we like.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> The roleplaying game community should take a long look at that; we've now got a variety of systems that appeal to the different styles of play we each enjoy.  We don't need to try and unite both sides in some misguided attempt to force our ideals on everyone else.  We can survive having multiple versions of D&D just like the comic industry - or movie industry - or video game industry, if we back off and stop trying to tear out each other's throats and just play the damn game we like.



That's unlikely to happen IMO.

Too many people are either: 

1) Casual gamers, in that they've played D&D, or MAYBE Vampire/Werewolf, but really they don't look very far. We here on ENWorld who come here to talk about RPGs are the die-hardcore people, not your typical gamer. These folks play what their friends are playing. 

2) Refuse to play any other system. These are people who Play Their System and That's It. It might be D&D, or it might be GURPS, but whatever it is, they won't budge. 

You also have to consider how people get their games. Walk into a gaming  store and if it's a decent gaming store, you'll find D&D,  Pathfinder, WH40K, White Wolf titles, and... maybe two others? No indies. This  gets even smaller when you walk into say, a Barnes and Nobles which  likely has D&D but not Pathfinder, and certianly no indie stuff.Whereas with any comic book store they have a wall of comics, and stock a lot of your non-Marvel/DC stuff.

To stretch your analogy, most of your indie games are like webcomics. There are a million out there, and only a few will get popular enough to that enough people know they exist. Mostly they have a small fan base and little new traffic. 

Many times I have proposed on this board, "If you want to play style x, go look for a system that does x well" and never makes any traction.


----------



## delericho (Dec 31, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Many players are introduced to the game by someone who already knows it; I don't know that a bunch of newbies picking up some books and trying to play is all that common (it's debatable as to whether it could or should be).






Kid Charlemagne said:


> Also, if you're learning with experienced players, oftentimes you don't need to spend anything; you borrow books until you decide if its worth it or not.




Yes, but that's entirely the issue. If the game is set up so it's extremely daunting to come at cold (1,000 pages of Core Rules, $100 buy-in, whatever), then you're basically only selling to people who are already enthusiasts. The hobby can only grow by the network expanding organically - you have to know someone on the inside to help you along.

But that network isn't terribly easy to find. Many games don't talk about their hobby, for fear of ridicule (or, in some places, worse). Many others have their group, are happy with that, so feel no need to seek out (or even welcome) new players.

I had lived in Falkirk for three years before I found any other gamers in the place, and it wasn't that I wasn't looking. Given that I _was_ actively searching, and that I already knew what to look for, what chance does a curious kid without that experience have?

If the game is created for, marketed to, and sold to those who are already enthusiasts, and if it remains hard to come in to cold, then Ryan Dancey is pretty much right - we're heading for the fate of model railways. Those kids who would be curious about the game, but don't have an immediate and obvious connection to the network? They'll go play WoW instead.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 31, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"




I can't give you XP again yet, alas.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 31, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> There was a quote in there about comics that got me thinking:  the state of roleplaying games is somewhat like the comic field right now:
> 
> You have the well-known Marvel and DC (D&D and Pathfinder), and some other less well-known publishers (Image, Dark Horse, etc. which would be akin to SJG, WW/Eden, etc.).
> 
> ...



What he's saying is more akin to fans of a single publisher dividing up based on their preferred version of characters. Instead of a "Marvel vs. DC", he's comparing it to a "Golden Age DC vs. Silver Age DC vs. Bronze Age DC vs. New 52 DC").

For instance, my favorite Flash is Wally West. Imagine if, now that Barry Allen is the Flash again, I was allowed to publish Flash stories with Wally. Then the fanbase would split between "Team Barry" and "Team Wally" (or "Team Jay" or "Team Bart").


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 31, 2011)

nedjer said:


> If it's Monte Cook; shouldn't it be Mike Mearls instead of the offhand/ dismissive Mearls?




"Mearls" is also Mike Mearls' EN world name.  I doubt any insult is intended.  (I certainly don't when I use it.)

Also, Monte Cook isn't the only "Cook" in D&D lore.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 31, 2011)

David "Zeb" Cook!

Anyhow, those articles were rather disappointing. I read them in backwards order, started with the Future--which didn't really talk much about the future or warrant any real discussion about it--and then the Present, and then didn't bother with the Past. I can't quite put my finger on it without re-reading them, but there is just something...odd...about how they were written. Warning flags went up with is rather disingenuous "In the spirit of full disclosure, I happen to be writing my own game..."

What was most disappointing was that nothing new was said. However, I suppose the silver lining is that Mike Mearls, once again, expressed a vision of D&D that I can really get on board with.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 31, 2011)

delericho said:


> Yes, but that's entirely the issue. If the game is set up so it's extremely daunting to come at cold (1,000 pages of Core Rules, $100 buy-in, whatever), then you're basically only selling to people who are already enthusiasts. The hobby can only grow by the network expanding organically - you have to know someone on the inside to help you along.
> 
> But that network isn't terribly easy to find. Many games don't talk about their hobby, for fear of ridicule (or, in some places, worse). Many others have their group, are happy with that, so feel no need to seek out (or even welcome) new players.
> 
> ...



I'm all for expanding the game beyond its base. That said, I think it has to be done by people, not products. Is it realistic to think that a bunch of novices could pick up some books on *any* form of D&D and start playing cold? That just seems unlikely for a hobby that is inherently involved, complex, and requires a group.

By comparison, imagine a group of children picking up a football, going out to a field, and starting a game. That's not what happens. Either an older person who knows how to play teaches them or their parents sign them up for Pop Warner (or maybe they watch it on TV and give it a shot based on that). A group of novice theater enthusiasts doesn't usually get together spontaneously and stage a play, but there are plenty of clubs and classes that help them do that (although schools' art budgets are a concern there).

By comparison, people do pick up and play WoW, Dragon Age, and any number of other video games without much help, and a group of people will pick up and play a board game like Monopoly or Settlers of Catan based on the instructions inside the box.

My conclusion is that D&D has more in common with the former group. It is a socially based hobby, whose codifed rules are only part of a larger set of implicit rules which are determined by the group playing it.

I would like to see beginners start playing by themselves, and I applaud Paizo for its Beginner Box (I wish 3e had had a similar quality product). I think it's great that people develop their own styles independently that way (mine is certainly not what I would have learned had I not been relatively independent). That being said, I think even the simplest rpg rules are a tough starting point, because the broader concepts of understanding roleplaying, group dynamics, and how to interpret rules are things the books can't really teach you (the good ones do make an effort, though). There's also the stigma. Thus, I don't think that specialized beginner products will ever be the largest entry point to D&D. I think it will either be experienced gamers from other fields who are ready to pick up the full rules, or beginners being taught by veterans, either as friends or through some kind of organization. I wish there were more gaming clubs in schools.

***

All that said, the hobby won't die no matter what. Regardless of what happens with 4e, some version of 3.x will always be widely and freely available. There will always be a huge inherent audience of people who read Lord of the Rings, watch Game of Thrones, or play Dragon Age, all of which are going to be around a while (who reads books about model trains?). Most importantly, the inherent desire for creative expression that people possess isn't going anywhere. Some form of rpging has to be around to fill the enormous demand for it.


----------



## technoextreme (Dec 31, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Did you actually play d&d back in the mid 70's? Because I did, and despite all the times I see people nowadays saying "oh, the rules tell you to use chainmail for combat", i don't think anybody did. Certainly none of the people I gamed with, heard about or knew via APAs.
> 
> The significance of the chainmail meme astonishes me. It is almost as if people read this on the Internet over the last couple of years and accept it as gospel. It wasn't and it isn't. Really.



Its not actually a meme.  Both rules of D&D that first existed were miniature combat rules.  Unless you want to actually contradict the creators of D&D.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> And that's part of why 4e has trouble resonating with me. All editions  of D&D have been pretty combat focused (you need rules for things  you do a lot of!). What has made them interesting to me is that there is  more than that. The game didn't stay CHAINMAIL. 4e seemed to come out  in places and tell me rather explicitly that I was doing it wrong, by  using it as a vehicle for something much broader than a combat engine.



I have a feeling though that the this was entirely accidental.  There is an Gygax editorial which effectively stated that D&D is a combat game and that the focus on roleplaying is pretty dumb.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 31, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Its not actually a meme.  Both rules of D&D that first existed were miniature combat rules.  Unless you want to actually contradict the creators of D&D.




It is a meme in that people have said it a lot over the last couple of years or so, but it was pretty much never mentioned earlier - mostly because the relationship to chainmail was pretty much irrelevant to the way that everyone played D&D back in those days. This isn't contradicting the creators of D&D, it is reflecting the way it was actually played. The original rules had everything you needed to play the game. As others have mentioned, miniatures were pretty much only used to represent marching order; any wargaming roots to D&D were utterly hidden for pretty much all players - at least considering everything that was being written by and for players in the 1970's.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 31, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> It is a meme in that people have said it a lot over the last couple of years or so, but it was pretty much never mentioned earlier - mostly because the relationship to chainmail was pretty much irrelevant to the way that everyone played D&D back in those days. This isn't contradicting the creators of D&D, it is reflecting the way it was actually played. The original rules had everything you needed to play the game. As others have mentioned, miniatures were pretty much only used to represent marching order; any wargaming roots to D&D were utterly hidden for pretty much all players - at least considering everything that was being written by and for players in the 1970's.




Off topic, not for you, but for others and adding to what you said for informational enlightenment...

IN MY OPINION...

Gygax was a great person, but he also had his own agenda.  I think he REALLY wanted to push Chainmail.  I think at the time he felt it was more his then D&D.  

With the original rules, I think there were those that used the Chainmail rules in the early groups, but when it spread beyond Gygax's circle many read the rules and really didn't know chainmail all that much.  They used alternate rules and it was awesome.

Furthermore, there was a rift at that time.  Think of the 3e and 4e bitterness that you sometimes see.  It was different, but in some ways similar, and it wasn't between RPG buddies, it was within wargaming in relation to this new D&D thing (actually in many ways it was towards your typical Wargaming and anything dealing with adding fantasy into wargaming...which D&D/chainmail would have been seen to be a part of).

There are some people that I wargame and boardgame with that I STILL don't admit that I've ever touched D&D...some of them are quite bitter against the fantasy stuff.

One of my better (albeit newer) Boardgame/Wargame friends just found out more recently that I "dabble" in RPGs.

Some old folks can be quite crotchety.

And you also had it where those that wargamed despised D&D because not only was it not a "real wargame" as it had fantasy, but it wasn't a Wargame at ALL!!!!  The Horror!!! (that last part was sarcasm, just so you know).

By the time Greyhawk was released it was probably obvious what direction D&D was headed.  In my opinion Greyhawk solidified what D&D was, is, and has been ever since.

Everyone after that basically used something akin to using a D20 via the rules, or almost everyone, as far as my opinion goes.

In some groups we actually used a variation with D6's many times.......


----------



## Pour (Dec 31, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"




Your beef is with James Wyatt, I think, and we all agree some initial PR for 4e was terrible. His quote seems like a really easy shot at 4e after 3+ years, when many of us 4thers share the same opinion as you AND successfully use the current edition to meet our desires. 

Skill challenges and rituals do not prevent us from achieving it, either. Ugh, this is so off topic, I'm really not trying to war here, I'm just acknowledging that, yes, James Wyatt said those things, yes he worked on 4e, and no, his blanket statement does not summarize 4e by a long shot. Can it be played that way? Totally. Is that the only way it can be played? No.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2011)

*Ryan Dancey has expanded on his views here in a bonus column.*


----------



## cavalier973 (Dec 31, 2011)

> "_D&D_ isn't one game, it's a range of games," said Mearls.




It sounds to me as if Mearls wants to apply the lesson "Stop trying to make the perfect Pepsi, start making the perfect Pepsis", which is explained in this excellent talk by Malcolm Gladwell:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y"]Malcolm Gladwell: What we can learn from spaghetti sauce - YouTube[/ame]

In my opinion, before they come out with 5th Edition (or whatever), they should revamp the Red Box, making it conform to the Essentials rulebooks, and allowing characters to level up to 5th level.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 31, 2011)

Morrus said:


> *Ryan Dancey has expanded on his views here in a bonus column.*




I won't touch that with a 10' pole.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 31, 2011)

cavalier973 said:


> It sounds to me as if Mearls wants to apply the lesson "Stop trying to make the perfect Pepsi, start making the perfect Pepsis", .




Which is something that I'm kinda fine with as someone who doesn't play 4E. While I dont and wont play the RPG, the boardgames are things that I've actually spent money on and have enjoyed playing with my 9 year old.

And there's no danger of them really being obsolete in a way where people wont want to play them because of the ruleset. WOTC could keep producing these and as a matter of fact I'm flat out surprised that they havent been producing expansions for the different sets as opposed to trying to sell you a new set with slightly altered rules each time.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 31, 2011)

Pour said:


> I'm just acknowledging that, yes, James Wyatt said those things, yes he worked on 4e, and no, his blanket statement does not summarize 4e by a long shot. Can it be played that way? Totally. Is that the only way it can be played? No.




   I was looking through _Worlds & Monsters_ a few months ago, and that phrase comes across as Wyatt summarizing the objections to including fairy folk in D&D--*not* necessarily endorsing the position himself.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 31, 2011)

Pour said:


> Your beef is with James Wyatt, I think, and we all agree some initial PR for 4e was terrible. His quote seems like a really easy shot at 4e after 3+ years




I'm surprised that he hasn't come out to clarify his statement at any point in the past three years, given how polemic it can come across as.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

Pour said:
			
		

> I'm really not trying to war here, I'm just acknowledging that, yes, James Wyatt said those things, yes he worked on 4e, and no, his blanket statement does not summarize 4e by a long shot.




I totally agree. Those things aren't the end of the problem, though, they're just the beginning.

And it's entirely possible to play 4e in a way that doesn't resemble those statements (or the rules that support them). But that is because a good group is system agnostic. A good group can run any game and have fun with it. Mike Mearls probably runs a good game of FATAL. 

It's a difficult argument to say "4e is a good game because it's possible to run good games with it," because it's possible to run good games without ANYTHING. It's faint praise at best. By the same token, of course, you can't really say "4e is a bad game because it's possible to run bad games with it." Bad games can come even from genius systems.

Honestly, if we're looking to shore up the industry as a whole, that's where the work needs to be done: to create _good gaming groups_. IMO, one of the best ways to create good gaming groups was ideas like the OGL, which enabled anyone to grab the basic rules for free, and allowed small publishers to aim for any conceivable niche, giving every group of every conceivable predilection something for them. The Book of Erotic Fantasy wasn't for me or my group, but it was probably for SOMEONE, for SOMEONE's group, and if it helped make their own game better, well, that's pretty awesome.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 31, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I won't touch that with a 10' pole.




I did, but that's because I had forgotten who Ryan Dancey was.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I won't touch that with a 10' pole.



It is a good read.

And it mentions something that is far-too-often igonred: the "acquisition" of new gamers. Ryan mentions the kids MMORPG Club Penguin (which Disney acquired), which is aimed at kids younger than any existing RPG can cater to, and instills in them a favorite hobby that will likely follow them as they grow up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 1, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I won't touch that with a 10' pole.






Johnny3D3D said:


> I did, but that's because I had forgotten who Ryan Dancey was.




I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.

You might not agree with his conclusions, you might not like him personally, but it would be foolish to dismiss his thoughts out of hand IMO.

Cheers


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 1, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.





   OTOH, the OGL seems to be the *only* thing he's managed to make successful in this hobby--and whether it's 'successful' really does depend on your point of view. Additionally, I believe he's been doomsaying pretty much constantly since he parted ways with WotC, and his behavior when campaigning for GAMA treasurer has left a lot of folks skeptical when it comes to his honesty and integrity.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 1, 2012)

I think Ryan's predictions may not always come to pass, but his analysis is always a fascinating read - and I think he gets much more right about the industry than anyone else who posts on this topic.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 1, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.
> 
> You might not agree with his conclusions, you might not like him personally, but it would be foolish to dismiss his thoughts out of hand IMO.
> 
> Cheers





I have absolutely nothing against him personally; I honestly did not recognize the name.  It rang no bells for me until I read the article.

I do take issue with the constant doomsday predictions.  Everybody has a right to their opinion; I even understand why his is what he says it is, but I believe he's basing his opinion on evidence which does not necessarily support what he wants it to support.  He has numbers, and I appreciate sharing an opinion based upon data rather than speculation, but I am not convinced that his way of reading the data and the tea leaves associated with that data is the correct way.

I'm glad he was successful in his previous endeavors.  However, when I read the article, his status as a designer and/or professional among the industry is not what made me remember who he was.  The doomsday prophecy is what clicked in my head.


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 1, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I wonder how much of [Ryan's] comments had to do with the MMORPG he's trying to stand up.




And I wonder what inclines you, you personally, in the first place to slander his comments - and his follow up comments ("wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole") - by an underhanded _ad hominem_ like that.

It'd be like saying,

"I wonder how much Matt James' defensive posting of late has to do with his freelance money coming from WotC."

Or, in an even more passive-aggressive way, I could simply quote the following exchange in which Ari Marmell lashed out at fellow-WotC freelancer Frank Brunner for "wanton misrepresentation" about 4E's sales success, implying that Brunner was simply going for sour grapes, having not landed a freelance gig at WotC for a while - and _imply _Matt is quickly going down Ari's way.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> [Whatever Frank wrote is] No more [influenced by his own situation] than the "I like it / I'm invested in it /_* I'm writing for it,*_ so it's obviously a success" shtick is. Not by any means.






			
				Ari said:
			
		

> Don't even try to play that card. The fact that I'm a freelancer doesn't  prevent me from having my own opinions. (And frankly, I was perfectly  prepared to hate the game, learn it purely for professional reasons, but  keep playing 3.5. I'm grateful it didn't work out that way, but it  could have.) I have never once, on ENWorld, expressed an opinion that I  didn't honestly feel. I may choose not to say anything, rather than be  negative, but if I claim to like something gaming related, it's because I  like it, not because I may or may not do some work for the company.  Frankly, I'm not important enough in the scheme of things for <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym> to care what I say on a messageboard, as long as I don't violate my NDA. And you've been around long enough to know that.






> Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because  frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for  yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym>  or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and  you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym>  knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you  don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a  major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for  reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym>. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> in <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym>’s direction.



From  here.  I'd simply post the link, but Enworld insists on doing page links when  linking single posts, and these differ depending on your posts-per-page  adjustments.

I could offer that in a direct vein, but I don't. Rather I'd simply recommend you to not go for publically discrediting other industry figures in the suggestive manner you tried. You're not in a position to, and it only rebounds back on your own head in a manner that few readers will find flattering.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm sure Matt understands that people have to take his own opinions with a grain of salt, due to his financial bias. I don't see how that negates his apparent concern over the validity of someone else's opinions or claims.

Personally my first thought on reading the article was "Wait if this is real information how is it not under NDA?"


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm also curious how the idea of less publishers=less sales.  That's not necessarily a point that can be presumed.  After all, there are less distributors, but, again, that doesn't mean that there are less books being sold today than 20 years ago.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Same with cars.  At one point there were a HELL of a lot more car companies out there than there are now, yet, every year more cars are being sold worldwide.

Less distibutors and less game stores =\= a shrinking market.  It might, but, again, it might not.  It might simply be a sign of a maturing market.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 1, 2012)

I think that in the 80s and 90s people had to go out to meet each other, to communicate and consume so they went out a lot more than they do now, where they may choose instead to conveniently put some of their free time on online communities like enworld, rpg.net and what have you.
This is a reason that some retail meeting and selling points like hobby stores close doors. This is not a matter of consolidation as it may be the case of fewer distributors. It is a matter of shrinkage of a certain kind of business that faces new and solid competition: the internet.This does not mean though that this physical retail business will eclipse. It just means that it has to become smaller.

The biggest publishers of tabletop games do not necessarily face fewer sales because of this matter. They may face a problem though due to a loss of their ability to retain the focus of the network effects around them since information channels nowadays are much more extensive. And if network effects grow weaker it means the value of their product shrinks. This also means that internet piracy may become a real problem, since people are much more willing to spend money on something that they perceive of greater value than something that they perceive of lesser value.
OTOH, smaller publishers are viable to take a shot and succeed due to their access and reach to the modern information and production channels.

So, it is kind of a totally different era than 10 years ago.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'm also curious how the idea of less publishers=less sales.  That's not necessarily a point that can be presumed.  After all, there are less distributors, but, again, that doesn't mean that there are less books being sold today than 20 years ago.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Same with cars.  At one point there were a HELL of a lot more car companies out there than there are now, yet, every year more cars are being sold worldwide.
> 
> Less distibutors and less game stores == a shrinking market.  It might, but, again, it might not.  It might simply be a sign of a maturing market.




Comparing the automobile industry with the TRPG industry is like comparing Apples with Skyscrapers. Automobiles are a necessity for most, the developing nations (Like China) are primarily why car sales were rising at that rate. But also cars get old and need to be replaced, then newer model cars are more complex (component/electronics) which become more expensive to maintain and break more easily then cars made a couple of decades ago.

You don't 'need' a new RPG because the old one broke down.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 1, 2012)

I appreciate Ryan Dancy writing that article and his insights into the process.

I also thank for the OGL.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2012)

D&D could have a better acquisition machine in place, based on this:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Heroes of Hesiod)

Why isn't Monster Slayers: Heroes of Hesiod available in toy stores worldwide, alongside Monopoly or Mousetrap?
__________________


----------



## Matt James (Jan 1, 2012)

Windjammer said:


> And I wonder what inclines you, you personally, in the first place to slander his comments - and his follow up comments ("wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole") - by an underhanded _ad hominem_ like that.




I'm not seeing the slander, but we could have different definitions. I also write for both Paizo and WotC. I love each game for what it is. I also accept that I take heat from both fan-bases when I try to interject logic. Am I not free to question motives?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 1, 2012)

Cergorach said:


> 4E is not complex, not exactly detailed and certainly not difficult, it's 4E's only strengths imho...




Wow, you have never played or even read 4E rules have you. Your entire post was nothing short of pure edition warring steeped in a lack of knowledge.

4E is an extremely complex game, just at the table vs. prep time. It's more about interactions instead of what once character can do itself.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 1, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Wow, you have never played or even read 4E rules have you. Your entire post was nothing short of pure edition warring steeped in a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 4E is an extremely complex game, just at the table vs. prep time. It's more about interactions instead of what once character can do itself.




Never played 4E is true, but I have about 3 feet of 4E books on the shelf, and I did read the core rulebooks because I was going to DM the thing. As I've said before the rules themselves are solid and an improvement over 3.5E, but the presentation is lacking imho. And I've read more attractive/interesting technical manuals then the 4E PHB to be honest.

I would compare 4E and 3.5E with American cities vs. European cities, American cities are very well planned and often have a square grid (blocks), European cities are often more of a mess, because they've been build upon cities that were never planned to be so large. The 4E rules set is a straight thread were all the options plug in to, 3.5E was a thread that went everywhere to accommodate the options.

Complex doesn't necessarily mean good, and a lot of options doesn't necessarily mean complex.

Part of the problem with 4E and 3.5E comes from the insane amount of classes, feats, powers and spells that most DMs allow in their games when a new book is released. I learned with 3.5E at high levels that it would be the last time I would allow that, and I know that 4E suffers from this as well, but it's less of a problem with 4E then it was with 3.5E (or so people who have played keep telling me).


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 2, 2012)

Cergorach said:


> Complex doesn't necessarily mean good, and a lot of options doesn't necessarily mean complex.




Simple doesn't necessarily mean good either.  In a lot of cases it does, but there are also cases when simple comes across as lacking and/or as restraining the user's ability to do more. 

...not disagreeing with your post; I just wanted to add something which I feel doesn't get mentioned.  I 100% agree that a lot of options doesn't necessarily mean complex.  Presentation can go a long way; the first impression is often the lasting impression.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

Cergorach said:


> Comparing the automobile industry with the TRPG industry is like comparing Apples with Skyscrapers. Automobiles are a necessity for most, the developing nations (Like China) are primarily why car sales were rising at that rate. But also cars get old and need to be replaced, then newer model cars are more complex (component/electronics) which become more expensive to maintain and break more easily then cars made a couple of decades ago.
> 
> You don't 'need' a new RPG because the old one broke down.




However, I do think you're missing my point.  Less distributors can easily mean a more mature distribution system.  As time goes along, the more successful distributors buy out the less successful ones, while the least successful ones go out of business.  After enough time, you're left with a lot fewer distribution companies that, collectively, are still larger than what you started with.

Much like how the car distribution industry matured.  Or really, any distribution system evolves.  In the early 80's, we had a glut of gaming shops.  People who really shouldn't be opening businesses were sinking the money into opening game shops.  Distribution companies sprouted up to take advantage of these small stores.

However, many of these small stores had the business sense of concussed badgers and folded when the fad phase of gaming faded in the mid-80's.  A few more managed to limp along for the next ten years, gradually dying out as well.  

Does this mean that the total number of gamers was continually shrinking?  I'm not so sure.  A lot of it had to do with very, very poor business sense.  The stores with smart owners stayed in business and thrived.  And continue to thrive to this day.  But, as the stores folded, the distributors had to change as well.

It's called, I believe, consolodation.

The whole thing is interconnected, and it's very difficult, I think, to point to any one thing and say, "Hey, this is what's going on."  You have massive changes in the price of printing, changes in distribution model and methods, changes in the market, changes in technology and so on and so forth.

While a shrinking gamer base is possible, we're still not seeing any real evidence that that is true.  Even the idea that Pathfinder is stealing 4e consumers isn't really provable.  I'm sure that to some extent it's true.  But, how many Pathfinder gamers would not have bought anything from WOTC anyway?  How many people are spending money on the hobby now because they have products that actually directly cater to their taste instead of vanilla products that didn't specifically target anyone?


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 2, 2012)

I can only speak about distributors in the Netherlands, we currently have two. One recently went belly up and the team behind that started a new firm doing the same thing. Bergsala Enigma (formerly PS Games) and Boosterbox (a new kid on the block, relatively). I the beginning of 3E and the OGL PS-Games carried WotC, Kenzer, Mongoose, White Wolf (both D20 releases, as WoD and Exalted), Alderac, Fantasy Flight, Green Ronin, etc. Now it's D&D, very little Pathfinder (a few core books), the FFG RPGS for the 40k and WFRP line, L5R was announced but hadn't seen it available, WW doesn't do physical products anymore as far as I can see, I expect to see the Iron Kingdoms RPG (but PP products are poorly available). Availability is often quite poor, not getting titles on time or ever is not unknown these days. Other countries might fare better, we're generally forced to order from the UK (amazon.co.uk doesn't stock any Savage World titles at the moment), Germany or the occasional French webstore (those that carry English products).

So anything that isn't mainstream we usually have to special order, which makes it expensive and thus only interesting when you absolutely want to have it. PDF products on the other hand are instantly downloaded and don't have to contend with enormous shipping fees, taxes, and import fees.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm not allowed to XP Hussar again yet, but a lot of what was said with the most recent post touches on some of what I've been trying to say.  The fact that someone runs a business poorly or one of the established industry names fails doesn't prove that customers are no longer there.


----------



## delericho (Jan 2, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm all for expanding the game beyond its base. That said, I think it has to be done by people, not products. Is it realistic to think that a bunch of novices could pick up some books on *any* form of D&D and start playing cold? That just seems unlikely for a hobby that is inherently involved, complex, and requires a group.




The old Red Box allowed this. That it was the intended entry point when D&D was at its peak of popularity might be a coincidence, of course.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 2, 2012)

delericho said:


> The old Red Box allowed this. That it was the intended entry point when D&D was at its peak of popularity might be a coincidence, of course.



I suppose I'm dating myself; That product far predates my entry into the game (and my birth). Honestly I don't know enough about that era of D&D to say anything about it.

I can only say that I learned the game (in its late 2e incarnation) from others, learned 3.0 together with the group, and have taught others to play, but that I have no experience with the concept of a cold introduction. Based on my experience, that seems like a high bar (and as I've said before, I think the reason for this is more the culture surrounding D&D than the rules of the game itself).


----------



## Saracenus (Jan 2, 2012)

The economics of a local game store are NOT always about the health of the hobby as a whole.

Here in Portland, OR (a mid-sized city on the West Coast) we have a fair number of game stores.

When I was in High School in the 80's there was a game store downtown called Endgames. It no longer exists because the rents down town could not support that kind of location (and the owners decide not to move). 

Bridgetown Hobbies and Games (formerly Military Corner) moved off its two previous locations when the rents got too high (their solution was to buy the building instead of renting).

Rents and location are just small aspect of store survival. 

Competitive pressure from Amazon.com and the internet in general (Bridgetown has a huge buffer in this regard because half the store is dedicated to model builders and non-gaming miniatures). 

The advent of collectable card  and minis games have spawned stores here in town that cater to only that crowd and have only a token RPG shelf space if any at all.

One of the most successful game stores here in Portland is Guardian Games and it also is very young. It has an incredibly large play space that supports all aspects of the hobby (cards, minis, computer/console, rpgs and board games). This diversity is what has kept this store growing when others have withered and died. That and the owner has built the store around the gaming community and fostered it. It has been a nexus for new blood into the hobby and even some cross pollination between gaming groups. 

With this all said, the only reason there is a significant D&D representation at this store is advent of the D&D Encounters format. 1-2 hour casual play has been the gateway to a ton of new players and DMs when almost all public D&D play had dried up in this city. The program has spread to almost every game store in Portland. And the beauty of it is, it has spawned countless in-store and at-home spin off campaigns.

You got to be saying to yourself right now, "Great Story Bro! But what does this have to do with the health of the game store and economic pressure?"

Here is the dark secret, D&D Encounters sucks at selling D&D. Essentially you have NO incentive to buy anything beyond some basic books and/or a DDI account but really there is very little you can buy on a weekly basis that would justify the time and space we have been allotted in the store. It is only because the owner wants to support the hobby that we have it.

Angel could make more money with Magic the Gathering, Yugi-Oh, Warhammer, Warmachine, and selling board games than she can make off of us RPGers. Trust me, I have struggled as the organizer of the DDE program at her store to incentivize folks to purchase RPG product. There just isn't much we can so there in the current format that D&D and RPGs are currently produced.

This circle's back to the Ryan Dancey "Model Train Hobby" analogy. Right now there is no incentive to keep purchasing material because of the high price-point (20-40 bucks a shot is hard to maintain), ingrained resistance to "collectable" aspects of gaming (e.g. Fortune Cards), and the time needed to prepare and run a game outside of organized play or pre-published adventures. The people that will continue to play are pretty much already in the hobby and entry points for new players are restricted.

If we continue to define D&D (our segment of the industry) only by what TSR and Gary Gygax pioneered when the hobby was new then we are doomed. The landscape is rapidly changing on how content is delivered.

Think of the music industry and how delivery formats have changed but there is still music. How content is delivered while still being D&D is the really nut we have to crack in order to survive and prosper.

What roll game stores, distributors, and live gaming will play in this is an open question.

I think this has a lot to do with how WotC has been attempting to change how it delivers content and what they do with their IP. 4e products have slowed down, but the quality has gone up. WotC has reclaimed the electronic rights from Activision which should make some the crazy prohibitions on electronic support of the TRPG go away. If they are smart they will reclaim the TV/Movie rights to the D&D IP.

I think you are going to start to see all sorts of experiments by WotC looking for a gateway to new players of D&D. The facebook RPG D&D: Heroes of Neverwinter is just a taste of what's coming. If they can come up with a transition from that kind of casual game to the table-top, pure gold.

I know I have been rambling and my thesis is not very coherent, but the issues of D&D are so much broader than edition wars and play styles. Its hard to wrap my head around what D&D is going to morph into.

That's what I got so far, now I need to rest my poor overtaxed brain.


----------



## delericho (Jan 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I suppose I'm dating myself; That product far predates my entry into the game (and my birth). Honestly I don't know enough about that era of D&D to say anything about it.
> 
> I can only say that I learned the game (in its late 2e incarnation) from others, learned 3.0 together with the group, and have taught others to play, but that I have no experience with the concept of a cold introduction. Based on my experience, that seems like a high bar (and as I've said before, I think the reason for this is more the culture surrounding D&D than the rules of the game itself).




Don't get me wrong, it is by far preferable to be introduced to the game by someone who already plays. If nothing else, that saves you from making a lot of the same mistakes over again.

But good intro sets are a must, and they should be trying to make it as easy to get started as possible.

_Something else to consider:_ On occasion I run games at convention, game days, or whatever. I tend to encounter one or two newbies at these events. They play, they have a good time, and they wonder what's next?

The problem is that I'm not able to help them take that next step. My campaign is full. The other DMs I know have campaigns that are full. And none of us have the time to start up a new campaign. The best we can offer are very occasional one-off games, with the next one being in a few months at least (since I've just run one!).

Programs like Encounters are definitely a good thing, as are the various D&D Gamedays. Unfortunately, the only FLGS I know that runs them is an hour and a half away by car. (There is another closer that _advertises_ them... but as far as I can tell, they actually run 0 tables.)

I expect the Pathfinder Beginner Box to be a godsend in this regard. Hopefully, I'll now be able to run my demo games using that set (only), and then direct the new players over to the nearby stand selling that same box. If it works, that will be awesome.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 3, 2012)

GreyLord said:


> Off topic, not for you, but for others and adding to what you said for informational enlightenment...
> 
> IN MY OPINION...
> 
> ...



Oh, gods, yes there was a rift between the wargamers and the RPGers - and those of us who did both were de facto considered to be RPGers. The wargamers closed ranks while the folks playin' that newfangled D'n'D were actively trying to bring more people _in_. Fantasy wargaming was lumped in with the RPGs.

There was open rebellion at MaineCon in that regard, since the person in charge of the wargames group also ran (and later published) RPGs. He and another referee ran a game of Sturmgeshutz and Sorcery - the fantasy gamers had a blast, the WWII gamers, less so. I was one of the fantasy gamers, but I got my start as an historic wargamer.

The Auld Grump


----------



## delericho (Jan 3, 2012)

Cergorach said:


> Never played 4E is true, but I have about 3 feet of 4E books on the shelf, and I did read the core rulebooks because I was going to DM the thing. As I've said before the rules themselves are solid and an improvement over 3.5E, but the presentation is lacking imho. And I've read more attractive/interesting technical manuals then the 4E PHB to be honest.




Then I'm sorry, but you don't have the experience to properly judge the system. 4e plays very differently from how it reads. The complexity comes in tracking the ever-changing conditions, saves and power recharges - which isn't clear from reading the books.

You are correct that 4e is more resilient to additions that 3e - adding more options has a much less drastic effect on how the game plays, and especially with the DDI it is easier to keep track of everything. This is a very good thing, since 4e is also much more in need of expansion beyond the PHB/DMG/MM trio than 3e.

But 4e is _most definitely_ a complex game. Even at 1st level there's a lot to track, and it quickly goes up from there.

Note that that is not necessarily a criticism. If you like the sort of tactical combat mini-game that 4e offers, then it is the very best of the market for doing that. Conversely, if you _don't_ like that, and especially if you don't like using minis, then you're almost certainly better off with a different system, rather than trying to hack 4e. It is what it is.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jan 3, 2012)

delericho said:


> Then I'm sorry, but you don't have the experience to properly judge the system. 4e plays very differently from how it reads. The complexity comes in tracking the ever-changing conditions, saves and power recharges - which isn't clear from reading the books.
> 
> You are correct that 4e is more resilient to additions that 3e - adding more options has a much less drastic effect on how the game plays, and especially with the DDI it is easier to keep track of everything. This is a very good thing, since 4e is also much more in need of expansion beyond the PHB/DMG/MM trio than 3e.
> 
> ...




I find this interesting. I haven't played the game, and avoid edition wars stuff if I can, but I clearly remember that this isn't how the game was sold. Remember the "The Game Remains" promotional video, about how complex 3rd ed was and how fast moving 4th ed would be? I'm surprised to hear now that 4th ed is complex in its own way. I'd love to know more about how this was all intended to work, compared to how it actually works.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 3, 2012)

delericho said:


> Then I'm sorry, but you don't have the experience to properly judge the system. 4e plays very differently from how it reads. The complexity comes in tracking the ever-changing conditions, saves and power recharges - which isn't clear from reading the books.




That's certainly not a ringing endorsement. My experience is that it plays worse than it reads, thanks, in large part, to tracking ever changing conditions, saves, power recharges, and temporary hit points. By the time you hit about 15th level or so, I find it to be a royal pain.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Good stuff!  (Out of XP for now.  I'll have to owe you one for this fine example of the noncombat focus of early D&D.)




I have trouble attributing this to the system though. I've played BD&D/1E games that were nothing but combat. And I just ran an encounter with a group of ogres this past weekend in my WLD 4E game that didn't result in combat. The interaction at the table IME has always come from the person running the game, not the game itself. To me it is like people are trying to assign human qualities to a set of books. Every game is more or less combat focused as the group playing chooses.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 3, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> Remember the "The Game Remains" promotional video, about how complex 3rd ed was and how fast moving 4th ed would be? I'm surprised to hear now that 4th ed is complex in its own way. I'd love to know more about how this was all intended to work, compared to how it actually works.




Over-simplifying a bit but 4E is more complex in-encounter, 3E is more complex pre-encounter. Where in 3E you might scry, see you'll be facing the Red Wyrm, get together fire resistances and other postions/spells, pull Dragonslayer Sword from golf bag, spend time before entering the room buffing, etc. where in 4E you go in to the fight and after a bit the Cleric gets dazed while in the dragon's aura, the fighters is also in the aura, has marked the dragon, is bloodied and both are in the blast radius of the Wizard's All Creatures In Burst Daily Spell so tactics have to be adjusted on the fly.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jan 3, 2012)

Maybe, but here's the video, in case anyone's forgotten:

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Teaser - YouTube

I have to admit, I'd forgotten how annoying and condescending that video was till I just looked it up. It was the first warning sign for me that I was not going to be switching editions.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 3, 2012)

Ah, yes.  The video that started the anger.

Good times.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 4, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> Maybe, but here's the video, in case anyone's forgotten:
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Teaser - YouTube
> 
> I have to admit, I'd forgotten how annoying and condescending that video was till I just looked it up. It was the first warning sign for me that I was not going to be switching editions.



That's an official marketing video by WotC!?!?!


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jan 4, 2012)

"But zee game will remain zee same!"


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Less distibutors and less game stores == a shrinking market.



Fewer. 

Regardless of our opinions, it is a rarity to have an informed, elaborate opinion on this topic. I think one of the reasons we are scratching and clawing over it is because there are so few articles/op-eds like this.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Jan 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> That's certainly not a ringing endorsement. My experience is that it plays worse than it reads, thanks, in large part, to tracking ever changing conditions, saves, power recharges, and temporary hit points. By the time you hit about 15th level or so, I find it to be a royal pain.




Whats the difference between 15th level and 11th in 4e?? Have you played the game?


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 5, 2012)

@ Those who feel 4E is a pain to track.

Does the group as a whole keep track of the game or do you expect the GM to do it all?  While I do feel 4E has some hidden complexity due to how different one set of mechanics and one class can potentially be from another, I find keeping track of the action to be rather easy.  In my regular group, everyone helps.

As a player, if I use a power which gives a boost, bonus, or penalty, I keep track of that.  This might mean reminding the guy next to me what my power did when it's his turn.  This might mean making a note on my character sheet which reminds me that I get a bonus to using a certain weapon because of a feat.  I suppose I always assumed that writing things down on a character sheet was normal.

When I've GMed, I expect a little help from the players if they expect me to remember every fiddly bit about their character.  Typically, I'm pretty good at remembering what's going on.  As such, I'll try to remind someone if they forget something; if it's a new player, I try to cut them a little slack.  However, if you suddenly remember that you should have done 5 extra damage a few rounds ago -sorry, it's too late.  I'm not a jerk about it.  I simply find that players get more in the habit of paying attention and keeping track of the game if they're expected to.  The game is supposed to be a shared experience anyway.  

Where I would say 4E has complexity is in what I briefly mentioned earlier in this post.  It's possible to play one class and have absolutely no idea how another works.  Likewise, it's actually possible to GM 4E without having any idea of how things work on the player side.  While this is at times a good thing because it means you only need to know a little bit of how things work to be able to play, I think it can also cause complexity when a situation arises in which a judgement call is needed.  I discovered this recently during my Wednesday game when one of the players decided to try an Essentials class.  He was unsure how something worked; he asked me, but I had little to no idea.  

This also bleeds into the fiddly bits of feats and powers and such.  While I just said I find them easy to keep track of, that's assuming they're already on your character sheet.  However, I think those things can be complex to understand because of the wide variety of how things can potentially work.  I also feel 4E would greatly benefit from a rule which covers in what order exceptions apply.  There have been times in which I've had a feat and a class feature conflict with each other over how they modified a power and/or ability.  If there were a standard way in which exceptions took precedence, I believe that would clear up a lot of confusion about 4E.  It's been a while since I've played Magic, but I remember there being a rule which details in what order different kinds of cards would apply.  I believe having a D&D rule which might say powers trump the general rules, but feats trump powers (for an arbitrary example) would be a good thing.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 5, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I'm not seeing the slander, but we could have different definitions. I also write for both Paizo and WotC. I love each game for what it is. I also accept that I take heat from both fan-bases when I try to interject logic. Am I not free to question motives?




Yes.  You are absolutely free to do that.

After all, that's exactly what the rest of us have been doing!

And best of luck to you.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 5, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> @ Those who feel 4E is a pain to track.
> 
> Does the group as a whole keep track of the game or do you expect the GM to do it all?  While I do feel 4E has some hidden complexity due to how different one set of mechanics and one class can potentially be from another, I find keeping track of the action to be rather easy.  In my regular group, everyone helps.





Anyone with a wargaming background would find 4E has fewer conditions and incidentals to handle than a lot of wargames.  I've jumped into higher level games of 4E with pregens and found that as long as the players keep their power cards straight, turning them or turning them over when used up, and keep track of their own conditions, the GM can look after the non-player characters, creatures, and bad guys.  I've even played out a few scenarios where we played out battles without a GM, just to try out some powers and see how different classes stacked up against one another in combat.  It's pretty straightforward even if complex (lots of conditions and incidentals) at higher levels.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Does anyone actually expect the DM to track everything?  It honestly never occurred to me to play this way.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually expect the DM to track everything?  It honestly never occurred to me to play this way.



If I didn't track the PCs hit points, sometimes they would "forget" to mark off damage. So, yeah.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> If I didn't track the PCs hit points, sometimes they would "forget" to mark off damage. So, yeah.




Good god.  Really?  Why in hell would you play with someone like that?  Bleah.  No thank you.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Anyone with a wargaming background would find 4E has fewer conditions and incidentals to handle than a lot of wargames.  I've jumped into higher level games of 4E with pregens and found that as long as the players keep their power cards straight, turning them or turning them over when used up, and keep track of their own conditions, the GM can look after the non-player characters, creatures, and bad guys.  I've even played out a few scenarios where we played out battles without a GM, just to try out some powers and see how different classes stacked up against one another in combat.  It's pretty straightforward even if complex (lots of conditions and incidentals) at higher levels.





I don't use power cards, but what you mention is in line with my way of thinking.  It doesn't seem very difficult to put a check mark on a character sheet or to turn a card sideways or to jot down a note on a scrap piece of paper.  

Personally, I probably do more work than most.  I usually take a piece of paper and write down my powers and abilities so I don't have to reference books during play.  I don't expect others to do that; I've just found that I like having a different layout than what the default character sheet has for keeping track of powers.  I've also used cheap index cards from the dollar store.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Good god.  Really?  Why in hell would you play with someone like that?  Bleah.  No thank you.




They are my friends. 

I saw it as part and parcel in my role of referee. I was also tracking time for movement rate, torch duration, spells, etc. I had it down to a science at one point.

The "forgetting" went away eventually, and some of them even helped track monster damage taken, among other things.


----------



## Saracenus (Jan 6, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I don't use power cards, but what you mention is in line with my way of thinking.  It doesn't seem very difficult to put a check mark on a character sheet or to turn a card sideways or to jot down a note on a scrap piece of paper.
> 
> Personally, I probably do more work than most.  I usually take a piece of paper and write down my powers and abilities so I don't have to reference books during play.  I don't expect others to do that; I've just found that I like having a different layout than what the default character sheet has for keeping track of powers.  I've also used cheap index cards from the dollar store.




Johnny3D3D:

I hate how the character builder loads out the "power card" page on the character sheets so I use https://power2ool.com/ to build each power (if you have DDI like me you can log in and copy it over rather than doing it from scratch), use the toolbox to "print" and then cut and paste the images into MS Word or Publisher to make my powers page.

The nice thing is I can create my own powers, re-skin existing ones, etc. Right now power2ool.com does powers, items, and monsters. Hopefully traps, terrain and other stuff will get added in the near future.

Cheers,


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 6, 2012)

Saracenus said:


> Johnny3D3D:
> 
> I hate how the character builder loads out the "power card" page on the character sheets so I use https://power2ool.com/ to build each power (if you have DDI like me you can log in and copy it over rather than doing it from scratch), use the toolbox to "print" and then cut and paste the images into MS Word or Publisher to make my powers page.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the advice.

I don't have DDi, but I appreciate the advice.

Usually I just use a piece of paper (like I said,) or I take a few index cards and make what I suppose would be a homebrew version of power cards.  I suppose I could print the information onto the index cards if I wanted to save myself from the modicum of writing that doing it by hand makes me do.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> @ Those who feel 4E is a pain to track.
> 
> Does the group as a whole keep track of the game or do you expect the GM to do it all?  While I do feel 4E has some hidden complexity due to how different one set of mechanics and one class can potentially be from another, I find keeping track of the action to be rather easy.  In my regular group, everyone helps.
> 
> As a player, if I use a power which gives a boost, bonus, or penalty, I keep track of that.  This might mean reminding the guy next to me what my power did when it's his turn.  This might mean making a note on my character sheet which reminds me that I get a bonus to using a certain weapon because of a feat.  I suppose I always assumed that writing things down on a character sheet was normal.




We kept track of our own. And once you're dealing with a dozen cards with powers and magic items plus a growing load of conditional feats, I found it was more trouble than it was worth. For one thing, you're pretty much constantly twiddling round-long effects that could be coming from any one of five other PCs at the table. I found multi-round long spell effects from earlier editions a lot easier to deal with, in no small part, because I had a few rounds to learn to remember the effect. We found them a lot less likely to be *constantly* changing.

I did find earlier levels in 4e easier to deal with. Under 5th level wasn't a problem, but even by 10th level things were getting decidedly complicated, though still more manageable than the 17th level I quit at.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 6, 2012)

billd91 said:


> We kept track of our own. And once you're dealing with a dozen cards with powers and magic items plus a growing load of conditional feats, I found it was more trouble than it was worth. For one thing, you're pretty much constantly twiddling round-long effects that could be coming from any one of five other PCs at the table. I found multi-round long spell effects from earlier editions a lot easier to deal with, in no small part, because I had a few rounds to learn to remember the effect. We found them a lot less likely to be *constantly* changing.
> 
> I did find earlier levels in 4e easier to deal with. Under 5th level wasn't a problem, but even by 10th level things were getting decidedly complicated, though still more manageable than the 17th level I quit at.





I suppose I can understand that.  Oddly, that's one of the reasons (aside from feeling they weren't worth the cost) that I never used the official power cards.  I felt as though all of the additional fiddly bits such as power cards and fate cards and whatever other kinds of cards there are would make the table too cluttered and create a barrier between the players and the table.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 7, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I suppose I can understand that.  Oddly, that's one of the reasons (aside from feeling they weren't worth the cost) that I never used the official power cards.  I felt as though all of the additional fiddly bits such as power cards and fate cards and whatever other kinds of cards there are would make the table too cluttered and create a barrier between the players and the table.




We never invested in them either. We would cut out the cards printed by the character creator program. They made the game more manageable... to a point.  Then they became a bit too fiddly, unfortunately, they were also too necessary for keeping track of what a character can do/has done with his encounters, dailies, daily uses of magic items, and other transient effects.


----------



## Alphastream (Jan 9, 2012)

I think we are getting pretty far off-topic here. Different people like different versions for different things.

The Escapist article and ensuing threads are really about the aggregate behavior seen at the industry level rather than personal likes/dislikes.


----------

