# [WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out



## Mercurius (Dec 28, 2010)

Very simply put: They're sick of us, the fans - especially the long-time fans. In fact, the longer you've been into D&D the sicker-of-you they are. They are still amicable to the newborn 4ers, especially if you came over from World of Warcraft (then they absolutely adore you, but you're really part of the problem because you're an anomaly and they don't realize it). They tolerate you if you came over with 3.x, although they absolutely despise you if you converted to the Game That Shall Not Be Mentioned (Pathfinder).  They don't trust you if you've been into D&D since before 3E, in those old TSR Dayze, and they just plain dislike you, and are a little afraid of you, if you started in the Golden Age of the 80s. Started in the 70s? You're senile and not to be worried about as you're likely playing one of those silly little retro-clones and are under the mistaken impression that there really is an Old School Renaissance and not just a bunch of grognards who happened to recently discover the internet or finally transferred over from Usenet.

You know what? Maybe they're right to be sick of us. What an unruly bunch, always bitching and whining - nothing is _ever _Right (meaning, how _we _want it to be). Every single one of us will find _something  _to complain about and, it seems these days, more and more of us are feeling disillusioned as if we lost something precious but we can't remember where it is or even exactly what it was... 

Damn, maybe we should all just write our own Fantasy Heartbreakers and leave poor Wizards of the Coast alone to continue in their failed attempt to create a new D&D generation out of today's kids. Most of us have at least sat down with pen-and-paper and thought, _I could make a better version of D&D if I just had the time....umm...uhh...I don't have the time..._Yeah, that's it.

The thing is, we're really all they have. Today's kids are too jaded with video games and CGI (or ruined, depending upon who you ask). Their imaginations have been filled with garbage imagery from Barney and Sponge Bob to Grand Theft Auto and _Avatar. _They don't want to "make stuff up" because they don't have to - they can just plug in and turn on. Why pull out a piece of paper and _write--_with a _pencil _of all things, as if this was the 20th century--your character down? Aren't the stats supposed to be on the screen? And where's my first-person weapon? Why can't I see it in front of me? All I see is a bunch of over-or-under-weight 30+ year olds sitting around a table laughing and eating snacks and talking about stuff that I can't see or attack with my mouse. 

You might be wondering at this point, is he serious or joking? The answer should be obvious: both. It is the painful laughter of someone who realizes that life goes on, that change is inevitable, that change isn't always good change and that wonderful things get lost in the roar and thunder of "progress." Just ask Sitting Bull.

Back to the topic. A reminder, and perhaps warning, to the gentle folks at Wizards of the Coast: *You need us! *You may gather some new converts along the way; some of these "Gen Text" kids may grow weary of CGI and the feeling of lack that they will experience as they grow up without a developed imagination and realize that Harry Potter is not the height of imaginative literature but fantasy-for-the-masses; at the least, even Big Band Jazz and Model Railroading pick up new converts, even if it is only one or two for every ten or twenty old-timers that die off. Not only will we, the diehard D&D fanbase, continue to love D&D until our dice bags are pried from our cold dead hands, but we will continue to buy your product even if we don't like it. If and when you come out with a 5th edition you are guaranteed a certain number of sales simply by virtue of the fact that each and everyone of us will be curious and even if we don't like the new edition we will love hating it. Heck, even James Maliszewski will probably buy it, if only to lambast on his blog (which I like, btw).

And you know what, WotC? We need you. Most of us don't have the time or energy to write our own Fantasy Heartbreaker. And even if we do it somehow isn't the same, just as self-publishing your novel isn't the same as getting picked up by a Big Publisher (or at least a publisher that isn't Lulu or your friend with the fancy word processor), if only because there is a feeling of being part of something, of _community_, that we get from playing D&D, from playing the Official Version.

So WotC, you need us and we need you and, in the end, we still love you. But please, don't forget about us, don't deny our existence, don't focus your entire energy on trying to do something that simply can't and won't be done, and most of all, *please don't transform D&D from being a pen-and-paper RPG*. 

And, for the love of some deity or another, please get Bill Slaviscek a PR representative or at least some classes in interpersonal dynamics and communication.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 28, 2010)

I know I'm sick of many of the fans.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 28, 2010)




----------



## Argyle King (Dec 28, 2010)

Very well thought out post...

Though, I would disagree that I need WoTC.  There are other companies out there (such as Steve Jackson Games)who can give me the experience that I want.  Likewise, my old books still work.

To clarify, I have played 4E, and occasionally I still do play it.  I've even been able to enjoy it.  However, as time goes on, it moves further from what I want out of an rpg experience.  Fantastic game; well built, but not necessarily what I personally view as a great rpg system.  It is built on a set of gaming ideals which are at odds with my ideals about what I want out of a rpg experience; with time, it embraces more of its ideals and treats my ideals as being more wrong.

Any problem I have beyond that is due to how I feel WoTC/Hasbro as a whole makes-me-feel/treats-me as a customer, and has nothing to do with my views of their product.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 28, 2010)

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Crothian again."

LOL.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 28, 2010)

I don't need WotC.  This is a pretty big statement from me.  I have friends that work there and I like what they are doing.  But really if I had my way with my group we wouldn't be playing anything D&D related.  Only one of their business choices in the past few years actually bothered me and not because I thought it was a bad choice but I was really just starting to get into Heroscape and it is a bit frustrating to have it canned.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 28, 2010)

I wrote about this a few years ago, in regards to another company, Games Workshop.

Here's the breakdown folks.

We tend to get into gaming at around 12 years old, give or take, and we get out again sometime in college. Once you have a career and a family, or just a job and university, gaming starts to be something you did when you were a kid. That's normal. It's typical. It's a young person's hobby.

Some of us manage to keep playing...well, until we die, but we are rare and there's not an endless supply of us. Some of those people post on forums, but not many.

However, there ARE an endless supply of geeky teens. Games Workshop's stated strategy is to hook them young, and then push them out around 17. Why 17? Because Moms aren't OK with leaving their 13 year olds in a game store all day hanging out with 19 year olds.

I don't think WotC is doing that, but I think they're doing something similar. They realize that the only way D&D can stay relevant--which is to say, played by mostly young people, instead of an aging and increasingly smaller demo of old people hooked in the 70s and 80s--is to make a game those kids find fun. Find fun, and play.

That's all that matters. Do they find it fun, and do they play?

Those kids don't know and don't care about an 18 Strength. They don't know and don't care whether or nor magic missile automatically hits. Why should they? All they care about is; is it fun, and will we play?

So step one. Is it fun?

We think, or it seems to some of us, that the designers have stripped out a lot of the legacy crap from earlier editions, concentrating instead on Fun. But the DevTeam haven't even gone all the way in this direction. Why do we have stats from 8 to 18? Why not 1 to 10? Why have stats at all when all you use is the bonus? Why even have 6 stats? Why not just say;

Pick your race.
Pick your class.
Are you a Strong Fighter, or a Quick Fighter?

And that's it, now go pick powers. 

Screw it, why not just do everything as powers?

Pick your Race, gain a racial power.
Pick your Class, gain a class power.
Pick your Attribute (Smart, Quick, Strong), gain an attribute power.
Pick your Weapon, gain a weapon power.
Pick your alignment, gain an alignment power.

Powers are cool. Stats are dumb. There's a long way to go yet toward optimizing the game for fun.

But I think 4E is the most fun game we've seen from D&D yet and is the most game-like. 

So what's step 2? Can we play?

Well they're doing *everything they can*. They've put the tools online, though stupidly the Character Builder is behind a paywall. Eventually they'll figure it out and make it free to make characters up to 3rd level. They still print books, which is a waste of money. You can't play a book. You play the game.

But the online tools and the D&D Encounters program make it easier now than its ever been to get into the game.

I wrote elsewhere about the Network and what happened to it and what needs to happen to fix it. It's the only thing that matters. But those of us out of college aren't the folks who need the Network. It's the kids who need it. They're the ones who want to play, but don't know anyone. I think WotC is doing about all they can to help, but they can't engineer a robust Network. TSR didn't engineer it, they got lucky.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 28, 2010)

I've been playing since 2e, and man, WotC hates me so much they made two editions that were better and are incredibly fun that I love.

DAMN YOU WOTC!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 28, 2010)

I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.

They don't make a pardoy of Tome of Horrors, bring back the thief with backstab, change magic missile back to auto-hit etc.... to please the NEW fans. They don't have Elmore do a cover and make the rules for fighters easier to grasp to please the new people.

Mike Mearls, at the least, tends to have a deep, or at least his online 'persona', tends to have a deep respect for previous editions of the game.

Somewhere along the line I think the head counters/bean counters saw the old numbers that actively played D&D and wanted those players.

But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.

But then again, I could easily be 100% wrong.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 28, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Mike Mearls, at the least, tends to have a deep, or at least his online 'persona', tends to have a deep respect for previous editions of the game.



I can vouch that it's certainly real. No question at all about that.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 28, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.
> 
> They don't make a pardoy of Tome of Horrors, bring back the thief with backstab, change magic missile back to auto-hit etc.... to please the NEW fans. They don't have Elmore do a cover and make the rules for fighters easier to grasp to please the new people.
> 
> ...




I agree with you on most of your points. The whole premise of this discussion pigeon-holes long-time gamers in a caste of unruly grognards vs. kids with no attention span. It does no service either group. 

I was in high school on the AOL boards back in the mid-90's. I remember being entranced by all of the fandom for Greyhawk, especially creative people like Erik Mona and other posters. By all rights I should have not even been into Greyhawk, but I loved the history and at-that-time old feel that that world had. 

Anyway, my point is that even back then, kids were being overwhelmed by video games and computer games and all sorts of stuff like that. The D&D brand and reputation still drew many kids in, especially because a lot of people didn't like the railroad impersonal nature of video games. 

I think tabletop rpgs will be around for a long time. Though it might be enhanced by iPhones and other enabling tech, it'll still be more than a video game.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 29, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.
> 
> But then again, I could easily be 100% wrong.



The march of videogame technology is what ensures D&D will never have those numbers until the power grids are no more.


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2010)

> We think, or it seems to some of us, that the designers have stripped out a lot of the legacy crap from earlier editions, concentrating instead on Fun. But the DevTeam haven't even gone all the way in this direction.



I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D.

Logic suggests that simpler rules are better, and this is the error you're making here - if that were true we'd all ditch D&D for FUDGE.

Logic also suggests that twelve year olds are the lowest common denominator, and that the vocabulary and depth have to match that.

Logic is wrong.  One of D&D's core appeals is as a bastion of the arcane in the world of the mundane.  It can never be balanced and represent a believable world anymore than the real world can.  To dispose of it's depth and frills of color and detail is to strike at it's heart.  Look at 4E Wotc D&D and 4E Kenzerco Hackmaster.  Both are fun yet extremist, and D&D used to straddle that divide, but does no more.

D&D cannot beat the computer games, except in three key areas: Self actualisation, improvisation, and arcane-ness.  D&D's fun is NOT in the combat engine, but as a fantasy construction kit to make your own world, characters and adventures, and should support that more.  Prep time is still ridiculous, and support for improvised play near nonexistent.  D&D can never beat the computers at combat, so IMO they should just relinquish that pie in the sky and speed it up.  The focus should be on epic quests, not 60 minute single encounters.

And arcane-ness could be played up instead of binned.  The AD&D books looked and read like spellbooks, and hinted at wonders to come, and didn't treat it's readers like fools (yes, even twelve year olds know when they're being patronized).  Nothing else in our culture, short of the occult, can offer the sense of mystery and possibility that D&D books with the right style of writing, look and feel can offer.  And 4E PHB is not just patronizing and peppered with insulting purple prose, but reads like a reference manual, which for a game which requires lots of reading is not only not Fun (TM), but also death for a game whose job it is to inspire as a lifeblood for it's players.

You're basically saying that reductionism is the only path to fun; I'm saying that's classic geek style thinking (of a type I'm well subscribed to), but also very missing the point, and a guaranteed way to throw the baby out with the bathwater (which is where we are now).


----------



## ggroy (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Today's kids are too jaded with video games and CGI (or ruined, depending upon who you ask). Their imaginations have been filled with garbage imagery from Barney and Sponge Bob to Grand Theft Auto and _Avatar. _They don't want to "make stuff up" because they don't have to - they can just plug in and turn on.




Just wondering.  (Feel free not to answer).

Any chance you are an English teacher at the jr high or high school level?

I have a few non-gamer acquaintances who are jr high or high school teachers, who frequently make complaints of this sort about their students.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2010)

Let's get these two out of the way first before I hit the interesting stuff...



Crothian said:


> I know I'm sick of many of the fans.




And I know I'm sick of snarky comments that add nothing to a conversation.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I've been playing since 2e, and man, WotC  hates me so much they made two editions that were better and are  incredibly fun that I love.
> 
> DAMN YOU WOTC!




I think you missed the point of the thread, or at least much of the forest for specific trees.

As a general rule I have preferred each new edition to the one prior to it. This does not mean that something crucial hasn't been lost in the process.



mattcolville said:


> I wrote about this a few years ago, in regards to another company, Games Workshop.
> 
> Here's the breakdown folks....
> 
> ...




Good points, Matt. I do, however, think you are missing something very key, which is that while 4E may be _fun _it can't possible compete with the style of _funness _(or funnity?) of World of Warcraft and other computer games. No matter what nifty gadgets and doodads it employs, no matter what modernized tropes it utilizes and idiosyncratic sacred cows it slays, it can't compete with CGI, with MMORGs, with Playstations and XBoxes. 

A tabletop RPG couldn't possibly have 25 million players in today's cultural context because of the advancement and prevalence of video games. Sure, they were around in the 80s but they weren't nearly so advanced or immersive, there was no World of Warcraft, and most kids didn't have home consoles (remember video arcades?).

It is a very simple principle, really. If you are given the option of either a ton of organic ingredients to make your own gourmet meal with or you can order a pizza delivered to your house in 20 minutes, 90+% of people order the pizza 90+% of the time. The path of least resistance which, in the end, offers less reward. 

Now I hear and agree with you that WotC almost has to appeal to a new generation of gamers--and there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that. I just think that "trying to stay relevant" is a doomed endeavor from the start, sort of like the 40-year old dorky dad who tries to be hip around his kid's 13-year old friends. In a sense we have at WotC a bunch of 40-year old dorky dads (or rather, aging geeks) who are trying to be hip, or create something hip, for 12-15 year olds. Will it work? Maybe to some extent, but I don't think so, not in the long run.

(A quick aside: I remain open in general, but I do have some optimism for the board games to bring in new players. Board games as a classic endeavor that families can play together in a social and face-to-face way that can't be done with video games. If 40-year old dads who haven't played D&D since the 80s get their kids _Wrath of Ashardalon, _not only might their interest in all things D&D be rekindled, but their kids might get into it.)

There's that famous phrase from an otherwise cheesy movie, _Field of Dreams: _"If you build it they will come." This is why I think the folks at WotC should never lose sight of the diehard fanbase, because we are the ones that know the game; we are the litmus test for its greatness; we have seen it all, done it all (or at least read about someone who has seen or done it all!). 

Obviously it isn't either/or, either try to please the diehard fanbase--who are ultimately unpleasable, at least as a group--or try to draw in a new generation of gamers, which won't happen to the degree that WotC hopes or, in my opinion, in the way that they have been trying to draw them in, at least outside of _Castle Ravenloft _and _Wrath of Ashardalon. _It is both. But I would focus on making D&D the RPG the best possible tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG that it can be, and for all of the frills--DDI, miniatures, and all the other doodads--to remain just that, frills, and thus _optional and secondary _to the tabletop game itself. And I would also create secondary products like boardgames and even video games to try to draw kids in.



JoeGKushner said:


> I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.




Yeah, I know, I agree with you--I was being facetious. Actually, the original post started as a purely comedy bit but then ended up getting more serious. 

Obviously WotC wants its old fans back - it _needs _its old fans because we are the folks that buy most of the product. I mean, it is generally known that a large percentage--50% or more--of all RPG sales are from a very small segment--10% or less--of the total gaming population. Just as in many (most?) gaming groups the regular DM buys and owns many times the number of gaming products than the rest of the group combined.

What I am saying is that WotC has lost sight of and disenfranchised many old-timers through catering to some idea of what they think will draw in a new generation of gamers. In some ways I think the success of 3E screwed them up a bit because 3E _did _draw in a lot of newbies, and bring back a ton of retired players--many more than it pushed away. But this wasn't the case with 4E; first of all, a lot of folks stayed with 3.5--or went back to it after trying 4E out--or they eventually went to Pathfinder. And then a few drifted off to older editions or other games. Essentials seems to be mildly successful in drawing people back, but it may be too little, too late.



JoeGKushner said:


> Somewhere along the line I think the head counters/bean counters saw the old numbers that actively played D&D and wanted those players.
> 
> But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.




You are probably right (see my "too little too late" above). That said, I refuse to believe that what I call the Holy Grail of D&D Editions: One Edition to Rule Them All, One Edition to Find them...meaning, an edition of D&D that appeals to _everyone _(OK, more realistically, _most _everyone, or more of everyone than has happened before). I think it is possible.



Cyronax said:


> I agree with you on most of your points. The whole premise of this discussion pigeon-holes long-time gamers in a caste of unruly grognards vs. kids with no attention span. It does no service either group.




That wasn't my intention. If anything I think that "kids these days" would be more drawn to a D&D that wasn't trying to condescend down to them as being video gaming ADHDers, but rather as trying to invoke and inspire their _imaginations._ It is my belief that most kids would actually enjoy a great game of D&D more than a video game session if they actually got a chance to play one, in the same way that an organic gourmet meal is actually more enjoyable than fast-food if you really sit down and _taste _what you are eating. 



Cyronax said:


> I think tabletop rpgs will be around for a long time. Though it might be enhanced by iPhones and other enabling tech, it'll still be more than a video game.




I hope so! And I think you hit on a key word: _enhance, _which implies secondary rather than primary. My worry is that D&D is moving to the iPhones and laptops as primary, that DDI is becoming the new core and that, in essence, "5E" will be DDI-as-core. We're going to lose something precious if it does.

I'm not against the technology and enjoy, for example, using the older versions of Monster Builder and Character Builder. But again, as long as they are _enhancements. _I want my books, I want my face-to-face table-top game, I want my _imagination._



frankthedm said:


> The march of videogame technology is what ensures D&D will never have those numbers until the power grids are no more.




Yes, as I said above. Hey, if Howard Kunstler is right, that might just happen!



rounser said:


> I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D
> 
> ..._snip_...
> 
> You're basically saying that reductionism is the only path to fun; I'm saying that's classic geek style thinking (of a type I'm well subscribed to), but also very missing the point, and a guaranteed way to throw the baby out with the bathwater (which is where we are now).




Interesting post, rounser. While I agree with much of what you wrote, I will turn something around on you: I think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to disavow completely modern streamlined game mechanics (I'm not saying that you are saying that, but it seems you are pointing in that direction). I think there is a middle ground which 3E tried to do but it got a bit unwieldy, which is have a very simple core mechanic with endless possible exceptions, modifiers, and other rules added on. Where I think it went wrong is that it was too simple/complicated at the same time. The simplicity was good, but because of it the designers thought they could hang a ton of weight on it without getting out of control. But it did. 

4E took a slightly different tactic where they kept the same simple core mechanic but expanded it out a bit so that the the second layer of rules was also simple, also elegant and streamlined and...well, formulaic. And so we go the well-intentioned and clever power structure, which ended up homogenizing the classes.

I don't want to derail the thread, but my view is that the best way (that i can think of, at least) is a more modular design. You still keep the d20 core mechanic but everything becomes modular. You have a very simple basic game that anyone can play as is without adding further rules. This game would be as simple and old school--if not moreso--than OD&D. Then you'd have as many optional modules as you like from alternate class structures to power systems to feats, skills, etc etc as an Advanced game. 

This would be a toolbox approach to D&D. Everyone plays Basic D&D, but beyond that everyone has their own version, their own combination of factors. 

But I've strayed...


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Just wondering.  (Feel free not to answer).
> 
> Any chance you are an English teacher at the jr high or high school level?
> 
> I have a few non-gamer acquaintances who are jr high or high school teachers, who frequently make complaints of this sort about their students.




LOL! My true colors are revealed. Actually, I don't teach English, at least not right now, but I am a high school teacher - both a dorm counselor and Humanities teacher. The school I work at is a small independent boarding and day school with a very artistic vibe, so the kids tend to be more on the creative side of things. But I still see a lot of what I've been complaining about, especially from the students with more conventional backgrounds (e.g. public school). However, I also see a lot of fertile young imaginations just dying to be inspired, and I think partially because of technology inundation. 

Actually, I just started teaching a class on World Building to a group of 15 juniors and seniors and they are absolutely loving it. It is experimental and the faculty is going out on a limb a bit to let me teach it, but I'm hoping it is successful enough that I can not only continue teaching it but expand on it. 

I personally think that World Building provides a potentially almost complete academic and artistic experience: you can pretty much include anything in it and customize the experience for each student. For example, one of my students is creating her own language while another is focusing on strange planetary/orbital dynamics, while a few are creating utopian spiritual cultures, others in-depth biospheres, etc.


----------



## Almacov (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Very simply put: They're sick of us, the fans - especially the long-time fans. In fact, the longer you've been into D&D the sicker-of-you they are.




After the last few months of releases, this reads as madness to me.
They rejigged their core books in an attempt to reel in old-timers with Essentials.
They brought back freakin' _Gamma World_, which would have absolutely tanked if they hadn't given it the love they did.

I'm just... baffled. If you could put forth some evidence that suggests they're not interested in catering towards long-time fans, it might make this _more_ of a conversation, and less of a puzzling rant.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Started in the 70s? You're senile (. . .)





You've misspelled "puerile." 




Mercurius said:


> *please don't transform D&D from being a pen-and-paper RPG*.





Good morning, Mister Van Winkle.




JoeGKushner said:


> Mike Mearls, at the least, tends to have a deep, or at least his online 'persona', tends to have a deep respect for previous editions of the game.





That must be his "power."




Piratecat said:


> I can vouch that it's certainly real. No question at all about that.





_psst  they're not hiring at present_


----------



## lamia (Dec 29, 2010)

I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.
It would really be incredibly easy to pacify me. A reprint. That's it. My imagination hasn't been tapped out, I can keep running games in the same system for a very long time. But in order to continue bringing people into the hobby, I need a little support!

But the main reason I came around to comment, is because I am a video game gal. I started on the Atari when I was 4 years old. I have 8 consoles. And I play the hated WoW. 

The thing I feel gets overlooked is that video games and tabletop have always appealed ,to me anyhow, for completely different reasons. I don't think bringing new players in is going to happen by imitating the video game medium. I think the focus should be on what makes it a unique experience.

Video games need not be the doom or our dear hobby! Let each medium do what it does best. 

I apologize for the slight derail, I just very often see comments about video games being the reason for D and D going sour and wanted to say something!


----------



## Almacov (Dec 29, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> _psst  they're not hiring at present_



If you're going to make jabs like that, please be so kind as to grace us with an argument to back up the meaning behind them.



lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.




I know it's not a perfect solution, but the SRD really is a poor 3.5 gaming group's best friend. I know it was for mine.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.




I'm not trying to be snarky or tell you you're doing wrong, but most used book stores (offline physical locales) will have cheap 3.5 and older edition books. I see it all the time when I travel (and I like to check used book stores for all types of books). 

My grandma lives in Bellevue, WA. I think I remember the Stargazers bookstore, near 405, once had a decent selection of D&D books. I was there in 2009 ...


----------



## Crothian (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.




Mongoose printed a pocket PHB that a quick web search found you can get it for under $20.


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2010)

> But I've strayed...



Look, I agree with you, and don't want to ditch genuine innovation to hold onto tradition for it's own sake (e.g. I think the D&Dism of cleric is long overdue for a renaming and reconceptualisation, as it isn't really an archetype beyond "kind of a priest"), but I think the design culture of D&D is in the grip of one-true-wayism in the name of efficiency that has lead to a kind of extremist design output.  I'm calling for moderation, pointing out that there is another way, other kinds of fun overlooked, but that the designers are so sure of themselves that these have been ditched in favor of some simplified rules of thumb.  It's just gone way too far, even if I can see the WHY of it, because the WOTC designers do to an extent explain their thinking, but the blind spots are huge IMO.

And the grandfather of RPGs perhaps isn't the place to try out certain fundamental rules overhauls in the core, even if everyone in the room agrees with you...


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.




There's always Pathfinder.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

Almacov said:


> After the last few months of releases, this reads as madness to me.
> They rejigged their core books in an attempt to reel in old-timers with Essentials.
> They brought back freakin' _Gamma World_, which would have absolutely tanked if they hadn't given it the love they did.
> 
> I'm just... baffled. If you could put forth some evidence that suggests they're not interested in catering towards long-time fans, it might make this _more_ of a conversation, and less of a puzzling rant.




Yeah I agree. More examples to grist the counterpoint:

They also did a stealth release of a fourth campaign setting: Planescape. 

Manual of the Planes
Sigil in DMG2
Plane Below
Plane Above
Demonomicon 
Glommwrought (or whatever the pending Shadowfell boxed set is)
Heroes of the Shadowfell (possibly)

Anyway, my point is that they did do some big revamps for the cosmology. That said, it still bears a lot of resemblance to one of 2e most beloved moments. Even though WotC didn't reboot the Faction War, it clearly went out of its way to meld in much of the old with the new. 


WotC even stopped using those silly compound monster names to asinine degrees.

C.I.D.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> There's always Pathfinder.




That reminds of that time a Pathfinder guy got angry for suggesting he try 4e as a non-sequiter.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 29, 2010)

rounser said:


> I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D.
> 
> Logic suggests that simpler rules are better, and this is the error you're making here - if that were true we'd all ditch D&D for FUDGE.




That's not what I'm saying, I'm not saying simpler is fun, I'm saying fun is fun.

Strength isn't fun. Having a 17 Strength isn't fun. It's meaningless. You can't play a 17 Strength. It's not a game.

But powers are fun. They're not _simple_, I never said anything about simple, that's your issue. Powers are the MOST complex part of D&D, and the best part, because they're cool and fun.

I'm not saying "screw all that other stuff," because I think it's *complex*, I'm saying it because it's irrelevant.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 29, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> That reminds of that time a Pathfinder guy got angry for suggesting he try 4e as a non-sequiter.




Except in this case Pathfinder isn't such a big leap from 3.5 which they know (in fact it's an improvement) and the books are in print.


----------



## lamia (Dec 29, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> I'm not trying to be snarky or tell you you're doing wrong, but most used book stores (offline physical locales) will have cheap 3.5 and older edition books. I see it all the time when I travel (and I like to check used book stores for all types of books).
> 
> My grandma lives in Bellevue, WA. I think I remember the Stargazers bookstore, near 405, once had a decent selection of D&D books. I was there in 2009 ...




Actually, most of my group and I work at a used bookstore in Redmond. Most books are available for half price. But the PHB, which we've only gotten one copy of in the last year..55 bucks and sold in one day. Sadly we don't get much of a discount on out of print stuff. I think I'll just end up breaking my no laptops rule.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Every single one of us will find _something  _to complain about and, it seems these days, more and more of us are feeling disillusioned as if we lost something precious but we can't remember where it is or even exactly what it was...




In my experience, that was the pattern finding.  The game element in Go rather than austere storytelling.  So I play D&D, a big, cooperative simulation game hidden behind a screen and played as a reality puzzle game.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> Actually, most of my group and I work at a used bookstore in Redmond. Most books are available for half price. But the PHB, which we've only gotten one copy of in the last year..55 bucks and sold in one day. Sadly we don't get much of a discount on out of print stuff. I think I'll just end up breaking my no laptops rule.




Wow that is surprising. Prices are up.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Good points, Matt. I do, however, think you are missing something very key, which is that while 4E may be _fun _it can't possible compete with the style of _funness _(or funnity?) of World of Warcraft and other computer games. No matter what nifty gadgets and doodads it employs, no matter what modernized tropes it utilizes and idiosyncratic sacred cows it slays, it can't compete with CGI, with MMORGs, with Playstations and XBoxes.




The great thing about kids is; they have lots of free time. It's not either or for them. We had video games in the 1980s. My friends would disappear when the new Ultima game came out. We played D&D several times a week and other RPGs and Axis & Allies and lots of other games, and we went bowling and to the movies and to the beach and we all had girlfriends and spent hours and hours with them. 

It's not a time factor. It's about what the game brings to the table.

My concern is that Wotc, not 4E, is driving the game toward a board-game like experience. Witness the Virtual Tabletop.

It's not a virtual tabletop. There's no functionality for art, handouts, notes, campaign maps. None of that. None of the stuff you do at the table. It's a Virtual Encounter environment. It puts one map in front of you, not a table, a map, and all the functionality is about using that map to fight encounters.

Look at D&D Encounters. Look at Essentials, where Rituals have evaporated.

WotC seems to have identified the World Outside the Encounter as a bug, not a feature, and *this* and this alone is why 4E won't be able to compete. Not because of video games, we had those for literally as long as we've had RPGs, but because they're jettisoning the only thing D&D had that set it apart from everything else.

I've said this before, as loudly as I could, but people seem not to have picked it up. 4E makes killing monsters more fun than it's ever been. We have enough content now that we could all play every week for the rest of our lives and never experience it all. 

So I say to the DevTeam. Guys. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?

If everyone started asking this, we'd see change. But I don't think people perceive the problem.

*Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?*


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2010)

> Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?



Not even that is solved, as it's been done in a way that takes far too long to resolve, meaning that a campaign with the scope of say, Becmi is no longer possible, because people don't have that kind of time.  So killing monsters is still a problem unless this is DDM or Warhammer Quest campaign scope.


----------



## darjr (Dec 29, 2010)

Yea, my exp around here is that 3.5 phb's and dmg's are scarce. Cheapest on ebay with a quick look is $36 for the paperback phb.


----------



## jeffh (Dec 29, 2010)

rounser said:


> I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D.
> 
> Logic suggests that simpler rules are better, and this is the error you're making here - if that were true we'd all ditch D&D for FUDGE.



I'm not sure what you mean by "logic".

Logic is a set of principles for making sure you don't come to false conclusions from true premises. By itself, it is completely neutral on which rules are better.

_Common sense,_ which it sounds like you might actually have in mind, does not suggest that simpler rules are better - at most it suggests that _all else being equal,_ simpler rules are better. The difference between the two positions is extremely important and almost universally ignored in online discussions such as this. The former claim is obviously false, because rules that are _too _simple just can't do a lot of the things they could do if they were a little more complex. The latter claim is obviously true - if two rulesets accomplish your goals equally well, of _course_ the simpler ones are better.

In short, speaking of "simplicity" as the culprit is a red herring - even if, for the sake of argument, I grant the (IMO ridiculous) claim that 4E is "dumbed down" from previous editions to any significant degree. Whatever it is you're objecting to, it can't be simplicity; if it were, you would either be complaining about something that doesn't exist, or saying something obviously false.

The designers of the new edition simply have goals you disagree with. You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me). But you don't want the rules to be complex for the sake of being complex. That would be ridiculous, and it just confuses the issues to talk as though that were your complaint.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.
> It would really be incredibly easy to pacify me. A reprint.




I'm sorry but expecting a company to support an out of print game in this way is ridiculous. Or any company with any "out of print" or discontinued item for that matter.

Why can't your players afford the books? Do they work? Waste money on other stuff like getting an expensive  coffee, going to a movie, or eating out? If they have time to play games for a few hours, they could be working to get money to purchase them, no?  I've got no sympathy for the "poor player" excuse when it gets tossed around.  If you want something bad enough, ESPECIALLY a luxury item like a game book, you can work for it. I don't get pissed off I cannot afford $300 for a decent set of LBBs and complain that it's  WOTCs fault, and they should make a re-print (even though they should!   ).


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2010)

> The designers of the new edition simply have goals you disagree with. You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me). But you don't want the rules to be complex for the sake of being complex. That would be ridiculous, and it just confuses the issues to talk as though that were your complaint.



No, I like good rules, just not rules that sacrifice every other darn thing of worth in the game for sake of axiomatic metagame consistency (e.g. The kind of thinking that says we need to fill out some game design aesthetics matrix of power sources and controller/defender types).  That's the insanity we're courting here, you just have to deal with the fact that fantasy sword and sorcery worlds cannot be codified completely equitably and believably unless you want shades of beige.  And the design path where logical rules artefacts decide what exists, with flavour filled in in support of whatever that suggests, is a pox on the game and has been going on since 3e (where there was a quota of sound based monsters to meet in the mm so bards could use their abilities sufficiently).  That's the crazy path that D&D has gone down, unchecked, and it's just as bad rules but not on people's radars as being such because it makes so much logical sense if you're a rules design wonk.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 29, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've been playing since 2e, and man, WotC hates me so much they made two editions that were better and are incredibly fun that I love.
> 
> DAMN YOU WOTC!



OD&D and 3.5E?


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2010)

rounser said:


> No, I like good rules, just not rules that sacrifice every other darn thing of worth in the game for sake of axiomatic metagame consistency (e.g. The kind of thinking that says we need to fill out some game design aesthetics matrix of power sources and controller/defender types).  That's the insanity we're courting here, you just have to deal with the fact that fantasy sword and sorcery worlds cannot be codified completely equitably and believably unless you want shades of beige.  And the design path where logical rules artefacts decide what exists, with flavour filled in in support of whatever that suggests, is a pox on the game and has been going on since 3e (where there was a quota of sound based monsters to meet in the mm so bards could use their abilities sufficiently).  That's the crazy path that D&D has gone down, unchecked, and it's just as bad rules but not on people's radars as being such because it makes so much logical sense if you're a rules design wonk.



Okay ... axiomatic metagame consistency I can live without. 

However, I fully endorse metagame considerations that provide the PCs with sufficient opportunities to use their abilities. Putting sound-based monsters in the game so that bards get to use their countersong abilities is to me no different from putting traps in the game so that rogues get to use their trapfinding abilities.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2010)

Almacov said:


> I'm just... baffled. If you could put forth some evidence that suggests they're not interested in catering towards long-time fans, it might make this _more_ of a conversation, and less of a puzzling rant.




I think we have different senses of humor. As I have already explained, my post began rather facetiously and became more serious. I don't _really _think that WotC "hates" old-timers, but that they have lost sight of certain elements of what makes D&D a unique experience (see mattcolville's excellent post a few before this one which I will respond to in this post).



lamia said:


> The thing I feel gets overlooked is that video games and tabletop have always appealed ,to me anyhow, for completely different reasons. I don't think bringing new players in is going to happen by imitating the video game medium. I think the focus should be on what makes it a unique experience.




This is well said and resonates with my view (although video games don't appeal to me and I do dislike WoW for various reasons, although I don't dislike WoW players! ).



rounser said:


> It's just gone way too far, even if I can see the WHY of it, because the WOTC designers do to an extent explain their thinking, but the blind spots are huge IMO.
> 
> And the grandfather of RPGs perhaps isn't the place to try out certain fundamental rules overhauls in the core, even if everyone in the room agrees with you...




Good points. I don't entirely agree about the last part, but I do think it (4E) wasn't thought through as well as it should have been. At the least I think it is pretty safe to say that WotC couldn't possibly have expected the sheer degree and quantity of negative backlash. 



mattcolville said:


> It's not a time factor. It's about what the game brings to the table...
> 
> ..._snip..._
> 
> *Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?*




This was such an excellent post (xp to come) that I had a hard time cutting out parts of it. I agree wholeheartedly and this is a major aspect of what I was trying to get at, but put more concisely and clearly. 

What's next? Great question. I'm afraid more of the same--more ways to support your combat encounters. Virtually, of course.

Why not something different? Why not, for instance, a guide to sandbox campaigning? Or a toolbox book for improv DMing? Why not a _new _campaign setting? Why not alternative sub-systems for the game, or new creative approaches like _Weapons of Legacy _or _Magic of Incarnum?

_But of course we know why: Because that sort of thing has a low profit margin, or at least lower than books with more options for how to kill things. Because a new campaign setting is risky, riskier than another re-boot. And so on.

This is not to say that WotC hasn't taken risks or that they haven't tried to innovate - they have. But what seems to have happened is that the all-powerful Combat Encounter has become a kind of massive attractor, a vortex into which everything gets sucked. Of course we have the power to break out of it, to run our games as we want to, but it would be nice for WotC to provide more tools to help us along the way, or at least diversify a bit. 

In summary, I think you are right: D&D is in danger of jettisoning what makes it (as a tabletop RPG) unique, which is the play of imagination within fantasy worlds. This is the factor that should be explored and nourished. The bifurcated concepts of "crunch" and "fluff" exemplify this: "fluff" is what the DM reads at home so that he can offer flavor text between encounters, while "crunch" is what we do within the game session.

Again, no one is forcing anyone to play D&D this way, but WotC certainly advocates and encourages it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

Asking for a new WoL or MoI is a bit of bad advice, considering that, as far as I know, both books sold very poorly.

Also D&D has always had gamist functions due to the narrative construct of, you know, _being a game_.  As soon as a dice is involved, you ain't freeforming.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm sorry, but this idea that WotC is somehow turning the game into nothing but a hack and slash is utter nonsense.

D&D now has bigger and more robust support for non-combat activities then it ever did previously.  Rituals, skill challenges, utility powers, these are all things that are meant to be used _outside_ of combat.

There is no guide to sandbox gaming, or a guide to DMing, because DMing is 100% experience.  You will never learn enough - if anything - from a book that can replace that.  Good DMs aren't ones that read Random Bloke's Guide to DMing, they're DMs that have played though a good number of games, DMed a good number of games, have a good sense of creativity, and some wit to balance it all out.

Could someone point out to me what in 3.x or 4e makes it so impossible to create imaginary worlds?  Somehow I've managed to do just that just fine.  Either I'm an amazing genius, or it ain't the system that's broken.  And I'll give you a hint - I'm not _that_ amazing of a genius.

WotC isn't encouraging anything.  You're finding subtext where there is none.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 29, 2010)

Tell ya what though!

I'd love it if they actually completed that dam Virtual Tabletop they promised us waaaay back before 4e was actually out. Was what caught my initial attention, really as far as digitial. 

It'd be handy for running games when you're unable to actually get a group face to face. I mean, there ARE virtual tabletops, but nothing like what they presented as "the future".




Mercurius said:


> Let's get these two out of the way first before I hit the interesting stuff...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 29, 2010)

Sadly, my year-long work at a fantasy heartbreaker was undone within ten minutes of reading Savage Worlds.  

My game was a sort of 3E/4E hybrid - sort of a 3E chassis with broad(er) 4E powers.  Everything was skill/power based.  Thought it was a great system until first contact with the Savage Worlds system.  Then I realized that my game was far more bloated than I'd ever wanted it to be.  

And I think in a sense 4E is that way too; it attempts to be simple (and in many ways its simpler than 3E), but it comes across to my eyes as too clunky.  Powers are too fiddly and too much of the game ends up devoted to setting up encounters and not on the fantastic elements of the game (You're battling werewolfs and dragons, not pushing chess pieces around).

I'd like to see WotC strike a better balance between the fiction of the game and the mechanics.  Right now, things seem lopsided towards the mechanic ends of the scale.  While an RPG makes a poor fiction novel - in that you get an RPG to play, not just read - I, for one enjoy story-heavy RPGs of the likes of 7th sea, L5R, Deadlands and other such games where the fiction has almost as much weight as the mechanics themselves.  It may be a game, but it is just as much as a story as well.  I just don't feel that WotC is treating both with equal care, and I'm sure you can guess which one I think they're favoring.  It's why I haven't been buying D&D products, though I'd very much like to.


----------



## Shades of Green (Dec 29, 2010)

I sometimes get the feeling that WotC, or any big-time RPG publisher, is a dinosaur made obsolete by evolution. Why? Because a lot of the old big-time publishers' power came from their ability to produce and market books in the old days when you could only get RPG books from brick-and-mortar stores, and the only way someone could market books was by large print runs, which required a huge budget.

But that isn't the case anymore.

We have POD, cheap PDF publishing, cheap small-scale publishing; ANYONE with some time on their hands can produce an RPG and market it online with minimal expenses, even tiny one-man, part-time companies. Why do I have to spend $60 (or more) on each edition of WotC D&D when I can download BFRPG or S&W in PDF format for free (and then print what I need locally) or get the hardcopy for $20 or so, if they fit my playing style better?

There is no need to write your own Fantasy Heartbreaker anymore; someone has probably written something very similar already and offers it for free or for cheap online.

Personally I don't care about WotC anymore. Not that I have anything against them in particular; the games they make (3.xE and 4E) simply don't fit my playing style. BFRPG and S&W do. And it's not out of nostalgia; BFRPG is a clone of BECMI and S&W is a clone of OD&D, and I have NEVER played BECMI or OD&D (I started with 2E); they just fit the way i want to play the game.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> I've said this before, as loudly as I could, but people seem not to have picked it up. 4E makes killing monsters more fun than it's ever been. We have enough content now that we could all play every week for the rest of our lives and never experience it all.
> 
> So I say to the DevTeam. Guys. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?
> 
> ...




Whaddaya mean "next"? There is no "next".

The fact is that outside of combat, you scarcely need any _rules_ for anything at all. So what is there to actually write? What is there to actually come up with? Just "fluff", basically.

See, the whole model of releasing a bazillion books full of rules and character crunch... it's something of a sham. "Oh boy, next month the Complete Book of I Have No Freaking Imagination comes out." You will hook some people into buying book after book after book after book of essentially the same regurgitated material. Some of the people reading this post right now will some day find themselves buying a book about Drow for 8th Edition D&D. And it will be about the same as all the other ones they've bought throughout their gamer existences.

The fact is, with a reasonable set of basic rules, like OD&D or Classic Traveller, you can spin out a lifetime's worth of role playing stories and always have more stuff to try. If you want something to be different you just tack on a house rule here, or snip one away there. You make your perfect game with a really minimal amount of time investment and never need to look back (if you want to turn D&D into a dreary hours-long slog of bag o' hit points reduction, ala 4E, you can do that too).

So how do you _make money_ in this 'industry'? You first have to invent the industry. Because it's really just a nice little hobby. It doesn't need all these different products, or specialty stores providing whole lines of books, or authors who become well known personalities in the field. Actually, everything that anyone ever needed to have ridiculously awesome gaming for life came out in the 1970's and there's really no need for any further products whatsoever. At best, we can use fresh ideas on worlds, stories and the like.

But _game mechanics_? Come on. We don't need that stuff. But that's what the Industry has to sell to us, over and over and over again, to stay in business.

You say "What's next?" I say there hasn't been a "next" for at least 30 years. Role playing games themselves are a solved problem and have been for decades.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> Actually, most of my group and I work at a used bookstore in Redmond. Most books are available for half price. But the PHB, which we've only gotten one copy of in the last year..55 bucks and sold in one day. Sadly we don't get much of a discount on out of print stuff. I think I'll just end up breaking my no laptops rule.





I've seen 3.5 books at my local game store, and for either the cover price or $5 or $10 cheaper.  Next time I'm there, I'll see if there are others.  Does anyone in your group actually want to buy a print book?


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 29, 2010)

lamia said:


> I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.
> It would really be incredibly easy to pacify me. A reprint. That's it. My imagination hasn't been tapped out, I can keep running games in the same system for a very long time. But in order to continue bringing people into the hobby, I need a little support!
> 
> But the main reason I came around to comment, is because I am a video game gal. I started on the Atari when I was 4 years old. I have 8 consoles. And I play the hated WoW.
> ...





I totally agree that video games are not the reason for D&D having less players.  At one point, I would have considered myself a fairly hardcore video gamer.  Lately, not so much because I've been playing a lot more pen & paper games, but that's besides the point.

Like you, I'm attracted to video games and other types of games for very different reasons than why I play rpgs.


Personally, I feel what the hobby needs is for more people to be willing to teach the game to other people.  You'd be surprised at how open people are about trying a game if invited to play.  Likewise, I've seen many people who want to play, and then have a bad experience because the other people at the table don't help them along to get into the swing of things during the first few sessions.  It's a social hobby; as such, it generally helps if you're a bit more social.

I also think it would help to show people who are new to the hobby that D&D is not the only game out there.  This statement is not meant as a slight against D&D.  My only point is that not all rpgs play the same way.  While many people will try D&D and highly enjoy it, some potential players might be more suited to other games.  Without knowing there are other options, I've often found that people play one game (whether it be D&D or something else,) have a so-so experience and assume that all systems and all groups play the same way.  As such, they drop the hobby.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 29, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Whaddaya mean "next"? There is no "next".




I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.

I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3. 

What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. *That's* the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have _ambition_ regardless of what that ambition is.

D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it. Never raises the question, and I think I know why. But I disagree with WotC's reasoning. I think D&D4 is fun, more fun than any other edition of the game. 

But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.
> 
> I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.
> 
> ...





I think it's on purpose that 4E has the mentality that it does.  From my understanding and from reading articles on how the game was designed, D&D 4E does exactly what it is designed to do, and it does it fairly well.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 29, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think it's on purpose that 4E has the mentality that it does.  From my understanding and from reading articles on how the game was designed, D&D 4E does exactly what it is designed to do, and it does it fairly well.




You make my point for me, sir. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> You make my point for me, sir. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?





I think your point ties into mine from earlier.  I think it would do the hobby some good for people to be more aware that other games are out there.

In your case; if you were just starting, you might hit D&D, blow through it, and feel as though you enjoyed it, but wanted something else.  But what else is there?  Unknown to many among the masses, there is indeed plenty out there.  Some of the games out there handle things in a manner much different from D&D.  Without knowing that, you might leave the hobby.  Worse, you might drudge through it spending years playing something which doesn't satisfy you the way you want satisfied.

My point?  D&D (from what I can tell) does what it is supposed to, and does it very well.  Other games have things that they do well.  As games of imagination, any of these systems *can* be modded to do other things, but -generally speaking- you tend to have a better experience if you use a game which highlights aspects of gaming which are more in line with what appeals to you.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.
> 
> I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.
> 
> ...




Welll, there is a small amount of long-term planning that a DM could inject into a game with 'long skill challenges.' The DMG2, and other places, discuss the possibilities for making each character's turn or the round during a skill challenge represent days or months of game time. 

This could simulate ruling a kingdom, ala Dominion-rules or Birthright.

Not an exact fix, but hey.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 29, 2010)

In a lot of ways, I am glad 4E has left behind many rules for non-combat stuff. If you can get the divide going, then the players can more freeform the fluff side of the game. 

Maybe someone knows a game that does non-combat well, but I do not. In 3.x, few people wanted to spend precious skill point or feats on non-combat uses, unless it was a very few points. It was jsut too much of a cost.

I find with 4E that a few quick questions at background or character generation stage can give the DM a good grasp of who a character  is and what they are good at, without rules getting in the way.

BTW, BLB can do a lot to simulate non-combat skills

I really do ntot think 4E not having non-combat is all that bad.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 29, 2010)

*re*

I like this post. I really did feel like WotC threw me out the door when they changed D&D. I was a "D&D for life" player. I've been buying D&D books since Basic. And as I grew older and earned more income, I spent more money on D&D books. I bought boxed sets for 2nd edition, all the books, and enjoyed the heck out of that game. I did the same for 3rd edition. I'm not one of their highest spending customers, but I definitely spent over a $1000 on books for 3rd edition over the life of the game.

Now they lost me with 4E and all the money I would have spent. I bought the main rule book and nothing else. My entire gaming group has spent quite a bit of money on D&D over the years. We bought some 4E books and only one player liked it. Now my entire group is giving their money to _Pathfinder_. An entire group that followed every version of D&D since the red Basic Set that would have spend at least a few thousand dollars in our disposable income on D&D product are sending that money elsewhere.

I doubt we're alone as a group.

4E splintered D&D like it has never been done before near as I can tell. And though the splinter that broke off of the D&D tree may not be large, I would bet money it was felt by WotC. When a gaming group that followed every edition of D&D and spent thousands of dollars decides to take their money elsewhere, that's quite a bit of lost revenue on a per customer basis. 

I doubt they'll be able to win me back given the base game system doesn't appeal to me. And _Pathfinder_ seems heads and tails above anything I've seen from WotC for a long, long time. The _Kingmaker_ adventure path is one of the best adventures I've seen produced by a company ever. Right up there for me with such classics as _Against the Giants_, _Slave Lords_, and _Temple of Elemental Evil_. It's classic game design at its best.

Great story. Great execution of story in adventure form. Great rule system.

I haven't been a dedicated DM for years. I dedicated myself to running _Kingmaker_. Love the _Pathfinder_ rule system and the adventures.

You can feel a real passion for the game from the designers at Paizo. A real love of story telling and fantasy. A real desire to make the rules fit the archetype rather than the archetype fit the rules. 

That's going to be hard for WotC to beat even with all the money they have.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.




The "next" is the same thing it's always been:

Whatever the DM has planned - or is ready to improvise up - next.  4e didn't change this.



> I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.




Yet another book nobody bought.  I'm seeing some similarities here. 



> What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. *That's* the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have _ambition_ regardless of what that ambition is.




This exists *outside of mechanics*, however.  It's a part of every game naturally by right of purely existing.



> D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it. Never raises the question, and I think I know why. But I disagree with WotC's reasoning. I think D&D4 is fun, more fun than any other edition of the game.
> 
> But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.




I don't get your logic.

The "temporal world" is not a mechanical construct.  It's a narrative one.  It exists not inside mechanics, but purely outside it.  Literally, the purpose of the "temporal world" is "what happens in the setting outside of the pure mechanics."



Celtavian said:


> You can feel a real passion for the game from  the designers at Paizo. A real love of story telling and fantasy. A real  desire to make the rules fit the archetype rather than the archetype  fit the rules.
> 
> That's going to be hard for WotC to beat even with all the money they have.




WotC has that too.

Hate to break it to you!  I know you dislike WotC and really have a thing against 4e.  But here's the magical secret - the guys that made 4e?  They really like it.  The guys making Essentials?  They think it's an awesome game that's a perfect mix of mechanics and fluff.  When TSR made second edition, it's developers saw it as a labor of love.  When Gygax first wrote down the vague ideas for D&D, he did it because he thought it would be something really amazing.  And when 5e comes out, the men and women that create it will think "We've done something really amazing here."

Not to break any hearts, but you go into the gaming industry because you love it.  Nobody makes a tabletop game for the money.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 29, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Now they lost me with 4E and all the money I would have spent. I bought the main rule book and nothing else. My entire gaming group has spent quite a bit of money on D&D over the years. We bought some 4E books and only one player liked it. Now my entire group is giving their money to _Pathfinder_. An entire group that followed every version of D&D since the red Basic Set that would have spend at least a few thousand dollars in our disposable income on D&D product are sending that money elsewhere.
> 
> I doubt we're alone as a group.




You certainly arn't. I'm in the same boat and I hear this a lot from many former D&D players who disliked what they saw and jumped to Pathfinder.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 29, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Whaddaya mean "next"? There is no "next".
> 
> The fact is that outside of combat, you scarcely need any _rules_ for anything at all. So what is there to actually write?




Inspiration.

Seriously, that's what we buy when we buy the next game book, whether it's crunch or fluff or whatever. As gamers, we have a hunger for new ideas, a new spark to set off new ideas and experiences--interesting character concepts and twists for our adventures and compelling aspects of our campaign worlds.

You can get that from rules, from background fluff, and even from gaming advice. You even (or perhaps especially) get it from the artwork in the books.

Matt's point is pretty specific: We don't need more rules for combat. But more broadly, it's that additional combat rules are no longer providing inspiration, because we have enough on that topic. We need some attention paid to the other aspects of the game (particularly the aspects that set RPGs apart from MMOs and other activities competing in the same brainspace).

Maybe that attention needs to be in the form of rules--rituals, out-of-combat powers, skill challenges, whatever. Or maybe it needs a different form. The key thing is that D&D needs to continue to engage and inspire, and more combat probably isn't going to do it.

Done properly, there's always more to write when you're writing to inspire. And as long as you're inspiring, people will keep buying your stuff.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 29, 2010)

I want to go back and make a quick point about Matt's first post.



mattcolville said:


> [WotC] realize that the only way D&D can stay relevant--which is to say, played by mostly young people, instead of an aging and increasingly smaller demo of old people hooked in the 70s and 80s--is to make a game [12-year-old] kids find fun.




Matt, as always, your thoughts are insightful and well stated. But in this case, you've missed one important factor which is relevant to the OP's position.

D&D is a lifestyle brand. Most people connect to it by joining the social groups that embrace it, rather than through buying a product off a shelf. When managing that sort of brand, it's business suicide for a company to ignore the thought leaders within the social groups. They may be a small subset of the market--and even a subset that doesn't spend a lot of money--but they are incredibly influential among the rest of the marketplace.

As one example, think about D&D Encounters. No matter how much fun you make a program like that, you won't have a single 12-year-old playing if you don't also have a small cadre of invested 20-something (or 40-something) players to GM the games and pull people in with their enthusiasm. That's an overt example, but there are dozens of more subtle examples.

GW can get away with pushing out the 17-year-olds because they have a physical network of stores. In effect, they rely on paid employees as the thought leaders. That's a unique formula, and WotC can't emulate it.

To the OP, it may look like WotC isn't supporting their old-timers because the focus for the past six months or so has been on Essentials, as they've tried to correct for a very old-timer bias that's existed for decades. I  think the Essentials push is just about over (because I think Essentials isn't supposed to be a revolving product line; they've now made just about all the Essentials books they need and will simply keep them in print) and you'll start to see attention shift back toward the invested player.

We aren't hated; we are, in fact, loved and cherished. They just haven't been showing that love quite as directly for a few months. They'll come back to us!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 29, 2010)

> This exists outside of mechanics, however. It's a part of every game naturally by right of purely existing.




The problem with this logic is that without mechanics, you have no game. 

Clearly, you can do these things without mechanics. You ask the DM, and the DM, based on their whims and vagaries, says "yes" or "no." You can do that in combat, too. 

But it's certainly not satisfying. It doesn't encourage use. It doesn't enable play. It depends wildly on a particular DM's quality, ability, and comfort level. 

And, let's put it this way: No one ever wanted to be a Dragonborn Warden without the mechanics to do it. No one ever wanted a particular power before that power existed. 

D&D should be a game about heroism, IMO, and partially because older editions have neglected much of these areas, 4e has a vast expansion possibility, to change the story and the world with actual mechanics. Various mechanics already tie into this to a small degree: Epic Destinies and Paragon Paths and Campaign Arcs. Skill Challenges try, but Skill Challenges have a plethora of problems that make them kind of inadequate. 

Plenty of people -- and I am certainly among them -- seek more and better *game rules* for this part of the game. 

That's not a ludicrous request, I think.

Back to the main topic...



			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> To the OP, it may look like WotC isn't supporting their old-timers because the focus for the past six months or so has been on Essentials, as they've tried to correct for a very old-timer bias that's existed for decades.




This concept mystifies me. Essentials is Old School targeted. Magic Missiles that never miss! Fighters and Rogues using enhanced basic attacks! Noncombat utility powers! It's quick and simple! BOXED SETS! These are all pretty great grist for the old-timer playbook. It's part of the reasons I think Essentials is _awesome_. 

I don't think WotC has fired the old-timers at all. I mean, maybe they did a little when 4e first launched (Here's a word that now means something completely different! Here's a brand new mythology that we're all using now! Here's a portmanau or a billion!), but that probably wasn't their intent.

I do think WotC probably didn't prepare adequately for all the ramifications of their actions. I do think higher-up management screwed the pooch pretty royally in the first few years of the edition, when choosing the direction of the game, and their echo effects continue to to be felt. I do think that WotC didn't anticipate that a second Great Depression would happen and thus cut into peoples' gaming budgets so deeply. I do think they're scrambling to squeeze some blood out of this rock, in panic mode, and not at all sure what's going to happen in 6 months about anything. 

It's a complex amalgam of effects. It's not as simple as "Screw those crybaby Grognards." 

It does seem like they're a little bipolar paranoid schizophrenic though. MANIC EPISODES like Essentials, depressed episodes like this Winter Lull, paranoid like with the DDI anti-piracy insanity, and schizophrenic because they keep hallucinating products that don't really exist. Which, admittedly, doesn't encourage me to trust them.


----------



## Almacov (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I think we have different senses of humor. As I have already explained, my post began rather facetiously and became more serious. I don't _really _think that WotC "hates" old-timers, but that they have lost sight of certain elements of what makes D&D a unique experience (see mattcolville's excellent post a few before this one which I will respond to in this post).




Okay. I think the largest source of confusion in this thread is probably the use of the term "recent" in the subject line. It means different things to different people, so without any elaboration on what the "insanity" in the subject line entailed, it's hard to tell what timeframe you're looking at.

If you're looking at the advent of 4e to now as one big lump of "recent", then the topic makes a bit more sense. I'm just not sure it makes sense _to_ analyse it in that way now. (Because WotC and the rest of the community has continued to iterate in their analysis of what has been smart and what hasn't.)

I _think_ they're starting to figure it out. There's always a bit of fumbling, but they're getting there in my eyes. (While screwing a bunch of other stuff up over in column B, but that's besides the point.  )
And if they start failing miserably, sales will crash and they'll scramble to smarten up.

(And if all else fails... I have other RPGs to play. I'd rather be emotionally invested in the hobby than the game. Besides, that puts more pressure on WotC to earn my interest and cash.  )


----------



## Shazman (Dec 29, 2010)

And you know what, WotC? We need you. Most of us don't have the time or energy to write our own Fantasy Heartbreaker. And even if we do it somehow isn't the same, just as self-publishing your novel isn't the same as getting picked up by a Big Publisher (or at least a publisher that isn't Lulu or your friend with the fancy word processor), if only because there is a feeling of being part of something, of _community_, that we get from playing D&D, from playing the Official Version.

Actually, I don't really need WotC.  They do need us or at least enough of us buying their products to keep them in business.  I don't need WotC at all.  I like Pathfinder a lot, but, in the end, I don't actually need Paizo anymore either.  There are enough supplements and adventures (though regettably the 4E adventures are horrible) for 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder to play for the rest of my lifetime with no new material.  The RPG companies definitely need us, but we don't really need them.  Do we want them to survive? Yes, so they can keep making new stuff.  We like new stuff.  Who doesn't?  It's also good for the hobby as a whole for the big RPG companies to stay in business.  It is easier to get new players to play a game that is supported, and that has rules in print that are easy to obtain.  The thing is during the lead up to 4E, WotC gave the impression to a lot of us that they really didn't want or need us.  They strongly implied that the way a lot of us played the game was badwrongfun, and slaughtered so many sacred cows that the game became barely recognizable as D&D.  Paizo on the other hand seems to "get it" more.  They understand that they do need us and clearly communicate that.  Their staff is friendly and available.  They actively seek out opinions and input from fans on new and upcoming products.  One way produces a lot of good will, and makes you want to support the company.  The other way makes want to boycott the company.  Which one do you think will work in the long run?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Powers are cool. Stats are dumb. There's a long way to go yet toward optimizing the game for fun.
> 
> But I think 4E is the most fun game we've seen from D&D yet *and is the most game-like. *






mattcolville said:


> Strength isn't fun. Having a 17 Strength isn't fun. It's meaningless. You can't play a 17 Strength. It's not a game.
> 
> But powers are fun. They're not _simple_, I never said anything about simple, that's your issue. Powers are the MOST complex part of D&D, and the best part, because they're cool and fun.



It is hard to even start presenting a point of view because there are so many loaded terms and preconceived notions to contend with.  (Not from Matt, just in general)

I don't think the design of D&D is micromanaged from above at all.  But, I DO think it is aimed(in the grossest of terms) from above. The designers in the weeds know that while their day to day choices are theirs to make, without concern of being micromanaged, the big picture must still fall within the aim set from above.  They don't care how you get there, but if Mearls and friends don't drive some route toward the established goal, they will be replaced by someone who will.  The crew is most certainly choosing a scenic route that includes great sites of editions past, but the destination is frequently limiting the quality of those visits.

Nobody at any level hates old players.  They want every single player they can get.

However, they look at the number of WoW players and the number of tabletop players doesn't seem like a meaningful base to get hung up over.  We used to be the center of attention, now we are just part of a very large crowd.  It isn’t remotely hate, but going from “love” to “indifference” may certainly feel a lot like hate.  And even “indifferent” may be a bit strong of a word.  They want you very much, but they just don’t want you any more than anyone else.  And for every one of you, there are more than fifty WoW players who have never played tabletop.  If they replace you with any random two out of the crowd of you plus fifty WoW players, they have doubled their audience.  It makes total business sense.  But the odds are that you are not one of the two.  So you feel tossed aside.  But, they still LOVE to have their new two PLUS you.  They can’t help it that the choice that doubled their fan base caused you to be the one that actually elected to end the relationship.

But here is the problem.  They DIDN’T double the fan base.  Not even close.  I know I’ll get all the gripes about how I don’t know how well they are doing.  But I do know that I know a hell of a lot less people who play D&D than I used to.  And circumstantial evidence after circumstantial evidence unrelentingly supports the view that my experience is consistent with the larger scale reality.  I don’t doubt that pockets of exceptions exist.  And I am also not claiming that 4E is anywhere close to dead, it is bringing in a steady flow of cash.  But, it isn’t growing the base.  Rather than gaining 2 for every 1 they lost, I think they have lost 4 or 5 for every 2 or 3 they gained.  It started off way better than that, but the decline has been rapid.
And this ties back to the quotes I copied above.  4E is a game.  The buzzword “gamist” has been tied to it from before release.  Yes, Mearls loves old editions.  But Mearls himself also said that if you love wordl building this probably wouldn’t be the game for you.

4E is NOT WoW.  I don’t claim it is.  There are some elements in common, but there are huge differences as well.  BUT, 4E clearly IS a tabletop game designed to try to appeal to MMO players who were not tabletop players.  
MMOs are not about world-building.  They are about being a game and having powers. 

The problem is, a huge chunk of the tabletop fan base loves the hobby because it isn’t *just* a game.  Just as many 4E fans love that 4E is, as Matt said “the most game-like”, many fans of prior editions love that they don’t get hung up on being overly game-like.  It is all a matter of degrees.  There is a ton of GAME in all prior editions, and without the slightest question, you can roleplay to your heart’s content in a 4E session.  But great RPGs are about where the Mechanics and the Roleplay intersect.  And, for many of us, 4E is much too “game-like”.  The balance between “roleplaying” and “game” is out of whack.   

Str of 17 is not a game.  But it is one of a virtually infinite number of dots.  And those dots all combine to make the picture.

Powers are not cool or dumb.  Stats are not cool or dumb.  They are just ingredients.  And it takes the right mix of ingredients to make a good product.  But what is good depends on who is playing.  And taking the ingredients of a good cake (MMO) and trying to make a good pie (tabletop) may make a decent pie, and you will find some people who think it is awesome pie.  But if you want the most broadly popular pie you can make, then you need to keep the fact that it is a pie in mind when you make it.  

At the end of the day 4E is probably the absolute best *game* of any D&D and is also the most appealing to otherwise non –tabletop gamers.  There are a lot of different dimensions of fun, and on that particular axis they have made great progress toward optimization.  But, tabletop will never come close to what MMOs can achieve on that axis.  And in the meantime, the “game” optimization has significantly detracted from other dimensions that some of us value for “fun”.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 29, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> So WotC, you need us and we need you and, in the end, we still love you. But please, don't forget about us, don't deny our existence, don't focus your entire energy on trying to do something that simply can't and won't be done, and most of all, *please don't transform D&D from being a pen-and-paper RPG*.




I find this sort of post bizarre alongside your comments about Essentials. Essentials seems to have specific elements aimed at drawing back in players of earlier editions - complaining about WotC making that sort of gesture, and then turning around and ranting about how they hate their customer base, especially older fans, just seems like nonsense to me. 

Look, WotC can't cater to everyone. And even trying to cover as many audiences as they can means they will still alienate plenty of people. 

Many fans will still want their products. Many others won't. That isn't a result of WotC specifically choosing one group to favor over others, and certainly has nothing to do with WotC being sick of its fanbase. 

And, similarly, I don't think we actually 'need' them. Many people are quite happy continuing to play older editions. Or play the current edition with just the core rulebooks. They don't need constant updates and products to enjoy the game they already have. 

Now, many of us _do _like those updates and new products - I'm one of them. But this talk about gamers needing the company and the company needing the gamers...

...it's a good sentiment, but I'm not sure how much truth there is to it. I certainly don't think there is anything resembling truth amongst the rest of the post. It just reads as a series of rants about the company, the gaming community, 'today's kids'... not really a pleasant series of statements, no matter how much you may have intended it as humor. 

Again, I appreciate the sentiment: "We're all in this together!" But building that hypothesis on a pile of angry stereotypes and assumptions? Just doesn't quiet work for me. 



Mercurius said:


> But I would focus on making D&D the RPG the best possible tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG that it can be, and for all of the frills--DDI, miniatures, and all the other doodads--to remain just that, frills, and thus _optional and secondary _to the tabletop game itself. And I would also create secondary products like boardgames and even video games to try to draw kids in.




Look, here's where I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective. Do you really think that, at any point, the designers at WotC have sat down and said, "Ok, let's not make this the best possible RPG we can? What can we do that will hurt our game?"

No, of course not - as far as they are concerned, they _are_ producing the best game they can. Hence why they _do _keep making changes and adjustments to fix problems, adding elements to appeal to different crowds, etc. Efforts they put towards stuff like DDI and miniatures are because they feel those elements _are of use _to players of the game. 

Now, will everyone want those products? Will their vision of the 'best RPG evar' match that held by every gamer in existence? Of course not - everyone has different tastes. And some experiments and changes they make will be considered great successes, others will be seen as foolish choices, and the vast majority will have both those it appeals to and those it displeases. That's pretty much inevitable. 

And, yes, I'm sure there are elements behind the scene encouraging products that will sell more stuff, sure. But this idea that they hate the people playing the game, that they are intentionally producing subpar product...

...I think part of the problem is this. I think there is, for you, a perfect version of the game that you'd like to see. And I get the sense you feel that your perfect version will be one that will also be perfect for _every other player_. And that's just not true. No matter how awesome your vision is, other players have other tastes. You mention a grand vision of a modular D&D system, and I can see potential there - but also know people who would turn away from such a system, not wanting to deal with making choices over what elements to include. Or I could see it falling into ruin as WotC tries to support too many different styles, and each product becomes useful only for a niche of a niche. Your system may work for you - but it won't work for everyone. 

In the end, WotC is trying to appeal to as many people as they can. New gamers, old gamers, existing gamers... and yeah, they've certainly made their share of misteps along the way. And I'm sure there are plenty of issues passed down by legal and upper management that haven't helped - the PDF fiascor, piracy concerns, etc. 

But I think it's silly to assume that at any point they have intentionally tried to drive away any specific group, to 'fire' any existing players. Or that they have put in crappy stuff just to appeal to the 'shiny video game crowd' - anything they put in the rules or changes made to the story, I'm confident they did because they genuinely felt it was a good addition to the game. 

Now, they may well have been _wrong_. 

But in the end, it is easy to declare, "Hey, stop making bad choices, and start making ones that everyone will like." Actually doing that, though? That's not an easy task. It may not even be a possible one.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> Witness the Virtual Tabletop.
> 
> Look at D&D Encounters. Look at Essentials, where Rituals have evaporated.




I can't really speak much towards D&D Encounters. But I'm not sure how on target the other two examples are. The points about the Virtual Tabletop are good ones, but... I'm more inclined to blame its limitations on WotC's programming resources (or lack thereof) than any overarching design philosophy. 

As for Essentials, Rituals may be absent for reasons of complexity. But out of combat abilities are certainly present. Ranger and Druid wilderness tricks. A Thief's skill mastery benefits. A Hexblade's Lesser Planar Ally. Etc. All elements previously the domain of rituals that they instead built directly into these classes. 



mattcolville said:


> What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. *That's* the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have _ambition_ regardless of what that ambition is.
> 
> D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it.




I'm not so sure about that. Epic Destinies seems a _very_ direct reflection of this viewpoint. But they are, admittedly, very late game. Paragon Paths too, in theory, though I think they have become more diluted than they needed to. If they had the same sort of focus as Epic Destinies then I think that would address your concerns directly. 

But as it is, the Tiers are a very clear recognition of how characters, and their effect on the world, grows over the course of a campaign. And Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies give specific story hooks for characters to attach their ambition to and work towards. 

I may agree that more could be done in this vein, but certainly don't think you can claim that 4E is completely lacking in this sphere. 



Mercurius said:


> But what seems to have happened is that the all-powerful Combat Encounter has become a kind of massive attractor, a vortex into which everything gets sucked. Of course we have the power to break out of it, to run our games as we want to, but it would be nice for WotC to provide more tools to help us along the way, or at least diversify a bit.




Have you read the DMG2? It offers quite a few tools on 'diversifying a bit'. Xp rewards for quests, the skill challenge system, xp based on pure roleplaying alone - all of these elements are in the game. We've got an upcoming book that may be bringing back crafting elements and similar secondary skils. We've got a ton more background and story potential alongside our monsters and classes in the most recent products. Our upcoming magic item book sounds like it will be much the same. Dragon is currently under heavy criticism for having _too much_ focus on flavor and background and RP advice. 

Every indication I can see is that since the release of 4E, WotC has put more and more focus on the things you are asking for. If it is an issue with the game, it seems to be one they have been attempting to address. 



Mercurius said:


> In summary, I think you are right: D&D is in danger of jettisoning what makes it (as a tabletop RPG) unique, which is the play of imagination within fantasy worlds. This is the factor that should be explored and nourished. The bifurcated concepts of "crunch" and "fluff" exemplify this: "fluff" is what the DM reads at home so that he can offer flavor text between encounters, while "crunch" is what we do within the game session.




I don't think those are the standard definitions of fluff and crunch. 

You say that 'the play of imagination within fantasy worlds' is the factor to be 'explored and nourished'. How? WotC have been adding more and more flavor and background to content in the last year. Is this what you are looking for? The recent content in Dragon magazine, the Essentials line - if they aren't what you are looking for, then what is? A book full of alternate approaches to running the game, innovative RP encounters, and similar elements? That's basically the DMG2, right?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.



I think there is truth to that, and I also think that, depending on play style, this position could be challenged.

Again, if we talk about appealing to as large a group as possible, without getting hung up on individual tastes, then this is certainly a problem.

But, moving on to my personal taste, I think you give too much credit to solving the killing of monsters.  And I do think my taste represents a significant portion of prior fan base.

Yes, the mechanical resolution of killing monsters in a mechanically consistent and predictably balanced manner is well achieved.  But, to me, the monsters have no substance.  Or at least, far too little substance.  

I had a debate here quite a few months ago about how 4E handles AC for a L12 pirate vs a L12 black knight.  They will be different.  But only a little bit.  Because 4E FIRST looks at them as L12 challenges to be mechanically represented in a manner that makes a good game.  

To me, in order to be fun, the system MUST first look at the pirate as a pirate and a black knight as a knight.  It then should try to come as close as possible to being a good game.  But I will readily sacrifice perfection in game for perfection in capturing the nature of an entity.

You think they need to view the fourth dimension, time.
I think they still need to resolve the third - depth.  And then they will still need time.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Dec 29, 2010)

It's a simple and innocuous construct of the game, a mechanic so subtle that one almost doesn't notice when it's gone, but I think D&D really started to stray when 3.0 came out... and they got rid of the *game turn*.

Let's just set aside for the moment AD&D's ludicrous one-minute combat round.  Let's look at how time and player actions were measured in classic D&D.  Combat encounters were handled via the ten-second combat round; dungeon exploration with the ten-minute game turn; and wilderness travel by the day.  Each of these units of time, the first two being pure artifice, do their respective jobs of structuring gameplay very well.

Combat in classic D&D was based on the round, just as it is now.  The main difference was that back then, there was a specific sequence of actions (rather than the cyclical initiative, with each player deciding their actions when their turn comes up).  For those of you who haven't played the auld game, this is how it worked:
1) Taking into account the aims and relative intelligence of the monsters encountered, the DM secretly decides what the monsters' actions will be (this happens first as a matter of fairness, so that the DM isn't just reacting to the players' tactics).
2) All of the players declare their intended actions.
3) Initiative is rolled, 1d6 for each side in the battle.  High roll goes first; ties indicate simultaneous actions.
4) The combat sequence is followed: Movement > Missiles > Magic > Melee > Miscellaneous.  The side that won the initiative goes through all the steps first (e.g. if the players won, all the PCs who are moving move, all the PCs who are shooting shot, etc.), then the other side goes.  If the initiative was simultaneous, everybody acts at once, one step in the combat sequence at a time.
This might seem really, really strange to players who are used to the d20 system's cyclical initiative mechanics, but in practice (and in the hands of a DM who isn't daunted by several actions all happening at once) the old way turns out to be extremely efficient, such that battles in the old rules are resolved very quickly.

Initiative mechanics, though, are really just a matter of taste.  I happen to prefer the old system, since there isn't a lot of "waiting for your turn to come back around," but whether you play classic D&D with its ten-second round and group initiative or 3rd/4th edition with its six-second round and cyclic initiative, it all comes out the same: hit, miss, roll damage, repeat until the monsters are dead.  Combat is not the centerpiece of the game (or at least, it shouldn't be); it's an afterthought, a delay-of-game, an obstacle that the players must overcome to get back to the good part (dungeon exploration)!  The dungeon-crawl, though, has been completely unstructured from 3.0 onward.

In classic D&D (and I believe AD&D as well, but don't quote me on that), there was a dungeon-crawling sequence as well as a combat sequence.  In one ten-minute game turn, the players could be expected to move their full speed, thoroughly search a small room, conduct a battle and clean up its aftermath, or take any other action that might reasonably happen in under ten minutes.  The game turn structured wandering monster checks, reaction rolls, and simple things like spell durations and how long torches stayed lit.  "Game turns" might be just another way of saying "tens of minutes," but as a mechanic it's astonishingly handy to have in the toolkit.

So why did WotC kill it?  I guess they didn't want "turn" to be used as a potentially confusing rules term.  (Oh, that rambunctious WotC, always killing things off to avoid confusion.  They killed off basic D&D to avoid confusion between the D&D and AD&D game lines, and they killed off the game turn to avoid confusion with having "your turn" come up during a combat round!)  Fine, maybe they could've called it an "exploration period" or a "dungeon crawl action unit" or something, but it shouldn't have been done away with.

The game day, too, was more structured back then.  There was a algorithm for wilderness travel.  At the beginning of the game day, the DM rolled to see if the party would get lost, if so rolled for the direction, rolled to see if there would be a random monster encounter that day, etc.  Then the players could travel and explore up to their wilderness movement rate (slowest character's full speed divided by five; so that a typical unencumbered human, with a speed of 120' per turn, could move 24 miles per day).  And since most hex maps were conveniently drawn at the 1 hex = 24 miles scale, a typical party would crawl one hex per game day.  Overland travel thus has game mechanical structure comparable to a dungeon crawl.  Whether that accords with your personal tastes or not, it's *useful*.

These are the kinds of things that should probably exist in the rules of a game that purports to be about looting dungeons and slaying dragons.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.
> 
> I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.
> 
> ...




OK, I see what you're aiming at. I tend to agree, then: if there are any books left to publish, they are books about taking the already ample body of game materials and making something interesting out of them. My favorite book from 3E (my least favorite edition) was _Lords of Madness_; I haven't really read the crunch in it. Probably never will. But there are a lot of good ideas in there... things I can use to make my actual games actually more interesting.

So yes. Strongholds, science fantasy, fantasy warfare, planar/multiversal conveyances, Ragnarok, the Far Realm, alternate universes... things to _do_, or things some folks haven't really thought about yet. Things that take the rules we've got and make something outrageously cool out of them. I think that's generally what you're driving at? Then yes, those are books I'd be very interested in buying.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I had a debate here quite a few months ago about how 4E handles AC for a L12 pirate vs a L12 black knight.  They will be different.  But only a little bit.  Because 4E FIRST looks at them as L12 challenges to be mechanically represented in a manner that makes a good game.
> 
> To me, in order to be fun, the system MUST first look at the pirate as a pirate and a black knight as a knight.  It then should try to come as close as possible to being a good game.  But I will readily sacrifice perfection in game for perfection in capturing the nature of an entity.




This doesn't make sense.

What *mechanics* are needed to set a pirate apart from a knight.  Before 3e, there weren't any - a pirate and a knight had differences only in AC, HP, and THAC0/Hit/whatever the system used.  Instead, there mere label of "pirate" was enough.

Then in 3e, there was only barebones difference.  The pirate had sneak attack and...what?  Skill points in profession that never saw use in actual gameplay?  Mechanics that served no purpose at all?  It was still functionally the same as 2e - the differences were in it's AC, HP, it's stats, and attack bonus.  That one had "Profession (Never will be used)" and the other had "Knowledge (Will never be rolled)" made no fundamental difference.

Now in 4e you can have a pirate actively use powers to set himself up as being distinct and pirate-y, and you're upset he's not enough of a pirate?  He's more of a pirate then he's ever been before!

Mechanics *where they are needed*.

This whole discussion is the most hilarious thing in the world if you were around for the 3e transition.  "Too many rules!" they cried!  "When you try to codify roleplaying you turn it into a video game!"  Now it seems if you don't codify roleplaying enough, you turn it into a video game.  They actively go back to a few old school styles of gaming, and they're attacked for not being old school enough!

Look.  I enjoy 3e!  I think it's a fun game - hell, way more fun then 2e!  *But 3.x is not old school*.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

When 3e came out "they turned D&D into Diablo"

When 4e came out "they turned D&D into World of Warcraft"

Based on this evidence we have several years to go until 5e is released as there currently is not a new Blizzard franchise to insultingly refer to.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 29, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Just wondering.  (Feel free not to answer).
> 
> Any chance you are an English teacher at the jr high or high school level?
> 
> I have a few non-gamer acquaintances who are jr high or high school teachers, who frequently make complaints of this sort about their students.




FWIW, generations of teachers have made complaints along these lines, with only the names of the pop-culture items changing.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 29, 2010)

As far as I'm concerned, the elephant in the living room has only been aluded to, thus far in the discussion.  I would state the problem as, there are two competing ways to state the goals of a modern edition of D&D:

1. Make the best possible game you can make, where "best" is defined any way you want, but has to involve a steady stream of players (i.e. at least slowly growing), some minimal threshold of elegance in the mechanics and efficiency of results using best game design, and likewise some minimal fidelity to D&D traditions.

2. Do the best you can with the above, while also making something that sells multiple products on a somewhat regular schedule.

I'm fairly certain that lasor-like focus on the goals in option #1 would preclude option #2, because "best" is not going to be served by a stream of products.  You can have "inspirational" gaming materials produced, but you can't have them produced by a team of 20-30 people, every month or two.  Inspiration doesn't work like that, not even for the best writers.  

As just one of the more obvious examples, they could easily make powers more elegant.  There aren't enough differences in powers to justify many of them.  But this would make the list of powers *much* shorter.  And thus, there would be a lot less power books.  Note that this is not only a 4E problem, either.  3E and 2E had it as bad (as do many other non-D&D games), merely in different areas.  Each edtion has tried to circumvent this basic problem by thinking up something else to talk about a lot, but you can't solve, "we need to talk less about X," using that strategy.

(And yes, I understand exception-based design well enough to know that it is a good strategy for design, but when pursued strictly for design reasons, you don't have that many exceptions--especially, when the exceptions are essentially cosmetic.  From a software design perspective, what we have in D&D is a failure to "refactor" exceptions that aren't necessary into higher level constructs.)

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but that's the way I see it.  The only way out I see is to "shoot the moon".  Build that best possible game without trying to sell a steady stream of supplements, and then determine how to make that game profitable--whether by building network, leveraging the network for other games, online social networks, gametable, etc.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 29, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When 3e came out "they turned D&D into Diablo"
> 
> When 4e came out "they turned D&D into World of Warcraft"
> 
> Based on this evidence we have several years to go until 5e is released as there currently is not a new Blizzard franchise to insultingly refer to.




(circa 2018)

When 6E came out "they turned D&D into a Holodeck".


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 29, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When 3e came out "they turned D&D into Diablo"
> 
> When 4e came out "they turned D&D into World of Warcraft"
> 
> Based on this evidence we have several years to go until 5e is released as there currently is not a new Blizzard franchise to insultingly refer to.




Starcraft 2! (Spelljammer!)


----------



## jbear (Dec 29, 2010)

Not surprisingly this thread has quickly devolved into the exposition of the merits of one or the other game system, not dissimilar to a tennis match only (more?) boring.

If I was WotC I'd certainly be up to my ***** with the constant, unyeilding criticism. I guess I'm not really one of their 'regular clients' ... I get the goods, get out and get on with the game. I don't buy every single thing they publish, only those I'm certain I will put to good use. With the possibility of irregular subscription patterns to update crunch on the CBuilder gone, I'm potentially even less interesting to WotC now. The online Cbuilder was dropping the ball, for sure, but I really don't care. It affects me so little. I have such a solid system to build the game I want to play upon I really don't need much else at this point.

I guess you could say I don't need WotC, and WotC doesn't need me.

But I do appreciate them for the awesome tool they have given me. I don't need any more inspiration to make the bits in between, during, before and after combat 'more than just a board game'. 

And yet their change in marketing has piqued my interest. Monster Vault = wow!! (wow as in the word wow, not the abbreviation for World of W ... anyway I digress). The tokens that came with that box has me really thinking whether I need to buy minis any more. And another one is on its way next year? If it goes down the same line of monster that appears in book has a corresponding token, well, I guess I'm going to get snagged again. Ravenloft board game ... yep I want that too. And when they release the boxed set that fits into the Underdark ... well depending on what is inside thay may get me again. Pretty smart of them, at least from where I'm standing.

As for their recent insanity... I'm unsure what Mercurius is referring to exactly. The most recent debacle has been mainly concerned with DDI. I don't know what is going on there either, but I don't think it has much to do with WotC's desire, or lack thereof, to alienate themselves from a now unwanted older fanbase. I think it's more of a desperate attempt to defend themselves from piracy. This has stepped on a lot of toes. But I think with regards to piracy, although the battle is not won, they are certainly putting up a decent fight. As for the mags, well people say that the content is waning. Shrug* This sounds to me like that is probably due to financial decsions/restrictions that go far beyond Bill Slavic's control. Anyone mentioned yet that we are presently in the heart of a rampant world economic crisis?

The other point I'd like to comment on, that nobody has mentioned yet, is Mercurius' idea that WotC has already failed to pass the D&D torch onto the next generation. That torch is in my hands. And yours, Mercurius. Have you attempted to begin a game with any of your students only to have it fall on its face because they weren't into it? Or with any of these hopeless young people you know: nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, grandchildren? My kids are 5 and 2 respectively. We have a game going with 5 other children involved the same age based on simplified 4e rules. The parents help and 'surpervise' the character sheet business which has a lot of visual icons drawn on them to represent powers (as they are still in the process of learning to read). To put it plainly ... they absolutely love it. Yeah, they like videogames too, and movies. But they also totally get into D&D. 

I'd say this would be a pretty universal experience. Kids enjoying actually sitting down with their parents and playing an awesome game with miniatures, dice, monsters, magic, danger and mystery, instead of being thrown in front of the idiot box and left to blob out so that dad can get the dinner ready and mum can finish checking the tax returns. 

What the future holds for WotC ... my guess is only as good as the next guys. Colour me as concerned as I am for the welfare of the Mars company who makes Snickers bars which I very much enjoy eating, much to the detriment of my good health. But you can be sure as  cheese on toast that I'm going to do my damnedest to get my kids into D&D... And from the looks, it isn't going to take much of a struggle at all.

Hmm ... maybe WotC needs me/wants me/loves me after all...


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2010)

> But here's the magical secret - the guys that made 4e? They really like it. The guys making Essentials? They think it's an awesome game that's a perfect mix of mechanics and fluff.



Apparently they're also very happy with what they did with the Forgotten Realms too.  So?  Most FR fans I've heard from are pretty confident that they wrecked it.

Most people tend to like the way things they created are, and have passion for them, because they created them that way because that's the way they think it should be done (and are proud of the creation, of course).  Slush piles are full of such material.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 29, 2010)

In terms of what they may be doing, I wonder how much of it is to fight piracy. You can't download a boxed set.

On the other hand, I wonder how much money they're leaving on the table by not having PDFs of the tiles and mosnter tokens in the first place.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 29, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> That's not what I'm saying, I'm not saying simpler is fun, I'm saying fun is fun.
> 
> Strength isn't fun. Having a 17 Strength isn't fun. It's meaningless. You can't play a 17 Strength. It's not a game.
> 
> ...




Because of course everyone has the same idea of what's fun.  ...  No, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right ... 

Mercurius is pretty much right.  WOTC is in a bind.  Do they design for those of us who've been playing RPGs forever or for the new kids coming in?  Because these groups have different enough ideas of what is fun that you can't make them both happy.  And neither group is a very attractive market for the product.  The veterans are diminishing and for the new guys you can't out-World of Warcraft World of Warcraft with an RPG.  WOTC seems to have tried to make both groups happy and have succeeded with neither.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 29, 2010)

rounser said:


> Apparently they're also very happy with what they  did with the Forgotten Realms too.  So?  Most FR fans I've heard from  are pretty confident that they wrecked it.
> 
> Most people tend to like the way things they created are, and have  passion for them, because they created them that way because that's the  way they think it should be done (and are proud of the creation, of  course).  Slush piles are full of such material.




Utterly irrelevant to the subject we were discussing.



Mishihari Lord said:


> Because of course everyone has the same idea of what's fun.  ...  No, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right ...
> 
> Mercurius is pretty much right.  WOTC is in a bind.  Do they design for those of us who've been playing RPGs forever or for the new kids coming in?  Because these groups have different enough ideas of what is fun that you can't make them both happy.  And neither group is a very attractive market for the product.  The veterans are diminishing and for the new guys you can't out-World of Warcraft World of Warcraft with an RPG.  WOTC seems to have tried to make both groups happy and have succeeded with neither.




And yet I, who started in 2e, enjoy 4e.

I gurantee I'm not alone in this.

Perhaps - and I'm stretching out on a limb here - you don't speak for everyone who started playing before 4e?

WotC isn't in any way in a bind.  Here's another magical secret that I will deign to share with the rest of you: "old" gamers and "new" gamers are not different species.  Many of them even like the same kind of things!  Shocking, yes, but true.  There is no magical or neurological divide there.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 30, 2010)

I think of RPGs as being like opera. They have a select audience, they are no longer as popular with the masses as they once were and probably never will be again, and the audience is absolutely remorseless in its criticism. And justifiably so. When the lead soprano misses a note, it's not like there's anyone else who can sing it for her.

It probably didn't matter that TSR printed however many thousands of pages of stuff that is basically precycled paper. On the other hand, when a writer in a much smaller field turns out stuff that is almost, but not quite, good, expect criticism. Sometimes this is characterized as a sense of entitlement, but I think it's just a matter of judgment. It's a sense of sense of entitlement to say, "I made this game to be FUN, and I made out of love, for YOU!" and then complain when people don't like it. People are allowed not to like it. 

Wizards seem to have done a great job of fostering an environment of creativity, collegialism, and affection. However, i think the whole design process has been tainted from the beginning by a priori business decisions. There is nothing about 4e's overall design goals, on broad outlines, I particularly object to, I just object to the staggering majority of decisions made about each and every path to those goals. Ultimately, 4e was about D&D back into Target and Toys R Us, which is a laudable goal, but I think real compromises were made that plenty of people are probably feeling remorseful about now. Further, I think Wizards was way optimistic about getting technology done that could match their crackerjack approach to game design; Mearls et al. are some of the best hired guns you could get for game design, but anyone designing software for an outfit like Wizards is probably a lower-earning developer, assisted by several abused interns. 

I think Paizo took the right approach, and Wizards, the wrong one. Does anyone else remember Little Caesar's foray into the delivery business? It wasn't a crazy idea; it's not like they were not allowed to do what other pizza businesses did. The problem was this: Little Caesars's existing customers were takeout customers, and although they might take delivery at other times, they wanted something specific from LC. Hot n Ready, on the other hand, was successful, because it reinforced their existing customers, who wanted something cheap that required no advance planning and entailed no unexpected delays. Simply because some, perhaps most, LC customers said, "Wouldn't it be nice if you could get this delivered?" did not mean that their loyal base wanted to give up what they had, and people who insist on delivery are already ordering elsewhere. Cheap, tasty, delivery... pick two.

Wizards was trying to design something fun and boardgamey, which, while theoretically appealing to many people, didn't really have any advantages over, say, boardgames, especially strategy or miniature games, they already owned and played, in addition to RPGs. Trying to create an accessible game is great, but I think it's just a mistake to think of D&D as a sort of product you can sell to people the way you do Scattergories, or even Settlers. It's not like J. K. Rowling sat down one day and said, "Hm, what if instead of a last Harry Potter book, I wrote a script for a PC game that would allow you to play it?" In general, companies do not do well that try to make products other than what they have always made, unless the new direction is obviously demanded by the current business situation. 

Bottom line: Who really thinks D&D should play like Savage Worlds and sell like Civilization?


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> WotC has that too.
> 
> Hate to break it to you!  I know you dislike WotC and really have a thing against 4e.  But here's the magical secret - the guys that made 4e?  They really like it.  The guys making Essentials?  They think it's an awesome game that's a perfect mix of mechanics and fluff.  When TSR made second edition, it's developers saw it as a labor of love.  When Gygax first wrote down the vague ideas for D&D, he did it because he thought it would be something really amazing.  And when 5e comes out, the men and women that create it will think "We've done something really amazing here."
> 
> Not to break any hearts, but you go into the gaming industry because you love it.  Nobody makes a tabletop game for the money.




Sorry to break it to you, but I don't feel the same passion or enjoyment of the game from WotC game designers for 4E. When I read 4E, I see a passionless book focused mostly on mechanics and game balance. Story is secondary to game mechanics. This is the first edition of D&D I ever felt that with. I think 4E limits the game designers more than they have ever been limited in the past. Some of us gamers think D&D is modular and limiting to us? Must be a strange sort of dream and nightmare for the WotC game designers to finally be working on the game they've always loved, but not really.

Back in most editions game designers had a very open arena for design. They could make anything they wanted in whatever way they wanted and then test it. If it worked, it might be published. If it didn't, back to testing it. They could design spells based on text they had written, class abilities based on what something they read and felt would make a great class or PrC (for 3rd edition) for D&D, and they could do whatever they wanted for adventures, they would write up ideas for class powers and toss it in.

I would bet money 4E is more limiting on creativity on the game designers than any previous edition of D&D. It is the most restrictive on game design. I as a player looked at each paragon path and couldn't believe how utterly lacking in creativity each paragon path was. You generally had three abilities. One involved the spending of a hero point. The other two usually involved a utility power and an attack power. Each paragon path was designed in the exact same fashion as the other. Never have I seen that in D&D in 30 years.

I think a lot of the guys that have stuck around do love the game. Would love to keep D&D going strong for each generation. You don't get into game design unless you love it. I understand that. But being in the tiny creative box 4E placed the game designers in can't be all that enjoyable.

All game designers are creative by nature. They have to combine mechanics with story all the time. Now the mechanics are at the forefront,.Like if say Mike Mearls wants to design a paladin, it is very important he design it in a very modular fashion. Pick an archetype for it, make sure it has a marking ability, make sure it has powers that are either limited by weapon type or don't exceed the powers of any other starting class, stay completely within the confines of the D&D rule system regardless of whether he feels the archetype should have certain abilities to represent the feel of the archetype.

You make a Paladin at Paizo and you try to figure out what would make for a cool Paladin. The feel of the class is paramount. The game designers at Paizo are able to decide what a Holy Knight should be without first deciding what type it is (Controller or what not). They do not need to fit any particular Paragon path or epic path. They can make up a power completely in text and toss it on and it doesn't have to last only one round or be a save every round power or be used per encounter. They can make it anywhere from instantaneous to an hour per level or certain times per day whatever they come up with. _Pathfinder_ game design is not without limits, but it is still the type of open-ended game design many of us have enjoyed from the game designers the past 30 years.

For WotC designers the modular rules of the archetype are paramount, the feel of the archetype secondary. And the reverse at Paizo, like it should be in a creative game.

Imagine spell design now for WotC game designers. You know each player is very limited in the number of spells they will ever have. So making new spells is almost a waste of time because they will never see much use unless they exactly match another type of spell that has certain capabilities. For example, in my 4E group every caster tried to get the spell that had an extended duration like _Flaming Sphere_. It became the new must have spell because it could do damage every round. No one shot _Fireball_ because _Scorching Blast_ did enough AoE to kill minions like a controller is supposed to do, but _Fireball_ did less aggregate damage than _Flaming Sphere_ beacuse it hit once and was done. Most creatures that aren't minions could easily survive it, so to keep damage every round _Flaming Sphere_ and spells and effects like it became paramount so the wizard player wasn't forced to resort to his at wills every round.

Is that fun arcane casting? Wasn't as a player for myself used to the creative spell design of past editions where I had many, many choices as a spell caster to handle an encounter whether by damage, crowd control, guile, or the like. Spell designers could be sure that if they designed a good spell, it would see use by casters, added to a great many spell books, and enjoyed. The spell didn't even have to do damage to be effective. Now the natural limitation imposed upon casters severely limits spell design because most won't see the light of day. And 99% of combat spells cause damage in a damage focused game. No more creative use of non-damaging spells in combat because for the most part they don't exist.

That's a pretty small box for a game designer to be in. If anyone was shafted worse than the players, it was the 4E game designers. Not only did they probably receive less capitalization from the bean counters at Hasbro/WotC. But probably had strict orders to make the new edition of the rules MMORPG friendly because it is obvious the ultimate goal is to leverage D&D into the MMORPG market.

Smart marketing. I'd probably do the same thing. With the massive amount of background material, the smartest move Hasbro could make to leverage the D&D brand into a huge money maker is to hire some great MMORPG designers and let them take all the creative material built up over 30 years of D&D and turn it into the greatest MMORPG ever designed.

But we shall see how Hasbro/WotC does it. We'll see if that is the real intent of Hasbro/WotC or merely an assumption on my part. I think D&D will be an MMORPG in ten years with  a limited pen and paper addition. But we shall see.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 30, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but I don't feel the same passion or enjoyment of the game from WotC game designers for 4E. When I read 4E, I see a passionless book focused mostly on mechanics and game balance. Story is secondary to game mechanics. This is the first edition of D&D I ever felt that with. I think 4E limits the game designers more than they have ever been limited in the past. Some of us gamers think D&D is modular and limiting to us? Must be a strange sort of dream and nightmare for the WotC game designers to finally be working on the game they've always loved, but not really.




That



> Back in most editions game designers had a very open arena for design. They could make anything they wanted in whatever way they wanted and then test it. If it worked, it might be published. If it didn't, back to testing it. They could design spells based on text they had written, class abilities based on what something they read and felt would make a great class or PrC (for 3rd edition) for D&D, and they could do whatever they wanted for adventures, they would write up ideas for class powers and toss it in.




Sounds



> I would bet money 4E is more limiting on creativity on the game designers than any previous edition of D&D. It is the most restrictive on game design. I as a player looked at each paragon path and couldn't believe how utterly lacking in creativity each paragon path was. You generally had three abilities. One involved the spending of a hero point. The other two usually involved a utility power and an attack power. Each paragon path was designed in the exact same fashion as the other. Never have I seen that in D&D in 30 years.




Like



> I think a lot of the guys that have stuck around do love the game. Would love to keep D&D going strong for each generation. You don't get into game design unless you love it. I understand that. But being in the tiny creative box 4E placed the game designers in can't be all that enjoyable.




A



> All game designers are creative by nature. They have to combine mechanics with story all the time. Now the mechanics are at the forefront,.Like if say Mike Mearls wants to design a paladin, it is very important he design it in a very modular fashion. Pick an archetype for it, make sure it has a marking ability, make sure it has powers that are either limited by weapon type or don't exceed the powers of any other starting class, stay completely within the confines of the D&D rule system regardless of whether he feels the archetype should have certain abilities to represent the feel of the archetype.




Personal



> You make a Paladin at Paizo and you try to figure out what would make for a cool Paladin. The feel of the class is paramount. The game designers at Paizo are able to decide what a Holy Knight should be without first deciding what type it is (Controller or what not). They do not need to fit any particular Paragon path or epic path. They can make up a power completely in text and toss it on and it doesn't have to last only one round or be a save every round power or be used per encounter. They can make it anywhere from instantaneous to an hour per level or certain times per day whatever they come up with. _Pathfinder_ game design is not without limits, but it is still the type of open-ended game design many of us have enjoyed from the game designers the past 30 years.




Problem



> WORDS.




Also, could you not write fifty page essays?  Nobody is going to respond to them.

Besides which, your entire post refers to the same tired old thing I've already refueted - this idea that 4e's <nouns> are somehow less then other editions <nouns> because they started with a mechanical basis first.

Whinge away about 4e paladins, but at the end of the day, they're far, far better at being holy knights then the hilariously pathetic 3e ones ever were.

Oh wait, you're also upset that classes _other then wizards_ have things to do, and wizards no longer rule the entire world.  That's not a bug.  It's a feature.  And it makes 4e a far better game and one that far more closely resembles literature and narrative archtypes and perspectives then 3e ever did.  Because here's a tip - there's heroes that rely on wit, ones that rely on strength, there's wise old mentors and cunning thieves, but there's no wizard archtype.  There's deus ex machina, but that shouldn't be playable.

The problem with the pre-4e wizard is this:

 Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan  War and the Odyssey.  You tell your character that they'll be fighting  on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes  of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.


Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 30, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think of RPGs as being like opera. ...
> 
> Trying to create an accessible game is great, but I think it's just a mistake to think of D&D as a sort of product you can sell to people the way you do Scattergories, or even Settlers. ...
> 
> ...




Those goals can be reconciled (well, proportionally, as a slice of Civilization sales would be acceptable), but not with half measures, and thus not without considerable risk. It is very much a piece of Napolean's maxim, "If you go to take Vienna, then take Vienna"--with the implicit statement that if you don't think you can, don't even start. (Hope I got that reasonablely close from memory.) Or if you prefer, "There is no try. Only do or do not." 

You *may* manage to write an opera that revitalizes the genre and is immensely popular compared to any current opera. You won't do it writing an opera that is mostly like every other opera currently playing. So the risk is unacceptable most of the time (maybe even 100%). 

That is another way of looking at what I said up-topic. It's not design or player base preferences (let alone video games) keeping D&D from taking off. It is that the risks of doing what would be necessary to make it take off are not acceptable.


----------



## lamia (Dec 30, 2010)

So...I can't do multi-quote. But to anyone who responded to my post a few pages back, please just ignore the first bit. I broke my no posting unless I've had adequate sleep rule.

The thing is, WotC and I had a really nasty, neighbors-calling-the-cops kind of breakup a while back after years of happiness. 
Occasionally I behave like the bitter ex-girlfriend in a moment of weakness, sitting around drinking gin with lipstick smeared all over my face and talking smack about the ex on the internet.

I do try to avoid it, but it happens every now and then. I don't actually expect a reprint or anything, as I realize this is silly. It was just kind of a "but..if you just did this one little thing we could be happy like we used to!" moment.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 30, 2010)

Just to make it clear, I'm not completely making fun. I've definitely had, and still have, my moments of anger at WotC. But...



lamia said:


> ...The thing is, WotC and I had a really nasty, neighbors-calling-the-cops kind of breakup a while back after years of happiness. Occasionally I behave like the bitter ex-girlfriend in a moment of weakness, sitting around drinking gin with lipstick smeared all over my face and talking smack about the ex on the internet...





WotC! _Why...!_






I couldn't resist...


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 30, 2010)

drothgery said:


> FWIW, generations of teachers have made complaints along these lines, with only the names of the pop-culture items changing.




And this is why I still think "The Kids Are Alright."

Digital communication .... facebook .... etc...... 

One thing I've noticed about ENWorld is that its the most verbose of all the messageboards or websites I frequent. (includes Comic Book Resources, Huffiington Post, Circus Maximus, RealClearPolitics .... etc....aside from my point). Possibly due to this verbosity (or whatever you want to call it), I really think this board is hard on the perceived 'kids of today.' I don't care if they play World of Warcraft or Everquest before it! Kids are kids, and by kids I mean teenage boys. They all seem stupid and scatterbrained to adults. They don't always communicate in the open or where its obvious to adults. 

Also, there will still be kids who want to read. Someone dissed Harry Potter novels -- and I actually dislike the books and the movies -- but its still the obvious example that kids read big books still.

PREDICTION: Just wait til the HOBBIT (two parts) finally comes out. We'll see a big spike in kids reading that book again, and follow on to that the Lord of the Rings. Its only been 7-8 years since RotK came out and the trilogy ended (though it feels like a lifetime ago).

I am rambling big time, but to quote Mark Twain: “History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes”

Our hobby is the latter. Lets accept it and enjoy the cacophony.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> Utterly irrelevant to the subject we were discussing.



It was a refutation of your new "I'll let you in on a little secret" schtick. Maybe you should change that to "I'll let you in on a completely subjective and possibly entirely fallacious opinion of mine" unless you really want to come across like that.

And IMO it refuted your "secret" about "they're doing all that can possibly be done and they're passionate about it so what do you lot know" rather neatly, thank you very much.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> Besides which, your entire post refers to the same tired old thing I've already refueted - this idea that 4e's <nouns> are somehow less then other editions <nouns> because they started with a mechanical basis first.



Not refuted at all. The results speak for themselves.  I could detect metagame thinking in the monster selection of 3e and the no-archetype prestige classes that became common, and as of 4E it's gone berserk and infected not only the core implied setting but, as Celtavian points out, the scope of creativity possible in the rules straitjacket that they've tailored for themselves.

And stop playing the man and not the ball with your helpful little suggestions on post length please. I think maybe you're being so dismissive because your argument is very much on the ropes, maybe?


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet I, who started in 2e, enjoy 4e.
> 
> I gurantee I'm not alone in this.
> 
> ...




This is what I get for assuming that others have studied marketing too.  When you're talking marketing you're always talking tendencies and most and some because obviously not every member of every group does the same thing; obviously from 3E to 4E not everyone jumped ship.  Just as obviously a lot of people have.  I've heard numbers like 50% thrown around.  I have no way of telling if that's right but it's a lot of people.  If you are losing a large percentage of your customer base then a marketer will say the customer base is not happy even if some customers are fine.

The old guys and the new guys are coming into the hobby from very different places too.  My introduction to fantasy was Norton and Zelazny and Moorcock.  For a lot of people coming in their introduction was World of Warcraft and Twilight.  It makes a big difference in what they like and what they expect to see in a game.  As a quick example a buddy just started 3E after many years of WoW (not my game though) and he said that 3E is great except it needs an aggro mechanic.  I was a bit boggled - I never would have thought of that or thought it was even remotely a good idea.

So while taking a middle route can make some people from both groups happy, I think it's inferior in terms of market potential to focusing on one group or the other.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 30, 2010)

Mishihari Lord said:


> As a quick example a buddy just started 3E after many years of WoW (not my game though) and he said that 3E is great except it needs an aggro mechanic.  I was a bit boggled - I never would have thought of that or thought it was even remotely a good idea.




As an aside, playing WOW taught me the same thing (I should say it showed me the answer). I mostly GMed 3.x and I hated rogues, especially against a single powerful monster. A well built rogue does big damage in melee but has subpar AC and crappy hit points. If I played it true, the rogue gets one good round of damage in before the Dragon/Giant/Demon turns away from the fighter and shreds the rogue. Or I had to "look the other way" for a couple of rounds and let the rogue have his fun.

3rd edition made rogues massive damage dealers in melee with limit ways to defend themselves (ie, you had to hope you killed it in a round or two). Is the Aggro mechanic the right way? I do not know, but I do know the rogue had that issue in 3rd edition. So I understand your WOW buddy's perspective.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> The problem with the pre-4e wizard is this:



You sure 1d4 hit points per level is enough to be Poseidon?  If you actually run a character generator, you really get to see how glass jawed uncheaty wizards are if not stoneskinned to the gills.  Oh and with a fighter to protect them.  And a cleric to heal them.  Wait...your argument for completely gutting D&D was what, again?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet I, who started in 2e, enjoy 4e.
> 
> I gurantee I'm not alone in this.



You are very far from alone.  

But you being very far from alone and "the current edition of D&D could have a much bigger fan base" are not remotely incompatible.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> As an aside, playing WOW taught me the same thing (I should say it showed me the answer). I mostly GMed 3.x and I hated rogues, especially against a single powerful monster. A well built rogue does big damage in melee but has subpar AC and crappy hit points. If I played it true, the rogue gets one good round of damage in before the Dragon/Giant/Demon turns away from the fighter and shreds the rogue. Or I had to "look the other way" for a couple of rounds and let the rogue have his fun.



Yes. I've sort of come to the conclusion that the only good PC thief or assassin is a multiclass thief or assassin.  The theme of sneaking, stealing and surreptitiously stabbing isn't really strong enough to stand on it's own (unless the thief is picking on weaklings).  But thinking back, the thief is usually played multiclass anyway, be it a gnomish illusionist/thief or a half-orc fighter/assassin or a half-elf fighter/magic-user/thief.  In this capacity it is flavor, differentiating this PC from his fellows and sneaking into play at the odd opportune moment when the shadows are thick enough.  The BECMI thief is a non-starter for me, whereas the flavor of the class as a multiclass for AD&D, Hackmaster 4E or WOTCD&D 3E is excellent.

I know this inequity is unthinkable to some, but it kind of works regardless in terms of a "flavor class", and makes arguably broken multiclassing a plus in this instance.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 30, 2010)

rounser said:


> It was a refutation of your new "I'll let you in on a little secret" schtick. Maybe you should change that to "I'll let you in on a completely subjective and possibly entirely fallacious opinion of mine" unless you really want to come across like that.
> 
> And IMO it refuted your "secret" about "they're doing all that can possibly be done and they're passionate about it so what do you lot know" rather neatly, thank you very much.




"WotC developers care and put passion into what they do."
"OK BUT SOME PEOPLE HATE IT!"

Utterly irrelevant.



rounser said:


> Not refuted at all. The results speak for  themselves.  I could detect metagame thinking in the monster selection  of 3e and the no-archetype prestige classes that became common, and as  of 4E it's gone berserk and infected not only the core implied setting  but, as Celtavian points out, the scope of creativity possible in the  rules straitjacket that they've tailored for themselves.




Prove it.  Go on, show me a situation or a class in 4e where the mechanics run against the class.  Tell me which 4e class is so awful in mechanics that the fluff just doesn't work.

Because that sounds far more like 3e then anything else.  Ahhh, 3e.  Where fighters are some of the worst at fighting, where paladins are utterly inept at smiting evil, and where druids and clerics make the best front liners.



> And stop playing the man and not the ball with your helpful little  suggestions on post length please. I think maybe you're being so  dismissive because your argument is very much on the ropes,  maybe?




Or maybe I can make a concise argument without writing a thesis.



rounser said:


> You sure 1d4 hit points per level is enough to be  Poseidon?  If you actually run a character generator, you really get to  see how glass jawed uncheaty wizards are if not stoneskinned to the  gills.  Oh and with a fighter to protect them.  And a cleric to heal  them.  Wait...your argument for completely gutting D&D was what,  again?




Oh certainly at levels 1-3 the wizard actually is (relatively) frail.  But here's a few catches you missed.

1) Summon Monster.  Who needs a fighter when I can literally create _several_ meat shields?

2) Mirror image.  Actually protects you better then AC does!

3) Blur.  Again, better then AC at protecting you!

4) Invisibility.  Can't kill what you can't see

These are level two spells.  Well, Summon Monster is actually a level _one_ spell.  Then you hit level three spells and you are now _flying_ and the concerns of being attacked all but vaporizes.

If there's anything you've taught me, it's that, indeed, people who don't understand the incredible potential of the wizard don't break the universe with it.  In the same way that someone who plays as Poseidon then spends all their time swimming with dolphins isn't exactly utilizing their powers as a god.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 30, 2010)

BryonD said:


> You are very far from alone.
> 
> But you being very far from alone and "the current edition of D&D could have a much bigger fan base" are not remotely incompatible.




And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that _I don't exist_, that "old gamers" and "new gamers" cannot like the same things, and that WotC can only ever appease one of them.

Absolute, utter hogwash.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> If there's anything you've taught me, it's that, indeed, people who don't understand the incredible potential of the wizard don't break the universe with it. In the same way that someone who plays as Poseidon then spends all their time swimming with dolphins isn't exactly utilizing their powers as a god.



I'm sorry, but your argument strikes me as one of these theoretical ones without basis in gameplay, in that summoned monsters are weak, don't expect to do anything offensive if you're invisible, and blur and mirror image are no plate mail.  I take it you've never had a high level wizard whose spells bounce off of everything in sight, much to your frustration.  I think you've shown without a doubt that you're an armchair general here, as those defensive spells take up slots, are of limited duration, and summoned monsters get summarily belted.  In short, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, although certain combos like scry/prep/teleport or find the path/windwalk can be "gawdlike" in their effect on the campaign if used unsportingly.

Are you thinking of some artificial scenario whereby, say, the campaign is using all 2E spell compendiums and the magic-user gains access to "all known spells" such as in the FR adventure with the insane teacher lich?  Because there's a large gap between that and, say, BECMI, where the spell options are severely limited, and your argument completely falls apart unless you're creative in your use of clothform and woodform...

Of course, if we're talking artificial situations where you just "unload" for a single encounter, a fully buffed and outfitted 3E CoDzilla is probably going to do a better gawd impression, but that doesn't suit your argument _at all_.  Or if there was no time to prepare and no bodyguards, a fighter would be the choice (and would do the best Achilles impression of course).  Think you might have to go back to the drawing board....


----------



## innerdude (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that _I don't exist_, that "old gamers" and "new gamers" cannot like the same things, and that WotC can only ever appease one of them.
> 
> Absolute, utter hogwash.




Well it's not that WotC CAN'T appease both of them. It's just that by all appearances, they've made a strategic choice that they recognized would likely not appeal to a fairly broad swath of the older gaming demographic. 

I'm not saying that there aren't some "grognards" who don't think 4e is a great system, but 4e makes some very specific, calculated changes to the rules from previous products that by and large appear to be an attempt to appeal to a younger demographic. 

Terminologies: Recharge, "powers," "exploits," "healing surge." 
Races: Dragonborn and Tiefling
Monster Descriptions: Brute, Skirmisher, Solo, Elite

Even a shallow, surface-level skimming of the 4e core rulebooks reveals this basic bias towards more "modern" MMO sensibilities. This doesn't mean these sensibilities invalidate or inherently ruin the core of the system, I'm just saying that on an observational level, it's not hard to see WotC's tactical approach.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> "WotC developers care and put passion into what they do."
> "OK BUT SOME PEOPLE HATE IT!"
> 
> Utterly irrelevant.



Except to former fans of in-print FR, who map to former fans of in-print D&D quite nicely, given that the same people are behind both projects.  And mostly negative Amazon reviews suggest that _most_ people don't like it, just like Pathfinder seems to be eating D&D's cake at the moment, maybe.

But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 30, 2010)

rounser said:


> Except to former fans of in-print FR, who map to former fans of in-print D&D quite nicely, given that the same people are behind both projects.  And mostly negative Amazon reviews suggest that _most_ people don't like it, just like Pathfinder seems to be eating D&D's cake at the moment, maybe.
> 
> But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...




Your commentary continues to be irrelevant.

The statement was the claim that Paizo puts passion and care into their product with the undercurrent that WotC did not.

The rebuttal is that WotC - and in fact _everyone_ who works in the industry - puts equal passion and care.

That some people dislike the product is utterly irrelevant to that point.



rounser said:


> I'm sorry, but your argument strikes me as one of  these theoretical ones without basis in gameplay, in that summoned  monsters are weak, don't expect to do anything offensive if you're  invisible, and blur and mirror image are no plate mail.  I take it  you've never had a high level wizard whose spells bounce off of  everything in sight, much to your frustration.  I think you've shown  without a doubt that you're an armchair general here, as those defensive  spells take up slots, are of limited duration, and summoned monsters  get summarily belted.  In short, I'm not sure you know what you're  talking about, although certain combos like scry/prep/teleport or find  the path/windwalk can be "gawdlike" in their effect on the campaign if  used unsportingly.




Theoretical nothing.

Summoned monsters are plenty powerful, you don't need to do anything offensive if you're invisible, and blur and mirror image are *better* then plate mail.  Plate mail doesn't get better as you level - if anything, AC scales horribly compared to attack bonuses.  Mirror Image and Blur are static chances to miss - they're insanely better.

I've never had a high level wizard watch spells bounce off, no.  Why would I?  Spell Resistance?  That's hilariously easy to bypass, with many of the best spells simply not being resistible in the first place.  The only one armcharing how another person plays is *you* with your mountain of assumptions.



> Are you thinking of some artificial scenario whereby, say, the campaign  is using all 2E spell compendiums and the magic-user gains access to  "all known spells" such as in the FR adventure with the insane teacher  lich?  Because there's a large gap between that and, say, BECMI, where  the spell options are severely limited, and your argument completely  falls apart unless you're creative in your use of clothform and  woodform.




I literally have no idea what you're referring to here.



> Of course, if we're talking artificial situations where you just  "unload" for a single encounter, a fully buffed and outfitted 3E  CoDzilla is probably going to do a better gawd impression, but that  doesn't suit your argument _at all_.  Or if there was no time to  prepare and no bodyguards, a fighter would be the choice (and would do  the best Achilles impression of course).  Think you might have to go  back to the drawing board....




Here's the catch so many people miss:

Wizards do not need to hope for the "best conditions."  They *make* the best conditions.

Need to rest in the wilderness?  There's a dozen or so spells that let you do so, no worry.  Need a bodyguard?  Summon one up!  Summon monster starts only slightly weaker then a fighter, and as the levels go on get undeniably better.

The 15 minute work day is one I've never seen *but*, and it's a big "but," it's because nobody wanted to do it.  If they wanted to they could, easily.  Again, there's a good dozen spells that let you sleep without worry anywhere you so desire.  

Oh, and lastly, lose the attitude.  I'm not insulting you, I expect the same in return.



innerdude said:


> Even a shallow, surface-level skimming of the  4e core rulebooks reveals this basic bias towards more "modern" MMO  sensibilities. This doesn't mean these sensibilities invalidate or  inherently ruin the core of the system, I'm just saying that on an  observational level, it's not hard to see WotC's tactical  approach.




What on earth are "Modern MMO sensibilities?"


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that _I don't exist_,



Maybe you don't.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2010)

> Wizards do not need to hope for the "best conditions." They make the best conditions.



Right, getting the picture here.  You're off on some Sun Tzu fantasy tip. I made the mistake of assuming we were talking about a D&D magic-user who casts vancian spells, but it's more of a theoretical ultimate Kung Fu, ninjas wailing on guitars type ideal than anything relatable to um, playing a magic-user character, and if I don't get the gawdlike possibilities that are apparent from having memorized a blur spell then clearly my Kung Fu is sadly lacking.

Carry on.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 30, 2010)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Because of course everyone has the same idea of what's fun.  ...  No, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right ...
> 
> Mercurius is pretty much right.  WOTC is in a bind.  Do they design for those of us who've been playing RPGs forever or for the new kids coming in?  Because these groups have different enough ideas of what is fun that you can't make them both happy.  And neither group is a very attractive market for the product.  The veterans are diminishing and for the new guys you can't out-World of Warcraft World of Warcraft with an RPG.  WOTC seems to have tried to make both groups happy and have succeeded with neither.




They're not in a bind. We don't matter. What they need is a game that's fun to play and if a designer can't speak intelligently on what is fun, or what makes something fun, they should be fired. Throwing up your hands and saying "well everyone's idea of fun is different" means "we should not be paying you to make fun games."

The game doesn't *have* to compete with...any other game, because kids have lots of free time. *They can do more than one thing*. All D&D has to do is be fun in a way other things aren't fun.

What separates D&D from the Castle Ravenloft board game? I honestly don't know, because as far as I can tell, WotC's attitude is "nothing." D&D is a series of encounters in which you fight monsters. So is Castle Ravenloft.

What makes D&D Different is the existence of the Temporal World and while you and I can graft that onto the game because we grew up with a tradition that assumed it, it doesn't seem like WotC thinks it's worth pushing to the fore.

From where I sit, they should be working on nothing else. Because I already have more tools to kill monsters with than I could ever use. So now it's time to give our characters some ambition.

AD&D assumed a certain set of built-in ambitions and these were good and served two generations of gamer well, but WotC could do better. 

Epic Destinies are as close as WotC gets, but I think they're a cop-out. First, they're sort of the opposite of ambition. They're what you get when you've already achieved everything else. I'm talking about stuff like.

"I want to build a keep."

"I want to start a guild."

"I want to create a new spell."

"I want to be a Baron."

"I want to be...." whatever your character wants, apart from a dude who kills monsters. 

Which, based on my assessments of how people play the game, is something players should be thinking about and given tools for at around 7th level. 

Epic Destinies are about becoming a God and whatnot. That's not The Temporal World, that's transcending the Temporal World. 

The Temporal World is what gives our adventures *meaning*. That's something critically missing from D&D4. 

In D&D4, because of the way magic and rewards work, it _doesn't matter_ what adventure your character goes on. He's going to come out the other side exactly the same as if he'd gone through any other adventure.

He's going to get some money that he can't really buy anything with, some XP, and some magic. And the magic will be pretty blah, but it doesn't matter what it is, because he can render it down to residuum and combine it with the cash he can't spend to get the items he DID want. In fact, the DMG suggests just asking players what magic they want, and giving it to them.

Adventures, therefore, become a black box. From the outside, before or after, we can't see inside. We can't tell, by looking at your character sheet, which *in-game* choices your character made. We can only see the choices the player made when he leveled up.

Instead we need....well first we need to keep what we have. The 'Fighting Monsters' part works great. Now we need a world, we need context. We need adventures with choices and worlds to affect. 

I love 4E. Great fun. But the absence of meaning, context, a world that exists as a _resource_, a thing to take and use and change, as opposed to wallpaper, is criminal.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 30, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> They're not in a bind. We don't matter. What they need is a game that's fun to play and if a designer can't speak intelligently on what is fun, or what makes something fun, they should be fired. Throwing up your hands and saying "well everyone's idea of fun is different" means "we should not be paying you to make fun games."
> 
> The game doesn't *have* to compete with...any other game, because kids have lots of free time. *They can do more than one thing*. All D&D has to do is be fun in a way other things aren't fun.




D&D may not be competing for time (although i disagree -- it is a very time intensive activity), but it is definitiely competing for dollars.  Amount of idle time tends to be inversely related to size of discretionary budget.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> We can't tell, by looking at your character sheet, which *in-game* choices your character made.



To some extent at least, this is equally true of many other RPGs. For example, a Rolemaster character sheet does't tell us much expressly about in game choices. But it might do so by implication - eg a PC with many ranks in Riding probably has ridden horses in game - but then the same is true of 4e - a PC with the Mounted Combat feat has probably been riding mounts in game.



mattcolville said:


> I love 4E. Great fun. But the absence of meaning, context, a world that exists as a _resource_, a thing to take and use and change, as opposed to wallpaper, is criminal.



I can see where you're coming from here, and LostSoul has made similar claims in other threads. But I don't agree myself - the ingame reality makes a big difference to skill challenge resolution, and to aspects of combat resolution (eg terrain and positioning, which are ingame phenomena as well as rules phenomena).

I think the fact that the game benefits so much from strong preparation (eg drawing up battlemaps, preplanning skill challenges) can push towards a type of railroading in which all the players can do to affect the game is make tactical decisions at the level of encounter resolution. And this in turn can push toward the game being played purely as a boardgame rather than a roleplaying game with a world that is other than wallpaper.

But I don't see this as inherent to the game. What would be good, though, would be some rules text that actually adressed this (perhaps building on some of the Robin Laws stuff in the early part of DMG2).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 30, 2010)

rounser said:


> Right, getting the picture here.  You're off on some Sun Tzu fantasy tip. I made the mistake of assuming we were talking about a D&D magic-user who casts vancian spells, but it's more of a theoretical ultimate Kung Fu, ninjas wailing on guitars type ideal than anything relatable to um, playing a magic-user character, and if I don't get the gawdlike possibilities that are apparent from having memorized a blur spell then clearly my Kung Fu is sadly lacking.
> 
> Carry on.




If you don't have an argument or response, don't post.



> More stuff about the "temporal world"




Again, I'm not getting it.

You're saying that 4e needs all these rules for being a baron or a lord or starting a guild but those have _never_ existed.

Watch, I'm about to spell out all the rules for being a lord in previous editions.  Ready?

"When a fighter hits level 9 they attract some followers if they have a castle."

Boom.  That's it.  That's the entire rule(s).  It mentions that the DM will know more rules to go beyond that, but I've read the DMG and I don't recall ever seeing them there (certainly correct me if I'm wrong!)

I again find the complaints funny, as when 3e came out, people were demanding the opposite you were.  "RULES for the 'temporal world,'" they would say, though they probably didn't use the phrase temporal world, "that *destroys* the roleplaying!  You aren't meant to have a rule or mechanic for everything!  Let people play out such things!"

It's a funny trend.  The game bulks up in non-combat rules and it's destroying roleplaying and becoming a hack and slash.  The game thins out the non-combat rules and...it's destroying roleplaying and becoming a hack and slash.

Me personally?  I'm happy without the rules and mechanics there (though granted I've been on a bit of a rules-lite binge for awhile now).  It means that players can literally do anything they think of without having to refer to charts (old editions) or a thousand rules (3e) or individual powers (4e).  They want to be a lord?  Fantastic!  _I don't need rules for that._  We can play it by ear!  Maybe big decisions come up and they need to decide on a course of action.  I don't need a set of rules for that!


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 30, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> What makes D&D Different is the existence of the Temporal World and while you and I can graft that onto the game because we grew up with a tradition that assumed it, it doesn't seem like WotC thinks it's worth pushing to the fore.
> [. . .]
> 
> AD&D assumed a certain set of built-in ambitions and these were good and served two generations of gamer well, but WotC could do better.
> ...




Matt, I agree that 4E has narrowed D&D's focus too tightly on the encounter. And I agree that building beyond that serves D&D both by highlighting its unique strengths compared to similar forms of entertainment, and by inspiring play and players.

But I totally don't get this Temporal World kick you're on. Maybe in part it's because of your examples: In 30 years of gaming, in D&D and probably 50 other systems, I've never once had a character who was motivated by the sorts of things you're talking about.

Great campaigns, great settings, and in particular great conflicts. Intriguing adventure concepts. Mystery. Atmosphere. These are all pulls, at least for me, and they are all areas where RPGs really shine.

But the chance to build a stronghold or start a guild? Whatever.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 30, 2010)

rounser said:


> Except to former fans of in-print FR, who map to former fans of in-print D&D quite nicely, given that the same people are behind both projects. And mostly negative Amazon reviews suggest that _most_ people don't like it, just like Pathfinder seems to be eating D&D's cake at the moment, maybe.
> 
> But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...




The fact that fans of FR were disappointed by the 4E treatment of it might be proof that WotC made some bad calls about the direction they took it in - but it isn't proof that the 4E designers _hate the game_. 

That's what ProfC is trying to argue - whether you like it or not, the 4E FR setting was the work of people who felt they were genuinely improving the game. That doesn't mean they made the best possible changes - but the changes that were made, they made because they _thought _they were good decisions. 

And given that, when they received complaints over the setting, they have since followed up with 2 settings that have gotten very good reviews - that sounds like part of their goal _is _to listen to their fanbase and try not to repeat the mistakes they've made. 

Feel free to accuse the WotC designers of having made blunders with 4E. I won't say your wrong. (I don't think any edition of D&D is perfect, myself, and the same goes for Pathfinder and pretty much every other RPG as well.) Even I like changes they made which you dislike, that doesn't change the fact that they've made choices which you disagree with. 

But claiming they made those choices because of a lack of passion for the game just seems willfully blind. And guess what, if you actually asked many of the people at Paizo - many designers who have worked alongside the designers at WotC, have gamed with them, who consider them friends - I'm confident they would tell you that the designers at WotC care about the game they are making just as much as the Paizo staff cares about Pathfinder, and are just as committed to making what they think is the best game they can.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 30, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> What they need is a game that's fun to play and if a designer can't speak intelligently on what is fun, or what makes something fun, they should be fired. Throwing up your hands and saying "well everyone's idea of fun is different" means "we should not be paying you to make fun games."




Eh, I think the argument is less, "We can't define fun, because everyone's idea of fun is different", and more, "There are many different approaches to a game, and we have chosen one we are happy with, though we know that others might have preferred a different choice."



mattcolville said:


> Epic Destinies are as close as WotC gets, but I think they're a cop-out. First, they're sort of the opposite of ambition. They're what you get when you've already achieved everything else. I'm talking about stuff like.
> 
> ...
> 
> Which, based on my assessments of how people play the game, is something players should be thinking about and given tools for at around 7th level.




I think the Paragon level divide is really what is aimed at this area, but that it is true there isn't enough support there. I think the existence of the tier divide itself helps the DM work on these developments, but that there is room for WotC to go farther. I don't think Epic Destinies are 'the opposite of ambition' as you say - they just are a later step in the process. 

It is the step in between that you are looking for: The fighter starts as a Hero in the Heroic tier. By the Epic tier, he is a King. What you want (and what I agree would be useful) is the Paragon tier declaring that he is a Lord, or General, or otherwise at some role in between. Should this be developed via Paragon Path? Some of them come close. Or maybe some new system could be in place. 

Still, I do think that the existence of the tiers, and the example set by Epic Destinies, shows more support for this sort of development than we really had in 3rd Edition. 



mattcolville said:


> The Temporal World is what gives our adventures *meaning*. That's something critically missing from D&D4.
> 
> In D&D4, because of the way magic and rewards work, it _doesn't matter_ what adventure your character goes on. He's going to come out the other side exactly the same as if he'd gone through any other adventure.
> 
> He's going to get some money that he can't really buy anything with, some XP, and some magic.




...and the favors of the people he has saved, influence with the region, a greater reputation, etc. I'm not sure where you are seeing the lack of these things. 

My first 4E adventure was Keep on the Shadowfell, and we emerged with the friendship of the local lord - not to mention a goblin henchman. In LFR, my characters have all sorts of regional favors and reputations and titles. 

I just don't see how 'magic and rewards' work differently in 4E in some fundamental way that removes the connections to the 'Temporal World'. 



mattcolville said:


> We can't tell, by looking at your character sheet, which *in-game* choices your character made. We can only see the choices the player made when he leveled up.




Now, this is an interesting comment. I've seen players for whom this is true, and others for whom it is not. Some players will certainly still make their feat choices based on what is appropriate given their character's experiences. Others will take a hodge-podge of options from all sorts of sources, simply because the feats work well together. And I agree that 4E doesn't do much to discourage the latter approach. 

But... thing is, the same players acted the exact same way in 3rd Edition, too. And the only reason it didn't really happen in previous editions is because you generally just had less options anyway - you didn't _have_ constant choices to make about feats and powers and such. 

Now, how could 4E encourage people to take more appropriate character options? Ones which reveal a character's nature when examined, rather than just reveal what nifty tricks he can pull off in combat? I'm honestly not sure - maybe more background on the feats, more flavor text, etc. 

Except that many already have those elements. Along with, often, skill or race or stat requirements to make sure at least somewhat appropriate characters take the feats. The players who like the flavor and background and are inspired by it will continue to be so, and will continue to make choices based on those elements. The players who don't care, and just want stuff that lets them do awesome things in the game? They will continue to ignore the fluff as much as they can. 

As it is, 4E has provided _many _tools to let your character sheet show the nature of your character. Backgrounds, skills, ability scores, paragon paths - and, yes, even feats and powers - can help define you. 

I mean... looking at a 2nd Ed Fighter's character sheet, what element on there somehow 'reveals' so much more than a 4E character sheet? What helps describe the in-game choices that have been made? The fact he has at keep at 9th level? Does that mean the character sheet is useless until that level? Or is there something else you are looking for? 



mattcolville said:


> Instead we need....well first we need to keep what we have. The 'Fighting Monsters' part works great. Now we need a world, we need context. We need adventures with choices and worlds to affect.
> 
> I love 4E. Great fun. But the absence of meaning, context, a world that exists as a _resource_, a thing to take and use and change, as opposed to wallpaper, is criminal.




I don't disagree that those are good things, I'm just... not convinced they are actually _missing _in the game. Many of WotC's adventure offerings aren't that great, but they seem to have been improving and certainly have them grounded in an in-game world. 

I mean, I'm honestly at a loss as to what you are looking for. We need "meaning, context, a world that exists as a resource" - what would provide that? Setting books? They exist. Flavor and background content is scattered through the books and magazines, in ever increasing quantities. Is it just more advice you want, in DM books, on helping character's develop as part of the 'Temporal World'?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2010)

rounser said:


> But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...






ProfessorCirno said:


> If you don't have an argument or response, don't post.




*
Ladies and gents, what we have here is a classic butting of heads.

Rounser here got kinda personal and rude.  It has gotten him booted from the thread.  Meanwhile Cirno appears to have decided he gets to tell folks when and how they may post, and that has gotten him booted from the thread.

So, they both lose.  Please do your level best to avoid joining them - Keep It Civil.*


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If you don't have an argument or response, don't post.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not getting it.
> ...




I'm glad you're happy. If you want to see some interesting 4e house rules for BECMI-style dominions, try these:

Strongholds and Henchmen for 4e | Greywulf's Lair

War Machine, revised: Mass Combat for 4e | Greywulf's Lair

Also, the Adventurer's Vault 2 seemed to have a lot of items that were ready made for an adventuring lord's stronghold. 

C.I.D.


----------



## tuxgeo (Dec 30, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> I'm glad you're happy. If you want to see some interesting 4e house rules for BECMI-style dominions, try these:
> 
> Strongholds and Henchmen for 4e | Greywulf's Lair
> 
> ...




Bit of price inflation there? Not to drag this thread fully into House-Rule territory, but: 

Your first link suggests paying Henchmen 1 GP per day; that's above the prices listed in the 3.x SRD, which lists 1 SP per day for untrained, or 3 SP per day for trained hirelings (not that such a minor difference matters much at Level 10. . . .).


----------



## catastrophic (Dec 30, 2010)

I always thought a good angle for strongholds would be to give them a character sheet like a pc. It might be a bit complex, but then again depending on what you wanted to do with it, it might just take a re-skinned 4e PC, or something comparable.

If you're talking literally about a stronghold, you could sally fourth with your army hard boiled style, with each pc running a character to represent their personal forces. On a more abstract level, a town or keep you controlled could be run as a PC in a broader, strategic combat scenario to represent the effects of patrols and the like on nearby populations of goblins and such. 

Beyond that, you could even reskin 4e combat as statecraft, and have a single battle represent a year of trade, politicking, squabbles over land claims, and the like. Moving on the map would not represent geographic movement obv, but rather your strategic focus in the region you occupy. So on a single round of such a combat, the party's wizard might cast thunderwave on an enemy cult, to represent the mages guild they run going into small townships in the region and teaching the locals warning signs and minor charms to help them deal with cult incursions.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 30, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Bit of price inflation there? Not to drag this thread fully into House-Rule territory, but:
> 
> Your first link suggests paying Henchmen 1 GP per day; that's above the prices listed in the 3.x SRD, which lists 1 SP per day for untrained, or 3 SP per day for trained hirelings (not that such a minor difference matters much at Level 10. . . .).





Yeah you're right.....hmmmm. That would make more sense, even if you're talking about a hired minion who expects to see frontline combat. 

I'll refrain from ad hominem attacks for questioning me with the old srd rules by saying that I like Greywulf's second link though, and his overall assertion that 4e captures a lot of BECMI's spirit.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 30, 2010)

I think I get what Rousner was getting at, of course I am not positive and with him getting the boot doubt we will know. 

Anyways i think it was not just rules but support for none combat actions PC's want to accomplish. Like the rules Paizo added in Pathfinder for kingdom building. They are there to help a GM, run kingdom building if the PC's want to do something like that. 

I THINK that's what he was getting at.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 30, 2010)

_"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.'  With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls._

To me, this thread and so many others like it seem like evidence that Mike Mearls needs to do what he says: be open to change and react to what people say.

Speaking as someone who's been watching this from the outside, I'd say that 4e is popular and has adherents and converts and apologists.  But something is preventing it from achieving the traction, the market penetration, that previous editions did.

And that something is the fact that not everyone wants what 4e provides.  D&D no longer has a fanbase.  It has about a dozen small fanbases that add up to one large one, but they aren't all going to switch to radical new concepts.

When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones.  When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones.  Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones?  It makes no sense at all.

Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them.  Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like.  And then they'll all be happy.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 30, 2010)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> _When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones.  When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones.  Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones?  It makes no sense at all.
> 
> Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them.  Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like.  And then they'll all be happy._



_

I agree with you but it won't ever happen because of the pennypinchers at WotC/Hasbro. To them it's all about efective cost management and you don't get the investment back still publishing four editions of the rules.

IMO what needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!_


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 30, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> In 30 years of gaming, in D&D and probably 50 other systems, I've never once had a character who was motivated by the sorts of things you're talking about.
> 
> Great campaigns, great settings, and in particular great conflicts. Intriguing adventure concepts. Mystery. Atmosphere. These are all pulls, at least for me, and they are all areas where RPGs really shine.
> 
> *But the chance to build a stronghold or start a guild? Whatever.*






mattcolville said:


> AD&D assumed a certain set of built-in ambitions and these were good and served two generations of gamer well, but WotC could do better.
> 
> Epic Destinies are as close as WotC gets, but I think they're a cop-out. First, they're sort of the opposite of ambition. They're what you get when you've already achieved everything else. I'm talking about stuff like.
> 
> ...




@mattcolville
@CharlesRyan

_"Yuletide Salutations!_

_Gaining lots of treasure is something I always favored. To keep it moving I encouraged players to have their PCs hire many retainers, troops, build a castle, etc. _

_Christmas cheer,_
_Gary"_
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=125997&page=148

To each his own, but that aspect has always been one thing thats fascinated me, although I've not often advanced to the point at which I had the funds to actually do so, many of my characters had something of the aim in addition to their other personal goals.



DragonLancer said:


> I agree with you but it won't ever happen because of the pennypinchers at WotC/Hasbro. To them it's all about efective cost management and you don't get the investment back still publishing four editions of the rules.
> 
> IMO what needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!




I disagree. Change is invevitable, the rules will always evolve to some degree, otherwise the game would remain mechanically stagnant. At the same time, each edition IS different, because it plays different, if the rules never changed there would be no more editions and vice cersa. I think the attitude is one that says new editions are _supposed _to improve upon the old ones, but nonetheless, I will admit, people will have their preferences.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 30, 2010)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Speaking as someone who's been watching this from the outside, I'd say that 4e is popular and has adherents and converts and apologists.  But something is preventing it from achieving the traction, the market penetration, that previous editions did.
> 
> And that something is the fact that not everyone wants what 4e provides.




It should be noted that this was deliberate on WotC's part. The designers specifically tried to define a "sweet spot" and then geared the game to aim for it.

If it was your sweet spot, then 4E is fantastic. But if it wasn't (or if you liked the variety of previous editions), then there's really no way that 4E is going to convert you.

I'm not sure whether to classify 4E's embrace of dissociated mechanics as part of this same inclination (largely eliminating the simulationist elements of D&D's previously successful wedding of simulationist and gamist mechanics) or something separate. But it's also proven very problematic for many former fans.

To put it a different way: D&D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that "do one thing and do it well" was a better way to go.

Personally, I think D&D abandoning the "big tent" model is really bad news for the RPG industry: D&D remains the gateway product, and when the gateway product suddenly starts appealing to a more exclusionary set of tastes, the problem is self-evident.

Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 30, 2010)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones.  When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones.  Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones?  It makes no sense at all.
> 
> Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them.  Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like.  And then they'll all be happy.



  Actually books go out of print all the time.  While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million.   It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.  

Also, older Agatha Christie novels and Metallica albums provide something unique to the person being introduced to the artist for the first time.  The new 4e D&D player who is enjoying the game is much less likely to go and spend money on an older ruleset that isn't compatible with their current one simply to experience it the way someone might want to read every book by an author or hear every recording by their favorite band.  

It just doesn't make much business sense to leave all versions in print.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves.




This is me EXACTLY.

I've played/supported every edition since Red Box basic. Even though I moved away from 2nd Ed eventually I played for about 4 - 5 years before I did so. 4E is the first edition that I havent supported. I've moved on to Pathfinder as my fantasy RPG and as long as it's around that's what I'll be playing. WOTC has effectively lost me as a fan of D&D and that's OK. I'm playing what I like. 4E's design is not for me and I'm glad that I see that people in this thread have seen the same thing about it that I have. It's not a terrible game just not the game that I want to play.

And seriously? No one wants to build a castle of fort? Most of my players, especially in the 1E days either wanted to or actually DID build bases and small castles and fort. If for no other reason than to have a place to store their loot! I had players figuring out how much gold they'd need to build something then HAND ME THE LAYOUT ON GRAPH PAPER. 

From my recollection this sort of thing was kind of encouraged if not in the rules (I dont have my 1E DM's guide anymore *sniff*) but in Dragon Magazine articles as well.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 30, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> I disagree. Change is invevitable, the rules will always evolve to some degree, otherwise the game would remain mechanically stagnant. At the same time, each edition IS different, because it plays different, if the rules never changed there would be no more editions and vice cersa. I think the attitude is one that says new editions are _supposed _to improve upon the old ones, but nonetheless, I will admit, people will have their preferences.




I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules. D&D really doesn't need to change either. It's done just so that they can re-release old books updated to a new system and generate even more cash (can't fault them there it's whay a business is for) but I personally don't see it. D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 30, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules. D&D really doesn't need to change either. It's done just so that they can re-release old books updated to a new system and generate even more cash (can't fault them there it's whay a business is for) but I personally don't see it. *D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul*.




But of course there is a subtle difference between "D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and _just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul_." and 




DragonLancer said:


> What needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!




I _do_ appreciate the clarification. I myself dont think my original post was _entirely_ out of line with that idea, evolution is inevitable _and_ happens over a long period of time with many small changes. _Revolution _turns things around, its series of big, sudden, rapid changes-more akin to _mutation_ than evolution. Some would say thats a VERY accurate word for whats happened to the game. Some would not. Either way, those who support changes in the rules usually have an attitude and spirit that is about improving or fixing things as I mentioned. I would wholeheartedly support a revolution in the rules IF it made things _better_ on every front. I have not experienced 4e enough to be able to say that 4e or Essentials was that. 

ME personally? I think 4e's inception was admittedly, _more_ driven by their need to protect their intellectual property (see many, many, other threads debating that point) rather than improving the game as it should have been-albeit I like some changes that I have become aware of, which is why I say "more" and not _"totally"_.


----------



## lamia (Dec 30, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Actually books go out of print all the time.  While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million.   It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.
> 
> Also, older Agatha Christie novels and Metallica albums provide something unique to the person being introduced to the artist for the first time.  The new 4e D&D player who is enjoying the game is much less likely to go and spend money on an older ruleset that isn't compatible with their current one simply to experience it the way someone might want to read every book by an author or hear every recording by their favorite band.
> 
> It just doesn't make much business sense to leave all versions in print.




I can't claim to know a lot about business, but it does seem to me like there would be a good deal of opportunity for profit.

I know I'm one of those weirdos who owns multiple copies of my favorite books because of a fancy new cover or author commentary. Perhaps if they just added some minimal amount of new and special content, dressed the old editions in jaunty new hat..there are at least some of us who would want it!

I also see an awful lot of demand from working in a bookstore. Our 3 most requested items in the games section are 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Monster Manual 3, and Book of the Nine Swords.  We could put out copies of any of these on the shelf for a hefty price, and even if it looked as if it had been dropped in the toilet and had the edges chewed off by Fluffy..they would sell within the week.

Not trying to be cantankerous, I honestly have no idea what kind of sales would constitute a reprint being worth it. And like I said before, I don't expect it. But it would be interesting to see how well such a thing would work out if the risk were taken!


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 30, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules.




I don't think you can include VtM, really; there was quite a change between oWoD and nWod.

Although I agree D&D should have gone for smaller tweaks than an overhaul with the switch from 3E to 4E, I do seem to remember in the 90's that as D&D 2E started getting into being over a decade old it got plenty slammed - mostly by the WoD players I knew, but also by many of its long-standing players - about the game being "archaic" and losing fans left and right because its mechanics were being left in the dust by newer games with "modern" mechanics and systems (primarily skill-based systems, like the WoD books, GURPS and the like).

Were D&D not to seek a way to improve itself over time, I think we would have, in time, seen it grow long in the tooth like it had in 2E and lost a number of fans over a game that "hadn't changed in ages".  (Though the OSR seems to prove that some people will come back to a game after some time away).


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 30, 2010)

Actually you can included Vampire. You had 1st edition, then a couple of years later 2nd edition, minor changes and tweaks, then revised edition about 8 year later, which had more changes than before but still was basically the same game. Then they decided to redo the game and change all kinds of stuff. They keep growing until they did nWoD stuff then they tanked.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 31, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Actually books go out of print all the time. While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million. It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.




Nowadays we have technologies like .pdfs, or print-on-demand.  Press runs are no longer necessary.


----------



## Erik Mona (Dec 31, 2010)

We were always building keeps for our characters and stuff when we were kids. This was a major part of the game for us. Of course, as a DM there was nothing better than using a player's map of his stronghold to plan a vengeful monster invasion. 

It was great.

--Erik


----------



## Erik Mona (Dec 31, 2010)

Now that I think about it, running a business, editing an in-game newspaper, and claiming/refurbishing a run-down castle as the party headquarters were all major parts of Monte Cook's Ptolus campaign during the 3e era ("staffed" entirely by WotC designers and alumni), so this wasn't something relegated to the 1970s, either.

At least not for me! 

--Erik


----------



## Shazman (Dec 31, 2010)

"To put it a different way: D&D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that "do one thing and do it well" was a better way to go.

Except if even that one thing (I presume combat in 4E's case) isn't done in an way that appeals to many players, that tent gets even smaller, dangerously smaller.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 31, 2010)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> _"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.'  With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls._
> 
> Regardless of if they planned to it or not, they were pretty successful at "firing" a lot of fans. I don't know how successful they were at getting new fans, though.


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 31, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> We were always building keeps for our characters and stuff when we were kids. This was a major part of the game for us. Of course, as a DM there was nothing better than using a player's map of his stronghold to plan a vengeful monster invasion.
> 
> It was great.
> 
> --Erik





I agree.  The main goal for my AD&D MU was to build his 500 foot "Tower of Epic Phallic Symbol" so all would know his power.  All the campaigns centered on looting gold and magic for the purpose of gaining power in the campaign world.  Adventure and exploration were what you did to gain money and magic in your quest for world domination and reputation.  It was a game of ambition.  It wasn't about the combat...you fought only when you had to.  Fighting wasn't balanced and all wussified with an expectation of success based on your uber-build...there was actually a more than decent chance you would die back then.  Why attempt it?  

That's still the way I play today.  That sort of mindset is frowned upon in society these days.  The political correctness of the 90's did a lot to kill off a generation of gamers who may otherwise have appreciated such a style of gaming.

I remember in 1976-77, in Second Grade, after gym class, whoever won whatever game we played that week got the right to sing at the top of their lungs a portion of the Queen song "We are the champions, my friend...",  and shout out the part "NO TIME FOR LOSERS"  and taunt the other team.  What did that do for us?  Whoever was on the losing team wanted to win next week and we would practice and try harder.  We wanted to be winners and be able to wear the mantle of winners for the week.  It made all of us better.  

Now, everybody gets a trophy for showing up.  You're a winner just for fogging up the mirror under your nose.  That sort of mindset isn't one that encourages the type of game I play.   The endgame with latter editions is assumed to happen, rather than something that exceptional players strived for and achieved only after the harshest of trials.  Now you get it just for completing X # of tactical combat encounters which you knew you'd win anyhow, because the rules are designed to let you win.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 31, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I don't think you can include VtM, really; there was quite a change between oWoD and nWod.




Old and new Worlds of Darkness are two very different animals. Masquerade is a different game to Requiem. Very different. 

As Dark Mistress said, you have 3 editions of Masquerade and other than minor tweaks it is the same system all the way through. When WW wanted to change system they did away with the old game and made a brand new one with a similar but different system.



> Although I agree D&D should have gone for smaller tweaks than an overhaul with the switch from 3E to 4E, I do seem to remember in the 90's that as D&D 2E started getting into being over a decade old it got plenty slammed - mostly by the WoD players I knew, but also by many of its long-standing players - about the game being "archaic" and losing fans left and right because its mechanics were being left in the dust by newer games with "modern" mechanics and systems (primarily skill-based systems, like the WoD books, GURPS and the like).




I can see that because 2nd edition was an overhaul of 1st edition and it made more sense but was essentially the same system as 1st. When WotC took over they changed the system to some more contemporary and did a grand job with the 3rd and 3.5 editions. However when it came to doing 4th was it nessecary to change the entire system? The D20 system worked very well. Why not just change and fix the flaws rather than change it? I don't think the OGL hurt them as much as they may think. The OGL was one of the best things to happen in the industry for a long time and most likely helped a lot of their sales.

I probably wouldn't include GURPS as a modern system either as it's very archaic and out of date IMO. But that's just my look at it.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 31, 2010)

Yeah, at least the OGL let other companies make adventures and campaign settings for the game, some of which were very good.  4E could definitely use more companies making adventures and campaign settings for the system because WotC is astonishingly bad at it.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 31, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> Old and new Worlds of Darkness are two very different animals. Masquerade is a different game to Requiem. Very different.
> 
> 
> I probably wouldn't include GURPS as a modern system either as it's very archaic and out of date IMO. But that's just my look at it.




Well, I think if you're going to talk about 4E D&D vs. previous versions, I think it is proper to note the significant shift of oWoD to nWoD.

Can't say too much on GURPS, never actually played it; only know it by reputation.

In the end, I wish WotC had gone along the lines of Pathfinder, rather than going with the changes that resulted in 4E.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 31, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Well, I think if you're going to talk about 4E D&D vs. previous versions, I think it is proper to note the significant shift of oWoD to nWoD.




I agree. I'm just pointing out that Masquerade and Requiem are two different game systems, not an update.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2010)

> "Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.' With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls.




I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

Anyway, I don't at all doubt the team's thorough dedication to the game, or their good intentions. As a player and DM of D&D 2, 3, and 4, I don't feel 'fired' at all. I do feel like sometimes the Coasties succumb to groupthink and arrogance ("We've discussed it amongst ourselves, and we've made a decision, and we're the best D&D folks around, so it's the best decision, now don't you agree?"), but I think they try hard (or at least try hard _now_) to dispel those flaws. 

The worst flaws of 4e have been piracy paranoia-inspired (which has nothing to do with the designers and everything to do with the suits), and One True Way-inspired (which is less about not caring and more about ignorance of the merits of contrary opinions).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.




Did you perhaps miss the vitriol dumped on WotC around the time of the release of 4e?  There's nothing weird about it.  What you describe would not be a characterization of some of what was said at that time.

It was not a shining hour for gamers.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.




There was a user on this very board who said WotC releasing 4E was akin to them shooting his dog.  


And he was dead serious.

So, yeah Mearls probably was asked why WotC shot someone's dog.  It wouldn't surprise me in the least.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.




There were users on the WotC forums who suggested the devs be strung up by their toes and beaten because of 4E.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 31, 2010)

Those both may have been me.  

I got better though.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2010)

Lots of folks said:
			
		

> snip replies




Oh, I wasn't disputing that there's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I was just wondering the particular context of _this_ particular butthurt. 

I'm well aware that a lack of adequate perspective is almost a prerequisite to be able to sit in someone's basement for four hours a week and pretend to be an elf as D&D requires.  

I just like my quotes _sourced_, dammit!


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd be interested to see the context of that quote.




The Escapist : Complete Mike Mearls D&D 4th Edition Essentials Interview

I believe that's the interview. I'm not going to go searching through its pages right now, so apologies if it's not. 




Kamikaze Midget said:


> Anyway, I don't at all doubt the team's thorough dedication to the game, or their good intentions.




I share your non-doubt over their good intentions and dedication to the game. Their execution was the problem, in my opinion. In that interview I linked above, it's pretty clear that WOTC has figured out there was a major problem with 4e and is trying a new tack with 4.5e/Essentials.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

The suggestion (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...nity-i-think-ive-figured-out.html#post5413160 ) that "to stay relevant" D&D has to be played mostly by adolescents seems to me unfounded. The notion that it has to be traded in for something like a computerized RISUS (or whatever "Minimal" mattcolville had in mind) is even more bizarre, being apparently contrary even to the first!

Gygax and Arneson and most of the rest of the gamers who got the hobby started were not little kids. They were not averse to children playing, either -- Gygax's were the first play-testers of his version. The Basic/Expert Set cover blurb, "For 3 or More Adults, Ages 10 and Up", seems right on to me.

I think that getting stuck in the ghetto of "just for adolescent boys" is about as bad for paper-and-pencil games as it was for video games. What that does is shrink the market!

It certainly doesn't make D&D a video game. The closest you can get to that is _actually to make_ a video game and slap the D&D name on it. "Burning down the village to save it" really just means you've got one village less.

S. John Ross is not exactly sweeping the teen set with his "Here's some arbitrary dice rolls, now you make up some $#!%" pamphlet. Kids _already know_ how to play "let's pretend" or social-network themselves into online collaborative story-telling groups. If that's what they want, _they've got it!_

It's mainly old farts who are ready to fork out filthy lucre for such stuff, and not a lot at that. RISUS, for example, is free. So is FUDGE, and at least one version of FATE, and tons of other "indie RPGs" that kids generally don't know or want to know about.

I'm not seeing Hasbro-level profits there, and at any rate I'm not seeing how "D&D" has jack to do with luring people who don't give a fig about D&D (much less about that "indie RPG" scene).


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh, I wasn't disputing that there's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I was just wondering the particular context of _this_ particular butthurt.
> 
> I'm well aware that a lack of adequate perspective is almost a prerequisite to be able to sit in someone's basement for four hours a week and pretend to be an elf as D&D requires.
> 
> I just like my quotes _sourced_, dammit!




To help you source this post.

In the room of infinite monkeys and typewriters, Monkey #345,432,567 at computer XT654456YZ typed this exact post on January 23rd, 2008 at 23:34:03

Just for your information.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.




... why did you have to bring up Buster?

I loved that dog.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

mattcolville said:


> Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?



Killing monsters hasn't seriously been "an unsolved problem" in game design since the Pharaohs ruled Egypt, or some time prior. The Fantasy Supplements for Chainmail and WRG (4th?) were just popular rules sets -- not groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics or something.

As for D&D, what's next is up to you.

It has been since 1974!


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

jeffh said:
			
		

> You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me).



About ten minutes versus an hour or more, for a start!

As The Man said, 







			
				1st DMG said:
			
		

> The fun of the game is action and drama. The challenge of problem solving is secondary. Long and drawn out operations by the referee irritate the players. More "realistic" combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure.




If your tastes are different, then that is fine. Why must D&D attract the perverse "It's not _fun_ because it's not _my_ rules-set with the D&D trademark on the cover" types? Can't they go pick on someone else's hobby? The perpetual "re-imagining" is just making the brand worthless.

How about *Palladium* or *SenZar*? Either you can carry on merrily making the same complaint about them -- or you'll recognize their awesome perfection and be too busy playing them to play the crying game! (You can still go on about how D&D sucks, but it won't be so annoyingly perverse when you're a partisan of a game you *actually like*.)


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 31, 2010)

Damn, I step out for a day or two and look what happens. It may be difficult to go back and find which posts I left unanswered, so I'll just throw in a few comments.

First of all, I think Ycore Rixle (and others) hit the nail on the head when they say that the _execution _has been the problem, or at least (one of) the biggest problem(s). I think this has something to do with a strange incapacity to really work with feedback, or to have a living, dynamic feedback mechanism with the fans.

Secondly, Ariosto re-iterates one of my points, which is that it is the old farts which fork out a lot of the dough. This isn't popular music, where it is the 11-14 year olds that are buying the singles on Itunes and it doesn't matter if we old guys want a new The The or Jamiroquai album. Not only is this a greying hobby, but the old farts now have at least some disposable income. Even poor private school teachers like myself can afford to spend $50+ a month on RPGs; most 12-year olds can't do that (or at least I couldn't).

Finally, I have to agree with what Kamikaze Midget and others have said about what amounts to a lack of vision on WotC's part. Back to execution. I have seen similar situations where it isn't as much the problems with what, say, a leadership body does and how they need to change, it is that they might not have the right personnel. I am wondering if this is the case with WotC; afaict they don't seem to have as many independent thinking, lone wolf designers as they did back in the early 3.x days. No Jonathan Tweets, no Monte Cooks.

I would love to see WotC try some more experiments like the setting search competition, but with more things going on, more variations, even as a regular practice. How about polls in Dragon with campaign world or adventure seeds, and the question: "Which do you want us to develop?" Then people vote and we get to choose which idea they develop. Stuff like that - a greater degree of interaction with the fanbase, with a stronger feedback loop.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't believe that WoTC's designers woke up one day and thought 'Let's smash D&D and disenfranchise all the old fans.'

However, I do think 4E was designed with the following (invalid) assumptions and that these assumptions and starting points were fuelled by corporate anc commercial concerns;

1) Any game released by WoTC labelled 'D&D' will be successful.

2) D&D4E will lose some 'old skool gamers' with but the increase in new gamers will MORE than compensate.

3) WoTC designers know and can closely define what is 'fun' about the experience that everyone has when they play D&D. The 'fun' part of D&D is all about minatures based tactical combat and there is no requirement for the game to model the real world in any way = dissociated mechanics are just fine.

4) 4E must distance itself from 3E and cut off 3PPs and the OGL; hence some of the stranger and more abtruse changes to D&D.

I am not accusing the D&D designers of lacking passion; I AM accusing them of bowing down to corporate pressure to design a game that would be a commercial success by tapping into minatures sales and DDI and that would be distinct enough from the 3E based OGL generation of games to mean that the D&D IP is protected.

There is nothing wrong with these goals per se, but when they are the PRIMARY drivers for the content of an RPG, then you have a BIG problem.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Gygax and Arneson and most of the rest of the gamers who got the hobby started were not little kids.




So?  How old the original people were has exactly diddly to do with who, in the long run, actually bought (and buys) the stuff.  



Mercurius said:


> Secondly, Ariosto re-iterates one of my points, which is that it is the old farts which fork out a lot of the dough.




I'm going to guess that WotC knows it's market data better than we do.

The only data we have access to is now old - the 1999 market survey results.  They have about 66% of tabletop RPG players as being under 25 years old.  We don't know the breakdown in terms of dollar sales.  Nor do we know the reason why the bulk of gamers were so young.

However, it does look like the traditional market was young.  And I don't think you'll build a cogent argument that the older set is a place where they're apt to be able to grow the market substantially.   Keeping older gamers around isn't a bad idea, but if you can manage it, getting new gamers is a better long-term strategy.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 31, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Secondly, Ariosto re-iterates one of my points, which is that it is the old farts which fork out a lot of the dough. This isn't popular music, where it is the 11-14 year olds that are buying the singles on Itunes and it doesn't matter if we old guys want a new The The or Jamiroquai album. Not only is this a greying hobby, but the old farts now have at least some disposable income. Even poor private school teachers like myself can afford to spend $50+ a month on RPGs; most 12-year olds can't do that (or at least I couldn't).




I think that you are looking at this part wrong. There are two factors which get taken into account when looking at how much age groups spend. The number of people in the age group spending and the amount that they spend. While it is highly probable that people in older age-groups have more disposable income to spend, there are going to be less of them spending money on RPGs than younger people.

The larger population spending money on RPGs at the lower age groups will balance out (and probably exceed) the larger amounts spent by us old farts.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

How old the hobbyists were who made up something that they and their fellow hobbyists enjoyed did indeed have something to do with the nature of the thing and its ability to attract other people from that demographic -- because they intentionally made it so.

It was no accident that Fred Rogers' "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" was a hit with the preschool demographic, and there are countless other instances in which anyone should be able to see that both content and presentation can target a particular audience.

Gygax and Arneson invented something that appealed to 10-year-old boys *and* 17-year-old girls *and* 30-year-old men and women. It appealed significantly less to the distaff segment, but I don't remember anyone saying, "Hey, there are too many chicks in the scene, so we'd better crank up the misogyny to keep D&D 'relevant'."


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

> Keeping older gamers around isn't a bad idea, but if you can manage it, getting new gamers is a better long-term strategy.



It's definitely not the strategy of new "editions", at least as that has been explained!


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 31, 2010)

Ydars said:


> I am not accusing the D&D designers of lacking passion; I AM accusing them of bowing down to corporate pressure to design a game that would be a commercial success by tapping into minatures sales and DDI and that would be distinct enough from the 3E based OGL generation of games to mean that the D&D IP is protected.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with these goals per se, but when they are the PRIMARY drivers for the content of an RPG, then you have a BIG problem.




Yes, well said and this could describe the problem with American economics as a whole: profit before people, culture, and art. This is why I wonder if RPGs as a medium is inherently better suited to relatively small companies because once you get to a certain point--and once you sell yourself to a corporate giant like Hasbro--you start losing sight of certain things. This is why we can cross our fingers that Paizo doesn't get _too _big and if it does, they somehow manage to stay "small."



Umbran said:


> So?  How old the original people were has exactly diddly to do with who, in the long run, actually bought (and buys) the stuff.
> 
> I'm going to guess that WotC knows it's market data better than we do.
> 
> ...




Yes, but the point I was going to make was actually made in the next post by mudbunny: quantity of players is a separate matter from amount of product purchased. I'm in a game group of seven and I am the only one who buys RPGs regularly. I'm the only serious-to-hardcore gamer, everyone else is casual. If we look at how many 4E sales we have have contributed, five or six of the other six have purchased a PHB, one purchased a Red Box, a couple official dice, and a few had DDI for at least a month or two to get the Character Builder and I think that's it. Meanwhile I've purchased about 60% of the total 35ish hardcovers, plus a few Essentials products, plus one or two adventures, plus I had a DDI subscription for about a year and a half. 

So of the seven of us, I would guess that six have spent a total of about $250-300 on 4E products, maybe $4-500 including DDI, while alone I've spent about over $1,000 (and I don't even buy D&D miniatures). 

Now this has nothing to do with age as we are all in our 30s or 40s. But what it does have to do with is the split between the "casual" and "diehard" gamers. Going on the above figures, if you take my anecdote as roughly exemplary of that buying difference, I spend about as much money on new D&D stuff as about 10 casual players. If we take DDI out of the equation then it becomes something like 20.

I may be wrong, but my guess is that a larger percentage of 30+ players are diehard than 12-20 players, at least in terms of purchasing. 



mudbunny said:


> I think that you are looking at this part wrong. There are two factors which get taken into account when looking at how much age groups spend. The number of people in the age group spending and the amount that they spend. While it is highly probable that people in older age-groups have more disposable income to spend, there are going to be less of them spending money on RPGs than younger people.
> 
> The larger population spending money on RPGs at the lower age groups will balance out (and probably exceed) the larger amounts spent by us old farts.




Yes, exactly. But this just supports what I am saying: there may be less old farts buying stuff, but we're probably buying a lot more stuff. But I think you are right, that it balances out - so we have two _roughly _equal purchasing groups: the 10% or so of players that buy half the product and the 90% that buy the other half. Now the thing is, that 10% is your core that are more likely to continue purchasing _if _they (we!) like the product. The 90% is more fickle and changeable; at best a few of them enter the 10%, but more likely their interest fades and dies.

So it may be that the normal major goals of retaining old players and finding new ones are secondary as a "key to success" to _finding ways to make existing casual fans into diehard fans. _Or, at the least, it is equal to the other goals and probably under-emphasized by WotC. I think this key has to do with, to go back to someone's comment earlier on, offering a truly great experience that you can't get elsewhere, that isn't simply a complex board-game or a social video game.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 31, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, exactly. But this just supports what I am saying: there may be less old farts buying stuff, but we're probably buying a lot more stuff. But I think you are right, that it balances out - so we have two _roughly _equal purchasing groups: the 10% or so of players that buy half the product and the 90% that buy the other half. Now the thing is, that 10% is your core that are more likely to continue purchasing _if _they (we!) like the product. The 90% is more fickle and changeable; at best a few of them enter the 10%, but more likely their interest fades and dies.




I am not sure that the buying power is equal for the two groups. I strongly suspect that the buying power of the younger group is much higher than that of the older group. I also think that you are ignoring the fact that the 10 % core that you speak of...they were once part of the 90 % young group.

Now WotC surely has market research that tells them the % of young buyers/players as opposed to old buyers/players, and how much they tend to be retained from year to year and generation to generation. I *suspect* (and this is just a guess) that economic theory would say that the best path to continued success is to aim your focus at the larger youth market in hopes of converting more of them to the long-term group. Focusing solely on the older group means that you are not expanding your audience, you are, at best, stagnating it.

While it would be nice to be able to find a single product that can be aimed at both groups, I am not sure that it is possible. Different cultural influences and advances in games over the years means that the type of game (using type broadly here) that each group will enjoy may vary. In some cases it may vary some, in others it may vary a lot.

This isn't a challenge solely faced by WotC. This is faced by everyone in media/entertainment. Movies, TVs, video games, etc. They all have to find ways to follow the changing trends of what consumers want and how many want each type of (often conflicting) change. If they guess right more often than they guess wrong, they are doing a pretty good job.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> This is why I wonder if RPGs as a medium is inherently better suited to relatively small companies ...



The answer is YES!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2010)

Trying to coddle and attract the elder set while neglecting the up-and-comers is a boneheaded business decision. The game needs to change and evolve, it needs to adapt, and it needs to keep trying to target those high school and middle school kids with free time and a basement. It needs to attract the WoW folks, the Harry Potter folks, the Pokemon folks, the Anime folks, the LotR Movie folks, heck, even the Twilight folks and the SAW folks. 

Of course, personally, I think a focus on tactical minis combat certainly misses _those_ marks, too, since...well...tactical minis combat isn't what people really gravitate to these things for.

Now there is an element of tactics in a lot of these...but WoW's "aggro juggling" and Pokemon's "rock-paper-scissors-BFG" are streets ahead of 4e's tactical minis combat in terms of ease, speed, and even variety. 4e's system is nice and solid, but fluid and dynamic it ain't.  

[sblock]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv-bPeyrdHA"]Streets Ahead[/ame]
[/sblock]


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 31, 2010)

lamia said:


> Actually, most of my group and I work at a used bookstore in Redmond. Most books are available for half price. But the PHB, which we've only gotten one copy of in the last year..55 bucks and sold in one day. Sadly we don't get much of a discount on out of print stuff. I think I'll just end up breaking my no laptops rule.




I just picked up a PHB for $4 in the past month (3e, not 3.5 however).  I think people are really constricted in where they are looking if they are paying $55 for a PHB.


----------



## lamia (Dec 31, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> I just picked up a PHB for $4 in the past month (3e, not 3.5 however).  I think people are really constricted in where they are looking if they are paying $55 for a PHB.




I'm beginning to think it may be the area we are in. The Seattle area is super thick with gamers, so there is quite a bit of demand. That's great that you got one so cheap, though! 

Maybe when I go back to Texas for a visit I can find something for everyone, if they decide to stick with it.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but my guess is that a larger percentage of 30+ players are diehard than 12-20 players, at least in terms of purchasing.



Assuming access to $750 to $1000 in the first place ... I think the kind of "diehard" you have in mind is more likely among the younger set.

The "need" for an endless supply of technical manuals to play a game of imagination is, at least from what I have seen, distributed that way. Life experience tends to add both knowledge on various subjects and confidence in judgment. I have seen here many times the claim that we who are not scarred by the horrors of DMs not fettered with heavy rules-books just did not play the game as adolescents.

I started at 10 or 11, and have kept on since. I also went through a phase of wanting (if not being able to afford) the sort of load that I see young WotC-D&D enthusiasts wheel in on hand trucks.

The older players were not much into that, and neither was I beyond my teen years. *Advanced Squad Leader* is about the limit for me, and even that has been gathering dust.

The older group I'm playing with now is not buying anything at all from WotC, though, because the firm offers nothing of interest. As the company's market research suggested, people who use miniatures often spend a lot. However, the WotC miniatures one of us has came via a close-out sale when they were discontinued -- and he has not bought a D&D book more recent than "2e".


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

> Trying to coddle and attract the elder set while neglecting the up-and-comers is a boneheaded business decision.



Which WotC has made, according to the rationale for new "editions".

Remember? The Cash Cow has *already bought twice or three times* all that "IP" invented in the 1970s-80s, so *we've got no choice but to recycle it again in a form that makes C.C. feel obligated to pay out again in order to "keep up."*

People who are not yet into WotC-D&D *don't even know, much less care* about "3.0 this" or "Bo9S that" ... any of the arcana that makes 3e or 4e so appealing (and the other not) to the initiates who are already steeped in it.

I didn't even know 3e _existed_ until I happened to have some time to kill near a "comics & games" shop. Having stopped buying Official AD&D "product" in the 1990s, I did not recognize this stuff, either.

Goblins in D&D are green now? Why? A newbie would not even have the basis to wonder, never having known it to be otherwise!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I may be wrong, but my guess is that a larger percentage of 30+ players are diehard than 12-20 players, at least in terms of purchasing.




But percentage is only part of the equation.  A lower percentage does not mean a lower number of buyers, if the population is larger.

Let's go with the 2/3 young to 1/3 old from the 1999 survey.  That's 2 young gamer for every 1 old gamer.  That means, in order to have fewer diehards, the young ones have to be _*less than half as likely*_ to be diehards, or they'll equal or exceed the older folks.

Honestly, that just doesn't fit.  It is my understanding that younger folks tend to be more completionist in their buying patterns than older folks, rather than less.

Don't underestimate the buying power of younger players - are they not  the same folks who, by and large, are supporting the videogame industry at $50 a game?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Don't underestimate the buying power of younger players - are they not  the same folks who, by and large, are supporting the videogame industry at $50 a game?




Also keep in mind that the younger set has parents and relatives who are more likely to buy stuff for them. It has been a while since anyone bought gaming stuff for me. 

It may be a small point, but it is there. My kids support the music industry mainly with my money.


----------



## darjr (Dec 31, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> I just picked up a PHB for $4 in the past month (3e, not 3.5 however).  I think people are really constricted in where they are looking if they are paying $55 for a PHB.




Yea, around here I can get a 3.0 PHB cheap. It's the 3.5 PHB that is scarce as fish feathers.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 31, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I am not sure that the buying power is equal for the two groups. I strongly suspect that the buying power of the younger group is much higher than that of the older group.



I am quite confident he is right.  The buying impact of the older players is easily in the same ballpark as the younger.  It did not used to be true.  But it easily is now.  It may not (yet) be 40/60 old to young, but it is close and growing steadily in that direction.  And it may be further along than that already.

But....


> I also think that you are ignoring the fact that the 10 % core that you speak of...they were once part of the 90 % young group.



THIS is true.  The young market probably DOES represent at least 50% of the current market PLUS dominates the future market.  And that is important.

However, I don't think the young / old divide is so much WotC's problem as the invested/casual divide.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 31, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Also keep in mind that the younger set has parents and relatives who are more likely to buy stuff for them. It has been a while since anyone bought gaming stuff for me.
> 
> It may be a small point, but it is there. My kids support the music industry mainly with my money.




THIS. 

When I do have the misfortune to pop into a Gamestop (whether it's the one in Herald Square or the one in Forest Hills) most of the people dropping $50 - $60 on a game arent the 12-16 year olds, it's their parents. I'm buying my own games for the X-Box360 & Playstation 3 but my wife and I ar also buying games for my 8 year old on the Wii and his DS. Either way it's the adults spending the bulk of the cash I think.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 1, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Either way it's the adults spending the bulk of the cash I think.




This. In my situation, my spending on leisure stuff went up considerably when I was pulling my own income and making my own financial decisions versus when I was a kid and had to beg my parents for a month or two for a new nintendo game. I buy what makes me happy and what I can buy with some sense regarding my income and required expenses. Me as a 12 year old wouldn't have bought an arcade game, a life-sized xenomorph costume for halloween, or donated $500 to charity (Doctors Without Borders) for some artwork (by Julie Dillon). I didn't have to beg my parents, I just had to not eat out for dinner for a while in some cases. Admittedly, buying a house kinda put a damper on the wild and crazy days of when I got my first job after graduation, but I still do more now than I did as a kid for leisure.

Having said that, I'm almost certain a minority of TTRPG players buy a majority of the books. I might also be tempted to go out on a limb and say that more people buy RPG books and end up just reading them than actually ever use them in the game they were written for.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 1, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Having said that, I'm almost certain a minority of TTRPG players buy a majority of the books. I might also be tempted to go out on a limb and say that more people buy RPG books and end up just reading them than actually ever use them in the game they were written for.




I wouldn't be surprised at all if the vast majority of rpg splatbooks are purchased by the "compulsive completionist" type individuals.

Of such "compulsive completionist" type individuals I've known over the years, most of their purchases are read once or twice and then put on the bookshelf to collect dust.  For example, I know one person who has bought almost every single Palladium RIFTS title released over the last two decades, but has only ever played one game of RIFTS back in the early 1990's.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 1, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> I also think that you are ignoring the fact that the 10 % core that you speak of...they were once part of the 90 % young group.




No, not at all - I fully recognize that. I'm not sure how that changes things, though, in that I think the reason those 10% became diehards ("perennials" and not just "annuals") is because the TTRPG offered them something they couldn't get anywhere else. This is my key point: that in order for TTRPGs to survive and thrive, they have to remain TTRPGs, that is games that are primarily of the imagination and not of the board or screen.



mudbunny said:


> I *suspect* (and this is just a guess) that economic theory would say that the best path to continued success is to aim your focus at the larger youth market in hopes of converting more of them to the long-term group. Focusing solely on the older group means that you are not expanding your audience, you are, at best, stagnating it.




Agreed. And I am not saying focusing "solely." However, I suspect that the qualities of the game that keep the older group interested are the same qualities that will converting short-termers into long-termers, because it is those same qualities that differentiate TTRPGs from other forms of entertainment. 



mudbunny said:


> While it would be nice to be able to find a single product that can be aimed at both groups, I am not sure that it is possible. Different cultural influences and advances in games over the years means that the type of game (using type broadly here) that each group will enjoy may vary. In some cases it may vary some, in others it may vary a lot.




Yeah, this is a good question and I honestly have no idea. I'd like to see WotC _try, _though. Hey, I think they kind of did with Essentials...



mudbunny said:


> This isn't a challenge solely faced by WotC. This is faced by everyone in media/entertainment. Movies, TVs, video games, etc. They all have to find ways to follow the changing trends of what consumers want and how many want each type of (often conflicting) change. If they guess right more often than they guess wrong, they are doing a pretty good job.




Right. Here's an example of a success: The X-Men movies (or at least the first two). I stopped reading comic books back in '93 or so, but I loved the first two movies. Here's an example of a failure: The GI Joe movie, which I couldn't even get through the first ten minutes of and which I've heard largely negative reviews. I'm not sure if this is relevant but I think it touches a bit upon what you are saying, that there are ways to make a product appeal to different generations of fans. The X-Men movies appealed to older fans (and ex-fans like myself) as well as young 'uns, while the GI Joe movie may have been focusing too much on creating a younger generation of fans and thus lost sight of the older group and perhaps some of the qualities that appealed to the older group.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Trying to coddle and attract the elder set while neglecting the up-and-comers is a boneheaded business decision.




I agree. Is anyone saying that? But it isn't an either/or thing. See my example of the X-Men movies above. Old fans of the Claremont era X-Men could enjoy the first two movies because of their subtlety and humanism, but the movies also appealed to younger kids with their kewl factor.



Ariosto said:


> The "need" for an endless supply of technical manuals to play a game of imagination is, at least from what I have seen, distributed that way.




I think you are misunderstanding why people buy "unnecessary" RPG books - that is, splats and other books that one will probably not use in an actual game. Because they are fun to read, fun to look at, and nice to have on one's shelf for reference. Most modern humans like to acquire and collect things. Gamers like to collect game books. This is why you get these sorts of poll results. Granted, probably 99% of the respondents are "diehard" gamers, but that means that almost 23% of diehard EN Worlders own at least 1,000 RPG products, 40% at least 500, and almost 75% at least 100. This is why I said that approximately 10% of the gaming populace buys about half the gaming products (or something like that).



Umbran said:


> Let's go with the 2/3 young to 1/3 old from the 1999 survey.  That's 2 young gamer for every 1 old gamer.  That means, in order to have fewer diehards, the young ones have to be _*less than half as likely*_ to be diehards, or they'll equal or exceed the older folks.
> 
> Honestly, that just doesn't fit.  It is my understanding that younger folks tend to be more completionist in their buying patterns than older folks, rather than less.




Hmm...not sure I agree with your reasoning here. By definition, older folks are more likely to be diehards simply by virtue of the fact that if they're still playing at 40 or 45 then they're probably really into it. I would say that the young ones _are _less than half as likely to be diehards simply by virtue of the fact that many of them are just trying it out, just getting started and many of them won't continue past a first experience.



BryonD said:


> However, I don't think the young / old divide is so much WotC's problem as the invested/casual divide.




Well yes, or how to bring as many young players into invested/diehardness rather than casualness.



ggroy said:


> I wouldn't be surprised at all if the vast majority of rpg splatbooks are purchased by the "compulsive completionist" type individuals.
> 
> Of such "compulsive completionist" type individuals I've known over the years, most of their purchases are read once or twice and then put on the bookshelf to collect dust.  For example, I know one person who has bought almost every single Palladium RIFTS title released over the last two decades, but has only ever played one game of RIFTS back in the early 1990's.




"Compulsive completionists" are simply the most extreme version of collectors of which most diehard gamers are. See linked poll above. I'm not a compulsive completionist but I do buy about 60% of the 4E hardcovers, which is quite a few.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> I think you are misunderstanding why people buy "unnecessary" RPG books - that is, splats and other books that one will probably not use in an actual game.



I know that I have written from firsthand experience.

I am also taking into account the rationales that the publisher and buyers of the works in question have been giving.

I am not seeing how mere acquisitiveness necessitates (or even benefits from) dumping old D&D rules and putting the name on something different. I am not seeing how it necessitates (or even benefits from) not publishing -- or buying -- different games by different names, or even an ongoing series of really creative additions to a well-established line.

The *fundamental premise* I see is one of an inevitably shrinking market. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me go through all the expense of producing "Nth Edition" rather than sell new *and* classic products to new *and* classic gamers.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 1, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The *fundamental premise* I see is one of an inevitably shrinking market. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me go through all the expense of producing "Nth Edition" rather than sell new *and* classic products to new *and* classic gamers.




How would systems like Palladium RIFTS fit into this premise?  It seems to thrive on inertia even in a shrinking market.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 1, 2011)

I think one of the hurdles any company has with a RPG is the difficulty of balancing between its casual and invested players.  Invested players will bring in more money by collecting more - though often over time, whilst casual player bring in the money from being numerous, if short-lived.

The problem is, to get players invested there needs to be a staggering number of options to keep things fresh.  Generally, supplements feed this want.  On the other hand, casual players want to dive in without a huge expense in up-front time; a staggering pile of options to choose from tends to drive such folks away.

In a sense of speaking, to be successful you have to then create a game that presents a wide variety of options, but a low amount of set-up.  However, ever since AD&D, those people who want detail and options have been getting their way, culminating in 3.5E.  4E has taken a step back from this, but it's still a rule lawyer's wet dream (and I have other issues with the game, but that's for another thread).

In the end, I think I'd like to see D&D go back to a Basic/Advanced division of the game.  The casual players can have the version that suits them, and the "D&D 4 life" players can have theirs.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

ggroy said:
			
		

> How would systems like Palladium RIFTS fit into this premise?  It seems to thrive on inertia even in a shrinking market.



I don't know whether Palladium is _thriving_, but its own market might not be shrinking rapidly or at all. It keeps on selling, not just new books to old players but also old books to new players. At least, that's what it does at my FLGS.

Wizards and White Wolf do that, too. WotC at least does not seem to want to keep doing it as much.

Flying Buffalo has been in business since before TSR and GDW started, IIRC, and last I checked McEwan was still selling Star Guard.

Longevity and number of customers are not the same as profits to big business. Take the airlines (please).

(Value received by customers or even employees is also not profits.)

How many Rifts® books are there to buy? How many if we add the other lines in the Palladium Megaverse®:
After the Bomb®
Beyond the Supernatural TM
Chaos Earth TM
Dead Reign TM
Heroes Unlimited TM
Palladium Fantasy RPG®
Nightbane®
Ninjas & Superspies TM
Robotech®
Mechanoids®
Recon®
Splicers®


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 1, 2011)

*re*

I think WotC is also looking at what influences their possible future market and designing games that fit what the market is accustomed to.

When the original D&D came out, it hit with readers and artistic types like artists who loved comics and artists like Boris Vallejo. Almost everyone I played with in my youth that loved D&D was either an avid reader of fantasy or an artist. They loved the interesting artwork in D&D as well as the imaginative storytelling and the exposure to different types of mythology. It was their chance to play some character they had read about, seen in a movie, or in a picture on a cover. There was no easy to access internet, no MMORPGs, and even fantasy movies were fairly new and rare. 

You can see why D&D was an blew up with that beginning group. They were a bunch of people that had little more than their imagination to fuel their love of fantasy. They were an underserved market.

But this new generation WotC is trying to reach is mostly video gamers. Sure they probably read now and then, but nowhere near as much as earlier generations of D&D enthusiasts. They are getting their fantasy fix from video games. 

That is the younger generations influence when it comes to fantasy. So it is no wonder that WotC took the game in a different direction. You cater to your audience. But it should be no surprise that it is very difficult to sell a game targeting gamers influenced by video games to an older crowd influenced by books.

This is not an insult, it's simple honesty backed up by plenty of social data. The younger D&D generation does not read as much as the older D&D generation. So you want the game to be simpler for story and rules complexity. If there is too much to read, could be a huge barrier for younger gamers.

Which is why I think the ultimate goal of WotC and Hasbro is to leverage D&D into an MMORPG. Done well it could rival all other MMORPGs. No one has yet done it well using the available material. But it's only a matter of time until someone smart with the money purchases D&D and takes it to the virtual world to stay.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 1, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> But this new generation WotC is trying to reach is mostly video gamers. Sure they probably read now and then, but nowhere near as much as earlier generations of D&D enthusiasts. They are getting their fantasy fix from video games.
> .




Question though: how is the newest generation any different than previous generations in terms of being a video gamer generation? Earlier generations just grew up playing different consoles. If you grew up playing Atari, or NES, or SNES, Playstation, Xbox360, etc the video game influence is there, yet D&D has snagged people from each generation that grew up playing those different systems in their own time period of dominance. I don't really see anything different between then and now.

I grew up on NES and would have played SNES like mad if only my parents had bought me one for Xmas like I begged every year. I never really read any of the fantasy books that influenced the earlier D&D crowd, nor did I ever actually play 1e or 2e. Yet I'm a giant D&D nerd nonetheless, albeit from a later generation (and one that thinks 2e had some amazing moments that need to be remembered in terms of world design).

And given the video game influence that has been around a really, really long while now, I'm confused at the sudden desire (or even the need) to radically reinvent the game to cater to some putative video gamer generation that won't relate to D&D like every other generation before it has, each in their own ways, each eventually putting their own evolutionary mark upon the game as new authors add to the corpus of D&D material.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 1, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I think one of the hurdles any company has with a RPG is the difficulty of balancing between its casual and invested players.  Invested players will bring in more money by collecting more - though often over time, whilst casual player bring in the money from being numerous, if short-lived.
> 
> The problem is, to get players invested there needs to be a staggering number of options to keep things fresh.  Generally, supplements feed this want.  On the other hand, casual players want to dive in without a huge expense in up-front time; a staggering pile of options to choose from tends to drive such folks away.
> 
> ...




An obvious way of tackling this is to produce a whole lot of supplements that can be used individually, but do not attach themselves to the rule set like barnacles -- they provide no or at least very limited long term impact on game play and won't be viewed as necessary acquisitions by casual players.  

Adventures fit this description, I think..


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 1, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Question though: how is the newest generation any different than previous generations in terms of being a video gamer generation? Earlier generations just grew up playing different consoles. If you grew up playing Atari, or NES, or SNES, Playstation, Xbox360, etc the video game influence is there, yet D&D has snagged people from each generation that grew up playing those different systems in their own time period of dominance. I don't really see anything different between then and now.
> 
> I grew up on NES and would have played SNES like mad if only my parents had bought me one for Xmas like I begged every year. I never really read any of the fantasy books that influenced the earlier D&D crowd, nor did I ever actually play 1e or 2e. Yet I'm a giant D&D nerd nonetheless, albeit from a later generation (and one that thinks 2e had some amazing moments that need to be remembered in terms of world design).
> 
> And given the video game influence that has been around a really, really long while now, I'm confused at the sudden desire (or even the need) to radically reinvent the game to cater to some putative video gamer generation that won't relate to D&D like every other generation before it has, each in their own ways, each eventually putting their own evolutionary mark upon the game as new authors add to the corpus of D&D material.




I don't think you're going back far enough, Shemeska. When you talk about "earlier generations playing different consoles" it sounds like you are talking about the 90s. But we have go back further and look at when D&D really boomed: the late 70s and early 80s, when video games were very primitive and largely relegated to arcades (like Flynn's!).

Now people started having personal computers in the 70s, and the Atari game console goes back to the mid-70s I think (_Pong _was 1975), but it wasn't until the late 80s that personal computers became common and not until the 90s that video gaming really took off, mainly due to technological advancements. 

So to say that video games have been around forever is a huge simplification, especially when you consider the differences between video games now, fifteen years ago, and thirty years ago. _Mrs. Pac Man _wasn't quite the competition for a 12-year old's attention that _World of Warcraft _is.

Hey, this has inspired me to start a related thread on generations of RPG players, so stay tuned for more (I'll put the link in this thread).


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Well yes, or how to bring as many young players into invested/diehardness rather than casualness.



But it is a significant difference and I don't think getting someone to become "diehard" is remotely as easy as getting someone to simply become a player.

There are certainly exceptions, but in the great majority players are simply going to be casual or hardcore.  You don't routinely convert casual players into hard core.  Certainly not in numbers that impact the market overall.

If you simply want more players, you just target youth and work at it.  You will get a lot of casuals and the regular mix of hardcore will be there as well.

But if you want to really grow your hardcore base, you need to make certain that your product appeals to people more inclined to be hard core players.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 1, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I don't think you're going back far enough, Shemeska. When you talk about "earlier generations playing different consoles" it sounds like you are talking about the 90s. But we have go back further and look at when D&D really boomed: the late 70s and early 80s, when video games were very primitive and largely relegated to arcades (like Flynn's!).
> 
> Now people started having personal computers in the 70s, and the Atari game console goes back to the mid-70s I think (_Pong _was 1975), but it wasn't until the late 80s that personal computers became common and not until the 90s that video gaming really took off, mainly due to technological advancements.
> 
> ...





I'd have to disagree that it took until the 90s for video games to take off.  The 80s introduced the NES console.  It was the best selling console of its time.  A very large portion of my childhood was spent stomping Goombas and getting angry at an annoying laughing dog.

On the contrary, I'd actually say that -for me- video games helped me to discover what rpgs were.  My interests being what they were (mythology, Choose-Your-Own Adventure Books, etc,) I already had a fertile ground for the rpg seed to be planted.  However, my first exposure to an actual rpg would be a game known as Dragon Warrior.  Later, I also had the pleasure of playing the original Final Fantasy.

Let's forget about me though because I imagine I have/had some unique interests compared to the other members of my age group - both then and now. (then: my 'fantasty' was Grecco-Roman and Norse mythology.  now: I can't stand to play WoW.)

I disagree with all of the doomsday prophecies about rpgs.  Elements of roleplaying -in my opinion- are more present now than they were when I started.  Just yesterday I bought the UBuild version of Monopoly.  There are also UBuilds/Lego versions of Sorry, Battleship, and several other games.  In addition, there are games based upon the same concept which seem very similar to rpg scenarios; one has a pyramid; there's one with a minotaur, and a few others.

So?  At their heart, many of these games are challenging the imagination of the players.  I also feel that they are fostering the creative spirit needed to DM; building your own dungeon is only a few steps away from crafting your own Monopoly board.  I'd argue that it's even less of a distance away from crafting the labyrinth of a minotaur.

The odd thing is you turn over the box, and you find the name Hasbro planted there.  Strange...  Their traditional board games seem to be incorporating more and more elements of rpgs.  Meanwhile, there are folks who argue that D&D *needs* to become less like an rpg to stay relevant among today's market.

Obviously, I disagree with that argument.  As I've said many times, what I feel needs to happen is for people to be more open to teaching the hobby.  Likewise, to be a better equipped teacher, I feel that there needs to be a community which is more knowledgable about more rpgs.  I realize that with economic times being what they are it's difficult to afford the buy in to more than one system.  However, I'm also aware that many games have free previews.  

Why do I think this is healthy?  It provides a more broad view, and what I think is a better educated position from which to teach the hobby to prospective players.  Even if you hate those other games, having the knowledge that not every rpg produces the same experience is good knowledge to have.  

There was a discussion going on somewhere in this growing behemoth of a thread about smart business being to focus on the market which is buying.  I completely agree with that, but that's another reason why I feel it is healthy for the market and the hobby to be aware of more than one game.  Different people want different things; different games provide different experiences...  

Not only do I feel this allows for a broader range of people to possibly become interested in pen and paper rpgs by virtue of having a broader range of possible experiences; I also feel it will foster better products from the various companies by virtue of competition.  If suddenly WoTC is losing customers to a different gaming company, they might want to take a look at what that other company is doing and ask why, and 'how can we improve our brand to get them back?'  'Is our vision of what a rpg should be hitting home with p&p gamers?'

I will submit that -to some extent- it is smart business to cater the brand toward trends of today.  However, there also needs to be more of an acknowledgement that there are different reasons for why many people enjoy a tabletop game such as D&D, Pathfinder, GURPS, Savage Worlds; etc versus why people enjoy video games such as WoW, Dr. Mario, or Castle Crashers.  The more you start to whittle away the elements which are part of those different reasons, the less incentive I have to turn off my XBox and roll some dice; when I feel as though I have a more rpg-like experience from the Dragon Age video game or Elder Scrolls: Skyrim than what I get from D&D 4E and D&D 4E.E or the Dragon Age tabletop game, there seems to be an issue.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 1, 2011)

> On the contrary, I'd actually say that -for me- video games helped me to discover what rpgs were. My interests being what they were (mythology, Choose-Your-Own Adventure Books, etc,) I already had a fertile ground for the rpg seed to be planted. However, my first exposure to an actual rpg would be a game known as Dragon Warrior. Later, I also had the pleasure of playing the original Final Fantasy.




This was my arc, too. I basically came to D&D via console JRPGs. I first saw the terms HP and Level Up on a pixelated TV screen. 

D&D is smart to cherry-pick from some of the best advancements in video game RPG's (4e's aggro management mechanic -- punch me or I'll do something nasty to you -- is peachy-keen, though I'd personally love to see some more variation on the theme). It's also smart to embrace flavor, design, and story material that modern fantasy has embraced (grabbing some anime tropes or some Harry Potterisms isn't a bad thing at all). 

I still have a soft spot for video game RPG's (though MMO's are not my thing), and I will still play them frequently. However, though they led me to D&D, they scratch a different itch.

Video games will always be better and faster at math and visualization than D&D will be. They can even make inroads into social activities and scheduled events. D&D is not the place I go to if I want to kill monsters and take their stuff. 

D&D is the place I go to when *I* want to tell the story. When I want to control the action. When I want to change the world with only the limitations of my imagination. When I want to play my character my way, not within the bounds specified by a programmer. 

D&D can lend expandability, adaptability, customizability, and human interaction, to a _much greater degree_ than any videogame ever could. This is why D&D still appeals to me. This is what the game does that is unique to PnP RPGs'. WoW can only dream of this. 

Minis combat isn't what D&D does uniquely. _Interactive, freeform storytelling_ is what it does uniquely. IMO, the game needs to focus on that. Combats and encounters and accessories must support that. It's not about killing goblins. It's about the reasons _your character_ kills goblins and the effects of killing those goblins in _your friend's world_. It's personal, specific, and all the more potent for that. 

But now I'm soapboxing, so....off to play more videogames.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 1, 2011)

One of the things I think WoTC is failing at, to engage it's customer base at least, is in providing print copies of adventurers of various sorts set in a world that is well supported.

When people talk about older editions of the game, they're not necessarily boasting of how innovative Thaco was, but rather, what a great game they had playing on the Isle of Dread or exploring the Caves of Chaos.

The DDI is one method of redeeming that but it's still not a print product and the quality...

Paizo seems to have done well by supporting actual game play through APs and individual adventurers and setting support.

WotC insistance on reguritating rules and making people buy them all over again will work in the short term. It may even work extremely well in the short term.

But unlike say Games Workshop, WoTC does not sell its own product directly, does not make its own product directly, etc... Their ability to react to the market as GW has by doing 'one man shops', or focusing on retail sales, etc... is zero.

The DDI may be able to overcome that if enough people subscribe but as long as WoTC continues to make physical copies of books, people will continue to steal them. Even were WoTC to make electronic copies easily accessible, it might reduce the theft and provide them some profit, but...

WoTC has a lot of opportunities to improve, or at least improve in the areas I think they are deficient.

Rules focus and reprinting rules with errata and calling it something new? That isn't the way.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 1, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If you simply want more players, you just target youth and work at it.  You will get a lot of casuals and the regular mix of hardcore will be there as well.
> 
> But if you want to really grow your hardcore base, you need to make certain that your product appeals to people more inclined to be hard core players.




But people don't go from never played before to hardcore players.

You start out never having played before, then become a casual player, and then end up a hard core player.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 1, 2011)

*Step 3: Profit!*



mudbunny said:


> But people don't go from never played before to hardcore players.
> 
> You start out never having played before, then become a casual player, and then end up a hard core player.




Speak for yourself, I kinda skipped that middle step you have as obligatory


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 2, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Speak for yourself, I kinda skipped that middle step you have as obligatory




Seriously! When people say stuff like that I'm like "Huh, What!?!"

I went from finding a copy of THE KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS at a friends house (it was his big brothers and he had no interest in it and told me I could have it) to attempting to figure out the rules (just based on the Module) to saving money to get the Red Box from Forbidden Planet in the Village to learning the game to running games for my friends at lunch and then to AD&D, MArvel Super Heroes to Star Frontiers to Top Secret to, well you get the idea. 

There was no CASUAL PLAYER phase for me or most of the people I played with back then. We were ALL pretty into it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 2, 2011)

There certainly is a big difference between the minimum you NED to play and the maximum you could pay to play this game. It is a shame the minimum is so high, though. It would be better if it were lower.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 2, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Speak for yourself, I kinda skipped that middle step you have as obligatory




As did I.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 2, 2011)

Nagol said:


> As did I.




Ditto.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Ditto.




Of course, this is Enworld, and as a whole those of us here are probably a bit more on the hardcare side of the spectrum. But that hardcore spectrum probably buys a majority of the books. Or I could be totally off base. Without paying for market research none of us will know beyond informed speculation.

But I do see in my experience, that for a lot of players that if they stay playing and active, they didn't pick up the game and go 'ok that's cool' and tinker with it on and off. It swallowed them, they went 'zomg awesomesauce', and they hurled themselves into it as a major interest.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 2, 2011)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> But this new generation WotC is trying to reach is mostly video gamers.



Unlike us kids back in the '70s and '80s DURING THE HEYDAY OF THE ARCADES, eh?

People who prefer video games are not likely to drop 'em in favor of something that's somehow sort of kind of like a video game, I think.

On the other hand, some people who prefer the computer games that are basically interactive Hollywood movies with "3-d" digital graphics might in the '70s and '80s have settled for D&D as _the closest approximation then available_. Imagination always takes a bit of work -- but not too much to beat the presentation capabilities of early computer games, with brainpower left for rich game play to boot.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 2, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:
			
		

> I disagree with all of the doomsday prophecies about rpgs.



Me, too. I think the fad ended years ago, and the hobby is probably pretty well established at post-heyday size.

The industry might be changing, and the changes might involve changes in the names of the industry leaders. This is hardly new. Avalon Hill _turned down_ D&D, which led to the formation of TSR. TSR ended up buying AH rival SPI. WotC, once a "little guy" getting pushed around by Palladium, bought TSR.

Little fish become vigorous young big fish, eat fat old big fish, and become fat old big fish, then another bunch of little fish hatch.

And Hasbro eats them _all_ up.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 2, 2011)

*re*



Shemeska said:


> Question though: how is the newest generation any different than previous generations in terms of being a video gamer generation? Earlier generations just grew up playing different consoles. If you grew up playing Atari, or NES, or SNES, Playstation, Xbox360, etc the video game influence is there, yet D&D has snagged people from each generation that grew up playing those different systems in their own time period of dominance. I don't really see anything different between then and now.
> 
> I grew up on NES and would have played SNES like mad if only my parents had bought me one for Xmas like I begged every year. I never really read any of the fantasy books that influenced the earlier D&D crowd, nor did I ever actually play 1e or 2e. Yet I'm a giant D&D nerd nonetheless, albeit from a later generation (and one that thinks 2e had some amazing moments that need to be remembered in terms of world design).
> 
> And given the video game influence that has been around a really, really long while now, I'm confused at the sudden desire (or even the need) to radically reinvent the game to cater to some putative video gamer generation that won't relate to D&D like every other generation before it has, each in their own ways, each eventually putting their own evolutionary mark upon the game as new authors add to the corpus of D&D material.




Are you seriously trying to say that the video games from the late 70s early 80s are anywhere near comparable to today?

I'm a gamer from the Red Basic Set. I know for certain there were no advanced video game systems anywhere near what they are today. I sat around reading books all the time. Chronicles of Narnia, Arthurian Legends, Greek and Norse mythology, and _Lord of the Rings_ and all the other strange fantasy books of that time. Reading was still something kids did a lot because video game consoles were expensive and fairly new.

Atari and Nintendo early on had Mario Brothers. Even a fantasy game like _Gauntlet_ or _Dragon's Lair_ paled in comparison to _World of Warcraft_ or _Everquest_ or even _Neverwinter Nights_.

I watch this younger generation on their cell phones and computers playing video games I never even thought would exist back when I was young. And you're comparing the video games when D&D came out to what is out there now? That's pretty unbelievable to me.

Kids can log on nowadays to a virtual fantasy world like WoW with other people from around the world and play characters most of us needed pen and paper to create. Fully developed, first person characters with all types of magic items and weapons and virtual monsters and a virtual world that allows them to engross themselves for hours of time for less than the cost of a D&D book. You spend about 17 a month ($204 a year) and $40 for the expansion and you get countless hours of gaming fun. 

No need to go to anyone's house. No need to have a book present or know a bunch of rules. No need to imagine what your character is doing, you can see it on the screen. No need for a world setting book or hours of prep time.

Have you really not played an MMORPG to see what D&D is competing against?

If you haven't played an MMORPG, then I can understand the lack of awareness of what video games are like now compared to 1980. But I'm telling you that D&D is competing with MMORPGs and it won't be easy.

I knew when I saw the 4E ruleset and the various roles that a corporate edict was given to the game designers: Thou Shalt Design a Ruleset that is Video Game Friendly and especially works as an MMORPG.

I figured even the people that are enjoying 4E knew that part of the design philosophy was based on making the game appealing to video gamers and making a ruleset easily turned into a video game. 

That's a very different influence than the books and tabletop tactical gaming that influenced the first generation of D&D gamers. You can see it in the new ruleset.

And the need to design a game around the video game set is necessary because that is how competition works. D&D isn't competing against GURPS or _Legend of Zelda_ any longer. D&D is competing against MMORPGs influenced by D&D taken to the virtual world through the computer. That's a hard level of competition.

The only way to maximize the game and keep it alive is follow the money to the virtual world. D&D is trying to find a way to do it. But the previous ruleset was MMORPG unfriendly and this new one is exactly the type of ruleset that an MMORPG designer can work with.

If I  had access to a 100 million plus, I would buy the rights to D&D and the _Forgotten Realms_ and take it virtual. That's the big problem with an MMORPG is you need a lot of money to start up that type of business. It seems no one is willing to lay out the money to do it for D&D yet, even though D&D has the best source material that would far exceed _World of Warcraft_ or _Everquest_.

Could you imagine seeing a fully virtual _Forgotten Realms_ populated by the archive of monsters D&D has built through the years? That would be amazing. Imagine a fully developed virtual Underdark. 

It's coming someday. Someday someone with money (maybe Hasbro) is going to get wise about all the D&D source material and shell out the cash to make an MMORPG out of it to rival _World of Warcraft_. This new 4E ruleset is the first step towards that end. They had to create a rule set that is easily rendered into video game form. Previous editions were either too simple (Basic D&D) or too complex and arcane (3rd Edition).

As much as I don't care for 4E from a pen and paper perspective, the rule set looks perfect for an MMORPG. And Hasbro/WotC can make hundreds of millions by successfully turning D&D into a popular MMORPG. It will never make that much money in pen and paper gaming. D&D is an asset best leveraged into the MMORPG market to maximize revenues. 

Start off with _Forgotten Realms_ core like Dalelands and Cormyr and the areas around there.

Then have your expansions which you could base on each of the box sets: Underdark, Frozen North, Waterdeep and the Sword Coast.

Then move into your planar regions with angels and demons. And build around Sigil and Planescape.

Then incorporate planar travel and do Dark Sun and Mystara.

The profit possibilities are endless. You have no idea how much I would love to have a 100 million laying around to capitalize a D&D MMORPG. The money possibilities as well as the sheer joy of bringing the vast D&D archive to life in a virtual world. That would be incredible fun.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 2, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Are you seriously trying to say that the video games from the late 70s early 80s are anywhere near comparable to today?
> 
> .





yes, I am


Though, I'm the type of person for whom the shiny graphics don't matter.  Are they nice?  Hell yeah, and I'd much rather have the graphics I have now than the stick figures I had on a Tandyvision.  However, a crap game with really nice graphics is still a crap game.  

In my opinion, there are a lot of games today which look nice, but are very lacking in substance.  I find this to be especially true with many of the new console rpgs.  Many people think the new Final Fantasy games are the Cat's Meow; personally, I feel that the last good game of that series which actually engaged my mind and sucked me in was Final Fantasy 3 (or 6 depending on how you count the series.)  

Likewise, there are a lot of games I've bought for systems today and have blown through them in a day.  I still have games for my older systems which I've never finished.    

I in no way agree that a WoW character is what I would consider a 'fully developed' character.  I have played MMORPGs, and there were some that I very highly enjoyed.  Some of them even did a really good job of capturing some of the elements of a tabletop experience, but -at this point in time- none of them are able to replace the experience I get from pen and paper gaming.    

Though, I will give you that D&D is competing against MMORPGs.  Contrary to the vocal masses which continue to shout that D&D isn't like WoW any more than older editions were similar to video games of their time, I disagree.  There are enough similarities to make that competition a reality.  That ties into what I've said in my previous posts.  I understand the need to bend the game to meet the market of today; however, there comes a point when the tabletop experience has been whittled away enough that a prospective player doesn't feel as though they gain anything by choosing pen & paper over a computer and a visual interface.  

But... as I also said in my previous posts, I think it is very wrong to assume tabletop gaming is dead or dying.  For a while now, video games have been incorporating more elements of rpgs.  You can create your own teams in Madden Football; you can explore what is (in my opinion) a world which seems much more alive in games such as Oblivion (and the upcoming Elder Scrolls: Skyrim even the most recent WWE game focuses more on story and character development with WWE Universe Mode.  I'd even point to the cheesy Facebook games like Farmville as being more rpg-like.  The tabletop may need to evolve, but I feel it would be folly to throw away the game genetics which gives the pen & paper experience a look and feel which is different from other types of games.

Tabletop gaming as a whole is not dead, and, while I admit that D&D does indeed need to compete with games which look flashier and prettier, I would argue that there is a large amount of fertile ground into which an engaging story driven rpg experience could flourish.  Many people and many youths still read - the recent success of Twilight wouldn't be possible otherwise.  I believe we are at a turning point; that as society starts to more realize that the big flashy experiences we have now are shallow, there will be an increasing want for things which are more mentally engaging, socially fulfilling, and of more depth.  The 'what's next?' question will hit more people; there are people out there who want to experience and enjoy the journey rather than focusing on going from point a to point b (or level 1 to level 30 as the case may be,) even if they aren't fully aware of it yet.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 2, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> <snip>
> 
> If I  had access to a 100 million plus, I would buy the rights to D&D and the _Forgotten Realms_ and take it virtual. That's the big problem with an MMORPG is you need a lot of money to start up that type of business. It seems no one is willing to lay out the money to do it for D&D yet, even though D&D has the best source material that would far exceed _World of Warcraft_ or _Everquest_.
> 
> ...




Umm, Turbine built it in 2006.  It's called D&D Online though they used a section of Eberron rather than Faerun.  It was such a hit and so profitable that in order to save the servers, they made it a free-to-play game with revenue generated from the sale of virtual goods and advertising..


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> There certainly is a big difference between the minimum you NED to play and the maximum you could pay to play this game. It is a shame the minimum is so high, though. It would be better if it were lower.




This. This is the thing the Red Box and the DM's Kit and the Essentials Line partially wanted to fix, with varying degrees of success. 

There's not exactly a clear on-ramp to the game, something you can just pick up and go "This is all you need to play D&D forever. And if it's a lot of fun, you can get this other stuff, too!"

The Red Box is a solid attempt (marred mostly just by some less-than-stellar rules info and a lack of expandability). The DM's Kit seems decent (marred mostly just by being available in bits and pieces in other places). The Essentials line works pretty well (marred mostly just by confusion with some existing players who have a strong WTF MAGIC MISSILE ALWAYS DOES DAMAGE?! NO FIGHTER DAILIES?! OH NOES TEH SYMMETRY! OMG THEY ROOND MAH GAME!" vein). 

There's also problems inherent in the system. 30 levels and 2+ years to see them all (playing on a weekly basis) and the difficulty of setting up a face-to-face game all weave a tangled spell of problems.

There's still plenty of room for improvement in this area, though they have made a fairly solid try at the thing, and I do hope they keep it in mind going forward. 



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> Have you really not played an MMORPG to see what D&D is competing against?




D&D is only in competition with an MMO in the same way that...I dunno..._Yahtzee_ is. 

They're really, very different things. Some similar trappings, some definite overlap, but if D&D wanted to compete directly with WoW, they'd rip their videogame licence from the color-blind chimp hands over at Atari and give it to a team that's made a good videogame in the last decade while ditching the tabletop all together. Fire the designers and developers, use their salaries to buy a programmer or two, and kick this 900+ page junk to the curb.

But that's not what they're doing.

So they certainly believe a tabletop RPG has something unique to offer an audience who could certainly grow beyond its current limits. 

I don't think the dudes previously at the head of D&D really grokked what that was, if the design of 4e speaks to what they thought it was. Mearls might. He seems pretty sharp.  

Videogames are a different beast, and D&D would be well-served paying attention to them only enough to make the occasional polygonal dungeon game, and focusing on making tabletop gaming something that is as fast, easy, and fun to do as it can possibly be (ideally while retaining D&D's expansible, customizable ruleset).


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 2, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Umm, Turbine built it in 2006.  It's called D&D Online though they used a section of Eberron rather than Faerun.  It was such a hit and so profitable that in order to save the servers, they made it a free-to-play game with revenue generated from the sale of virtual goods and advertising..




And since they did that, they have seen revenues jump by 500% and had a million new users. In other words, they have money fights on fridays.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 2, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> And you know what, WotC? We need you. Most of us don't have the time or energy to write our own Fantasy Heartbreaker.



I don't need WotC, and I don't have the intention to write a fantasy game of my own. I am just content to run First Edition AD&D. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate what they did with Gamma World and intend to run it. But I really do not need WotC at this point to catter to my D&D needs. At all.


----------



## Griego (Jan 2, 2011)

Wait, what is this "recent insanity", again?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 2, 2011)

mudbunny said:
			
		

> And since they did that, they have seen revenues jump by 500% and had a million new users. In other words, they have money fights on fridays.




Part of me wonders....

If they make D&D a "free to play" game (giving away the rules for free) with revenue generated from magazine-style subscriptions (which give access to both an online and in-print version of the magazine and a database) that included advertising, and "adventure boxes" that don't include advertising, but maybe sell for $30 at the store (and include tokens, maps, adventure books, whatever)....

I guess that would be too much like the OGL for them to consider doing at this point, but it's kind of an appealing thing to think about...


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 2, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Part of me wonders....
> 
> If they make D&D a "free to play" game (giving away the rules for free) with revenue generated from magazine-style subscriptions (which give access to both an online and in-print version of the magazine and a database) that included advertising, and "adventure boxes" that don't include advertising, but maybe sell for $30 at the store (and include tokens, maps, adventure books, whatever)....
> 
> I guess that would be too much like the OGL for them to consider doing at this point, but it's kind of an appealing thing to think about...





There are other rpgs which do something similar, and it seems to be working for them.  They have free previews which give you enough from which you could play.  You don't *need* to buy the other suppliments, but many people still do because they appreciate the quality of the suppliments.  I would in no way claim they make as much money as WoTC from D&D.  However, from what I can tell, they are doing well enough to turn a profit without needing to bend their products to fit some sort of assumed target market of today.

DDi, to some extent, is -I think- a similar model.  Though, if I may be so bold to make an assumption, I think there were a few very critical stumbling blocks in the beginning which left some number of people sour to it.  The first impression is often a lasting impression; it's hard to look at new materials with a fresh set of eyes when you're already predisposed to negativity due to previous experience.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 3, 2011)

I may not be the first but I believe i've mentioend before that with it being online, the DDI, at least the character creation part, should be free. getting people to play and want to pay should be WoTC first priority, not making money off of books.

But I'm crazy that way. It's one of the reasons I suggested a higher focus on minis, tiles, adventurers, boxed sets, etc... things that can't be downloaded.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 3, 2011)

What would the selling point be to convince someone to use tiles instead of other options?


I'm not naysaying.  I'm honestly just curious what the pitch would be, and how I'd be swayed from using what I use now to buying more tiles.


----------



## giant.robot (Jan 3, 2011)

The "D&D has to compete with them dang vidja games" meme is really amusing to me. D&D has had to compete with video games as long as I've been playing (20 years). If you think today's games are magically more attractive than games when I started playing D&D you're fooling yourself. Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, hell even the Gold Box D&D games were engrossing time sinks. 

They competed for the same number of leisure hours that kids have today. Days are no longer than they were 20 years ago nor are school days shorter. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and WoW might have better graphics but the number of available leisure hours are pretty much the same. It's not like kids and adults alike could play *both* pen and paper games and video games. I didn't afterall spend several hours yesterday playing Torchlight and several today playing Pathfinder.

Comparing 4E to video games is silly anyways, it takes more cues from Magic: The Gathering and other CCGs than video games. The highly structured turn sequences, power sources, keywords, and discrete powers themselves all smack of ideas learned from Magic's development over the past two decades. 3E was largely a refinement of the AD&D rules. AD&D picked up a lot of detritus with the latter supplements like the Player's Options books. 3E folded these rules in and unified the D20 mechanic through the system. It didn't do much to make the system more approachable to new players.

When Arneson And Gygax developed D&D they were coming from miniature wargaming as were a lot of their friends and early D&D players. Today's players are coming from WoW and Magic and have read Harry Potter and _watched_ Lord of the Rings more times than they've read it.

The game itself and hobby in general needs to keep up with the players' expectations or there won't be any new players. Because people today have played video games and CCGs they're not going to accept looking up all of their actions on some table on a *player's screen* when that should be easily referenced on the character sheet or power card. A game shouldn't make players do busywork.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 3, 2011)

Griego said:


> Wait, what is this "recent insanity", again?




The most recent would be stopping support of a perfectly good offline character builder in favor of an online one that is barley functional, only lets you make a small amount of characters, and holds your characters hostage in WotC's cloud so you have to keep your subscription active to access them.  That's bad enough, but when you throw in the massive bugs in the monster builder that were never fixed, severe lack of magazine content in the past months, and yanking legal sales of TSR/WotC pdf's in 2009, they definitely seem to be acting insanely and have caused lots of fans to rail against them and many to completely bail on WotC.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> What would the selling point be to convince someone to use tiles instead of other options?
> 
> 
> I'm not naysaying.  I'm honestly just curious what the pitch would be, and how I'd be swayed from using what I use now to buying more tiles.




Well, do you find them more convenient/useful than whatever else you use?

I do. I like the artwork, I have enough of them to make virtually any setup, plus my art skills leave a lot to be desired.

I also get inspiration to keep my rooms interesting with the throw-down bowl of 2x2 tiles and smaller. My battles have never been so crowded. One thing I hate about most WOTC combat maps is the over-abundance of empty space, which leads to boring combats.

But if this does no convince you or anyone else, have fun with whatever you use.
There are tons of mapping or non-mapping options.


----------



## Ulrick (Jan 4, 2011)

WotC's recent insanity... hmmm...

Who says WotC's actions have to make sense to any of us? Certainly, a lot of aging gamers are no longer part of WotC's target demographic, but does that really mean WotC is insane? 

Somebody else brought up a link about Games Workshop's business practices. GW has bewildered me over the years. I guess one person's business model is another person's insanity. 

But then again, I know there's people out their who think we're all crazy for even participating in the gaming hobby. How many times must we justify ourselves to such people before we give up and just play the games we enjoy?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2011)

If WOTC does not put up a post in the next two weeks explaining what is going on, then I might consider them to be insane.


----------



## TaiChara (Jan 4, 2011)

Oh please, not another one of these again.  I suppose it's time to crawl out of my den of lurkerdom and address this tired and tiresome handwringing before disappearing once more into the ether.

I'm not addressing the WotC subject here; on that, I don't really give a damn.  It's the _other_ slant of the OP's post that I'm stepping up to.

Do you want to know where the creative members of the younger generation are, OP?  That generation that you just tarred with a single solitary brush of having no imagination, no creative drive at all, brainwashed by needing CGI and having no idea what it's like to write, to create something?

They're spread across the Internet, oh yes.  I know, because I'm right there with them and feeling old as hell.  They're in messageboards and forums, on "journal" sites such as Livejournal, in real-time messenging systems such as AIM and MSN.  And do you know what they're doing?

ROLEPLAYING.

They create entire communities filled with world information and play in real time or -- as often -- fill thread after thread with written posts.  They create characters off the cuff or, depending on the game being played, fill out character applications that require background, personality, physical descriptions, strengths and weaknesses.  Some games are completely original, some based in a published world.  Some are both.  

Post after post after post.  Thread after thread, chatroom after chatroom.  They're out there, and they are roleplaying.  These youngsters are doing all of this with an enthusiasm and a fervor that I could only dream to see at a table these days.

And do you know why they aren't using the rules you want them to, the system you want them to?

Because they _aren't using any system at all_.  They're just _roleplaying_.  

Why would they want to shackle themselves to a system when there are uncountable freeform games out there that they can join or create?  I've spoken to some of my fellow players and they find the idea incomprehensible -- and you know, if I had started in these games like they did, I'd be thinking the same damn thing.  

So, yeah, maybe we old-timers are almost all WotC -- or any other game company -- happen to have.  Because the younger generation, they don't _need_ a tome of rules to get out there and create kingdoms and spelunk in dungeons and take down the BBEG.

But tarring everyone in a generation because you don't know what they're doing to roleplay, and -- sorry to say -- because, apparently, you Don't Get What Those Younguns Like?  

That's pretty damn sad, you know.  One more example for my fellow forum players to point at and say "why would we want to join you at the table?  on top of limiting with rules, we're obviously not wanted".

Pfeh.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2011)

TaiChara said:


> Oh please, not another one of these again.  I suppose it's time to crawl out of my den of lurkerdom and address this tired and tiresome handwringing before disappearing once more into the ether.
> 
> I'm not addressing the WotC subject here; on that, I don't really give a damn.  It's the _other_ slant of the OP's post that I'm stepping up to.
> 
> ...




I'm not really seeing a point here other than:

"You use a codified system so you suck" 

Aren't you basically doing what you're accusing people of doing?


----------



## TaiChara (Jan 4, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I'm not really seeing a point here other than:
> 
> "You use a codified system so you suck"
> 
> Aren't you basically doing what you're accusing people of doing?




Hardly.

The OP tarred an entire group with a single brush.  I'm telling the OP that the OP is wrong.  If I didn't also play at a table, I would hardly be here on ENWorld, now would I?

Good try at putting words in my mouth, though.  *tips hat, moves along*


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> "I want to build a keep."
> 
> "I want to start a guild."
> 
> ...




The topic has moved on from this a bit, and I still disagree with some of your points here, but I found it amusing that apparently WotC is, indeed, addressing some of your concerns: This month's Dragon will have an article on Bases and Strongholds. 

Now, no idea how well they will pull it off or if this is indeed what you are looking for. Nonetheless, it seemed an entertaining coincidence, and worth taking note of.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I'm not really seeing a point here other than:
> 
> "You use a codified system so you suck"




TaiChara didn't say anything of the kind.



ShinHakkaider said:


> Aren't you basically doing what you're accusing people of doing?




So you _do_ in fact see the real point of the post, you're just dismissing it out of hand because... well... I don't know why.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2011)

TaiChara said:


> Hardly.
> 
> The OP tarred an entire group with a single brush.  I'm telling the OP that the OP is wrong.  If I didn't also play at a table, I would hardly be here on ENWorld, now would I?
> 
> Good try at putting words in my mouth, though.  *tips hat, moves along*




There are quite a few people here at ENworld who arent playing in games at present and use this site to still maintain some semblance of a link to the table top community or otherwise complain about where tabletop RPG's are headed so you being here doesnt automatically make you a booster for tabletop RPG's. 

Thanks for not being a snide jerk though. I appreciate it. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> So you _do_ in fact see the real point of the post, you're just dismissing it out of hand because... well... I don't know why.




So his point was to be a hypocrite? I doubt if that was sole intention. Okay before I didnt care as much which is why I only dedicated three - four lines to a response. But now I'm honestly curious. 

What was his point? Clean slate, here. Because what I read was a pretty snark filled response to "old timers" basically saying that the young 'uns dont need no stupid rules to role-play and that rules and rulebooks are archaic and unnecessary. Now he didnt come out and say this but it sounded like people like me and others on this boards are jerks for playing the way that we do. That is with codified rules. That didnt sit well with me at all. Hence my response. 

If he wants to clarify on that I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 4, 2011)

TaiChara said:


> But tarring everyone in a generation...




Sorry, but this is complete and utter BS. I did not "tar" anyone, especially the younger generation. Recognizing that there is a problem, that they are being influenced in (what I believe to be) a negative way is not tarring them, in the same sense that if I say that a person is psychologically scarred through being abused I am not tarring them.

I work with teenagers on a daily basis - I am a teacher and dorm counselor at a private day and boarding high school. I have great fondness for the young people I work and live with and believe that they have amazing capacities that older generations do not have. But I also believe that they are in grave danger of losing something so precious, so intrinsic to being human: the imagination. Specifically, self-generated imagination, the capacity to create/discover imagery from within. The kids I work with tend to be culturally privileged so haven't necessarily been plopped in front of the TV and/or computer from an early age, so they tend to be generally pretty healthy in this regard. 

My view is that the cultural domain and exposure to virtual and information technologies experienced by children creates a kind of good news/bad news. The good news is that they are developing potentials that we don't have, a capacity to deal with complex amounts of information, for example. The bad news is that they are losing their ability to create from within, namely imagery, or at the very least this capacity is in danger of being lost or damaged or atrophied.

This is one of the reasons that I am teaching a class in World Building, to give students a chance to engage this creative imagination in a way that they otherwise probably wouldn't have. It is direct creative, imaginative experience and it amazes me what happens when you give young people tools and opportunity - what they are coming up with is simply astounding. To put it another way, I think they are hungry for this sort of activity because their imaginations aren't being stimulated; and the trick with "stimulating" the imagination is that it must happen from within, through its own activity. It is one thing seeing a cool movie or even reading an interesting book, but the experience of the imagination itself being inspired and active is another thing altogether. This inner activity is what I feel is in danger of being lost, or at least under-used and thus under-developed.

This is a much larger topic and one that my original post was meant only to allude to, not explore in depth. If you want to explore it in depth, I could get into that. But please don't assign a position to me that is simply not true. Again, I am not tarring anyone (OK, I am tarring WotC a bit, but at least without the feathering ).


----------



## thunderspirit (Jan 4, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This was my arc, too. I basically came to D&D via console JRPGs. I first saw the terms HP and Level Up on a pixelated TV screen.



See, I went the opposite direction, from mythology and fantasy as a youth, straight to RPGs by age 12 and THEN to console gaming later on. I was certainly a part of the "heyday" of TSR in the 80s, though.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 4, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> But I also believe that they are in grave danger of losing something so precious, so intrinsic to being human: the imagination.




I think one of the reasons that you are getting a reaction about your statement is that "old" people have said the same thing about "young" people since the dawn of civilisation*.

At least that's my impression. I don't work with young people though, so I don't know if we have at long last reached that point in time where young people will lose their imagination completely.

Honestly, I doubt it.

Cheers!

/M


*Exaggerated for effect.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 4, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> What was his point? Clean slate, here. Because what I read was a pretty snark filled response to "old timers" basically saying that the young 'uns dont need no stupid rules to role-play and that rules and rulebooks are archaic and unnecessary.




What I got from the post was a spirited defense of the powers of imagination that is shown by young people of today, which occurs outside our stricter and more formal system.

Hence, when we say "kids today don't have any imagination" what we should be saying is "kids today don't display their imagination where I can see it."

At least that's how I read it, not as an attack on rules.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Damn, maybe we should all just write our own Fantasy Heartbreakers




On it.



Crothian said:


> I know I'm sick of many of the fans.




On it.



Filcher said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Crothian again."




On it.



Crothian said:


> I don't need WotC.




Agreed.



JoeGKushner said:


> I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.




Agreed.


RC


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> "I want to build a keep."
> 
> "I want to start a guild."
> 
> ...





...and there are games out there which allow you to do that.  D&D 4E can do it, but that not being a main focus of D&D is not a flaw.  The game is -from my understanding- intended to highlight certain aspects of what some people might call dungeon fantasy* or some sort of heroic fantasy.   It does this fairly well.

You can patch other systems on to it, or use GM fiat, or any number of other things.  Those things will probably work, and work just fine for some people.  Again, I will stress that it is possible to do these things.  The question is not a matter of being able to do them; the question is if the manner in which they're handled is satisfactory when compared to what you want out of the experience.

It is my opinion that, if there are other kinds of stories you want to tell; if you want to give more focus on those other things, you're possibly better off trying something else than you are trying to work against the grain of a system.  D&D isn't flawed in this regard any more than a buzzsaw might be considered flawed when trying to change a tire.


(*dungeon fantasy need not take place in a dungeon)


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 4, 2011)

TaiChara said:


> Hardly.
> 
> The OP tarred an entire group with a single brush.  I'm telling the OP that the OP is wrong.  If I didn't also play at a table, I would hardly be here on ENWorld, now would I?
> 
> Good try at putting words in my mouth, though.  *tips hat, moves along*




Whether intentionally or not, you have probably signalled, within our subculture, that you are a "narrativist" or somesuch, and likely a fudger. The responses you get, FYI, may not be related to the message you were trying to send.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jan 4, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now there is an element of tactics in a lot of these...but WoW's "aggro juggling" and Pokemon's "rock-paper-scissors-BFG" are streets ahead of 4e's tactical minis combat...




Wow. Way to use Pierce's slang from Community there. If I'd missed it, I would probably be streets behind.

--Erik


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...and there are games out there which allow you to do that.




Yes and for the majority of it's history, D&D was one of them.



Johnny3D3D said:


> D&D 4E can do it




No it can't. YOU can do it, but the _game_ isn't aware that there is any ambition besides "more levels."



Johnny3D3D said:


> but that not being a main focus of D&D is not a flaw.




"Main focus" is something you invented. I feel as though the *absence* of even the *awareness* that there is, or could be, or should be, a thing called "ambition," meaning the desire of the players, some players, to interact with a world outside the encounter and have an impact on it, is a flaw.

Because without that, all you've got is Descent or Warhammer Quest or the Castle Ravenloft boardgame.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> <"I know I'm sick of many of the fans">
> 
> 
> On it.
> ...




Should I be expecting ninjas in the mail soon?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 4, 2011)

TaiChara tells the truth, Mercurius, about what's going on. Kids (and other people, too) _are_ grooving on the collaborative, socially mediated construction of story-telling games.

It's "the other" direction of development from MUD, not the one that gets you EverQuest and World of Warcraft.

This is an old problem in the FRP business. The latter may well turn out to have thrived on a "generation" that in the long run is not the rule but the exception.

The _first_ generation did their own thing and made it up as they went along. (I could say "we", as that's the scene to which I was introduced and the ethos that still seems natural to me.)

Besides there not being another option if they were to play the games that had yet to be created, they saw making them as part of the fun.

Gary Gygax was glad to let Judges Guild have a license to produce supplements because he didn't think there would be much of a market for them. After all -- to the minds of the early fantasy gamers -- making up that stuff was part of the fun. It would be like paying someone else to go eat the candy one had bought for oneself!

He also was not at first (or later) a pusher of conformity. In fact, he wrote a letter to the prominent APA _Alarums & Excursions_ in which he said that conformity would never be TSR's policy so long as he had a say.

Well, as it turned out there was a big market for "have us do more of your imagining for you", and for "conformity in major systems" (and increasingly 'minor' details as well).

Even after the publication of the first four volumes of AD&D, he wrote in The Dragon against the idea that D&Ders should be subject to an endless flood of supplements and revisions demanding purchase to "keep current". He admitted that purely as a business man he relished the prospect -- but also that the pecuniary was not the sum, or even the first, of his values.

He was a game maker (and, more broadly, entertainment producer) by _personal vocation_, not as a convenience in the "higher" calling of pure capitalism. He was never likely to give it up for commodities or real estate or electronics or software or soda pop.

Now we've had such a scheme for long enough to exert quite a bit of selection pressure on who is into the game and who is not.

That a good portion of those who are not into it happen to be doing their own thing and making it up as they go does not dismay me!


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Killing monsters hasn't seriously been "an unsolved problem" in game design since the Pharaohs ruled Egypt, or some time prior. The Fantasy Supplements for Chainmail and WRG (4th?) were just popular rules sets -- not groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics or something.
> 
> As for D&D, what's next is up to you.
> 
> It has been since 1974!




Ahh...no it hasn't. In 1974 the assumption was that your character would become a Lord, which could mean any number of things, but he'd be a character with power and influence *outside* the encounter. The game expected this and there were rules for attracting followers, building strongholds.

That wasn't something the players invented outside the rules, as you're suggesting, it was in the rules.

Now it's not. I'm saying the DevTeam have sufficiently provided us with a fun game, more options for character creation and combat than any player could exhaust in an lifetime of play, and it's time for them to go cover the rest of the ground the game used to cover.

And do it better, frankly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Should I be expecting ninjas in the mail soon?




Robot dinosaur pirate ninjas.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> Ahh...no it hasn't. In 1974 the assumption was that your character would become a Lord, which could mean any number of things, but he'd be a character with power and influence *outside* the encounter. The game expected this and there were rules for attracting followers, building strongholds.
> 
> That wasn't something the players invented outside the rules, as you're suggesting, it was in the rules.



What portion of players paid the slightest attention to that rule?
I'm certain there were more than a few, including yourself.  But I played in numerous groups back in the day and, without exception, encumbrance got more attention than the by the book presumptions for lordship and the like.  (And encumbrance was pretty well ignored)


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> @mattcolville
> @CharlesRyan
> 
> _"Yuletide Salutations!_
> ...




Chas says that none of his characters have ever had any ambition, and that's fine. I know players who stopped playing D&D when Warhammer Quest came out, and never went back, because a game like that offered 100% of what they went to D&D for.

But _WotC_ shouldn't assume that, otherwise they'd stop making D&D and just crank out variants of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame.

The fact that WotC *apparently* sees no features in D&D outside of Fighting Encounters is alarming to me. Because it, more than anything, makes me think eventually they'll just decide "screw it, let's make everything a board game." 

Back in the 1970s, it was safe to assume that attracting followers (which presumed there was some benefit to doing so, something for those followers to *do*) and building a keep (ditto) were safe things for a typically motivated player.

The game assumed that wars were being fought somewhere and that when it was time for a war to be fought in your game, you'd use whatever wargame you liked. That was something outside the Encounter to engage with. We don't have that anymore.

But now we could have LOTS of motivations outside of those, motivations with *real* design behind them. Forget what they did back in the 1970s, let's do all that and more and do it better.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> That wasn't something the players invented outside the rules, as you're suggesting



I have written no such thing.


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2011)

BryonD said:


> What portion of players paid the slightest attention to that rule?
> I'm certain there were more than a few, including yourself.  But I played in numerous groups back in the day and, without exception, encumbrance got more attention than the by the book presumptions for lordship and the like.  (And encumbrance was pretty well ignored)




Let's imagine I knew the answer to that. Do you think it would be relevant to the issue? If someone says "there were never rules for that," responding to the fact that there WERE by saying "well, we always ignored them," is moving the goalposts, I think we can agree.


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I have written no such thing.




I think you'll find, looking back, that I said you _suggested _it. It's implied. If you agree, that we used to have rules for this stuff, and now we don't, but we should, then what is your previous comment in aid of?


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> Yes and for the majority of it's history, D&D was one of them.




The game shall remain the same!




mattcolville said:


> No it can't. YOU can do it, but the _game_ isn't aware that there is any ambition besides "more levels."




I've seen other people use things such as skill challenges to handle those things. The results weren't what I would personally consider satisfying; however, those people seemed content. As such, I don't feel it's entirely accurate for me to say it _can't_ be done. I would say it is extremely difficult (and maybe impossible) for the system as is to provide the depth I personally like in those aspects of living out my character's imaginary life; however, I don't feel I can honestly say it's impossible for some number of people to satisfy their own personal desires for those roleplaying aspects.



mattcolville said:


> "Main focus" is something you invented. I feel as though the *absence* of even the *awareness* that there is, or could be, or should be, a thing called "ambition," meaning the desire of the players, some players, to interact with a world outside the encounter and have an impact on it, is a flaw.
> 
> Because without that, all you've got is Descent or Warhammer Quest or the Castle Ravenloft boardgame.




I can't argue with the Descent reference because I've often made that comparison myself. Truth be told, one of the things I use instead of the WoTC tiles when playing D&D are pieces from Descent dungeons.

As for the 'main focus,' I don't fully buy that I invented that concept. Maybe I invented my own term for what to call it, but there are certain ideals about gaming upon which D&D is currently built. The same can be said for previous editions as well as other rpgs systems. It's by design that certain elements of the D&D experience have been given more attention, and other elements have been given less (or virtually no) attention.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 4, 2011)

What happens next has in fact been very explicitly up to you since 1974.

Read the booklets, for goodness' sake. Arneson and Gygax *tell you* that it's up to you! They *discourage* you from trying to "have us do any more of your imagining for you". They *encourage* you to "decide how you would like it to be, and then to make it just that way!"

"Write to us and tell us about your additions, ideas and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

That was standard operating procedure in the hobby/industry. Even when it came to historical subjects, it was expected that Joe and Bob would each have his own "house rules". When at Joe's, you do as Joe does. Trying to make binding prescriptions would be like herding cats. All one could do was share a description of one's own experiments. How much less was the prescriptive -- or, worse, proscriptive -- stance tenable when "everything herein is fantastic"?


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> Back in the 1970s, it was safe to assume that attracting followers (which presumed there was some benefit to doing so, something for those followers to *do*) and building a keep (ditto) were safe things for a typically motivated player.
> 
> The game assumed that wars were being fought somewhere and that when it was time for a war to be fought in your game, you'd use whatever wargame you liked. That was something outside the Encounter to engage with. We don't have that anymore.




Our 2E group had some castle builders in it; in 3E I had some players organize an army, and knew of a player who started his own in-game business.  You could go beyond the rules in 4E to do this, but some guidelines or actual rules to do this I'm guessing would be appreciated.  

I do miss stuff like Battlesystem, and I've seen many a 3E thread about wanting to do mass combat stuff.  Can't speak for 4E on this.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 4, 2011)

The Striped Mage of Greyhawk got that name because a p.c. as a prank painted the Mage's tower like a barber's pole. The Mage turned out to be not pissed but pleased, and kept the paint job.

There was no house-painting sub-game in the D & D booklets.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> Let's imagine I knew the answer to that. Do you think it would be relevant to the issue? If someone says "there were never rules for that," responding to the fact that there WERE by saying "well, we always ignored them," is moving the goalposts, I think we can agree.



Rather than moving the goalposts I see it as keeping an accurate assessment of where the goalposts truly are.

You are certainly correct that the rules were there.  But in context of the debate and how the game was actually experienced that rule was nearly meaningless.  And highlighting it as important distorts the conversation.

IMO


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2011)

Maggan said:


> I think one of the reasons that you are getting a reaction about your statement is that "old" people have said the same thing about "young" people since the dawn of civilisation*.
> 
> At least that's my impression. I don't work with young people though, so I don't know if we have at long last reached that point in time where young people will lose their imagination completely.




No, I don't think they'll lose their imagination completely but I do think that there are more tools and cultural influences that encourage imagination loss than there were, say, thirty years ago.

Imagination is, in my opinion, one of the most precious, intrinsically human qualities. It cannot be destroyed but it can be neglected and through neglect, atrophy. My obversation of students is that they are hungry for inspiration, for _real _imaginative experience not just simulated imagination (e.g. TV and video games).

In some sense our culture has taken a step forward in that _play _is more accepted than it was forty or fifty years ago. Back then children grew up and didn't play; or rather, their version of play was reading the sports page or assembling porcelain figure displays or playing golf or poker. Play was for kids - and so were myths and imagination. Now we have all kinds of variation of adult play, including tabletop RPGs. Play has been, to some extent, legitimized. Adults love stories, love to play.

So it isn't all bad. I just worry about a future in which movies have entirely replaced books and video games replaced storytelling games (including TTRPGs). That would be a grim world indeed.



Ariosto said:


> TaiChara tells the truth, Mercurius, about what's going on. Kids (and other people, too) _are_ grooving on the collaborative, socially mediated construction of story-telling games.
> 
> It's "the other" direction of development from MUD, not the one that gets you EverQuest and World of Warcraft.




Sounds intriguing but I'm honestly not sure what you (and evidently TaiChara) are talking about. What sort of story-telling games are you referring to?



Ariosto said:


> This is an old problem in the FRP business. The latter may well turn out to have thrived on a "generation" that in the long run is not the rule but the exception.
> 
> The _first_ generation did their own thing and made it up as they went along. (I could say "we", as that's the scene to which I was introduced and the ethos that still seems natural to me.)
> 
> ...




Interesting stuff, Ariosto. You describe why I think that early phase, the early 70s up until maybe the AD&D hardcovers came out in '77-'79, was the Golden Age of RPGs. Not only was everything new and fresh, but there was an emphasis on create-it-yourself. DM's Fiat ruled the day and didn't even need to be named, afaict, because it was simply how you did things. In other words, the rules were meant to serve the imaginative experience; imagination wasn't meant to flavor the rules, as may be the case now.

Somewhere along the way D&D stopped being a grassroots movement. It definitely was up until the end of the "Golden Age" in the late 70s, and was to a certain extent through the "Silver Age" of the 80s. One big step away from that may have been when Gary Gygax left; another was when WotC bought out TSR; another was when Hasbro bought WotC. This doesn't mean that there aren't real gamers involved; I would guess that every designer at WotC is a gamer, loves to play. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic to say this, but it would seem that the bottom line is profit margin, not what makes for fun gaming. It is a strange, depressing assumption that Americans make that this has to be the case, that profit can't come _after _quality.

What I think we have is a case of D&D perpetually unable to fulfill its potential. What I think we need is to find again a kind of Edenic early 70s inspiration, yet with the wealth of the last 40 years of game design experience. Remember that slogan from Necromancer Games I think, "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" - or something like that. How about "5th Edition Rules, OD&D Feel." That would be the shiznitz!


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 5, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> So it isn't all bad. I just worry about a future in which movies have entirely replaced books and video games replaced storytelling games (including TTRPGs). That would be a grim world indeed.




To a degree, I find books overrated.  Wherever possible, I'd rather watch a (decent) movie version of something.  Sitting down for 16+ hours of reading vs. 2 hours of watching a movie I feel is a much better expenditure of my time.




Mercurius said:


> What I think we have is a case of D&D perpetually unable to fulfill its potential. What I think we need is to find again a kind of Edenic early 70s inspiration, yet with the wealth of the last 40 years of game design experience. Remember that slogan from Necromancer Games I think, "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" - or something like that. How about "5th Edition Rules, OD&D Feel." That would be the shiznitz!




Most of my gaming was in the 80's, so going back to the 70's would not be a good trip for me.  Going to OD&D would be before my (D&D playing) time, and I wouldn't have a reference point.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You are certainly correct that the rules were there.  But in context of the debate and how the game was actually experienced that rule was nearly meaningless.  And highlighting it as important distorts the conversation.




Considering the group I played with did actually use and experience those rules, I'd say that highlighting them as important doesn't distort the conversation at all. 



			
				Johnny3D3D said:
			
		

> The game shall remain the same!




I don't think anybody wants the game to stay exactly the same. Maybe keep the same scope, or even widen it, rather than narrow it...


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> To a degree, I find books overrated.  Wherever possible, I'd rather watch a (decent) movie version of something.  Sitting down for 16+ hours of reading vs. 2 hours of watching a movie I feel is a much better expenditure of my time.




I love movies too, from fun-but-vapid action adventures to warm-and-fuzzy "rom-coms" to mind-fux like _Inception _(which my wife and I just watched; I'm still reeling a bit!) to subtle explorations of the human condition. But movies cannot go to the depth that literature can; it is partially a time thing - 16+ hours of reading can cover a lot more territory than 2 hours of watching - but it is also an _immersion _thing, a capacity for depth and subtlety, and perhaps most of all, the fact that with a book you, the reader, are creating a world. 



Stormonu said:


> Most of my gaming was in the 80's, so going back to the 70's would not be a good trip for me.  Going to OD&D would be before my (D&D playing) time, and I wouldn't have a reference point.




Me too - I started in 1982 or so. But I'm going upon what I understand of the early years, the "Golden Age," which was well characterized by Ariosto's post. It wasn't that it was perfect or that the game was better, but what I'm pointing at is the feeling of freshness and possibility. I imagine that it must have been very exciting being part of something just starting, discovering new territory, forging a veritable civilization.

So when I talk about "5E Rules, OD&D Feel" I'm talking about combining the best of 40 years of game design with a feeling of inspiration, vitality, and potential. Cutting edge rules designed to serve the free play of imagination create and explore infinite worlds...


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 5, 2011)

double post


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 5, 2011)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> Sounds intriguing but I'm honestly not sure what you (and evidently TaiChara) are talking about. What sort of story-telling games are you referring to?



I'll bet TaiChara is more "with it". There are names I can almost remember, including a site that had several formally organized games, but I am not into the scene.

Just looking around now, though, I found these items:

Just a sample of the free form RPGs on sorcery.net IRC channels:
[FONT=verdana,arial,arial]#BLKDRAGON*Inn [/FONT]BlkDragon.com - Home
#Axalon*Station: Axalon Station - Home

[An accidental graphics thing I can't get rid of]:

 
  



Storytelling Game at Dragonica Forum: Storytelling game - Dragonica Official Forum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! articles (no links to current game sites, AFAIK):

Here is a 4-page "Interactive Online Storytelling: A Guide to Freeform Roleplaying": Interactive Online Storytelling: A Guide to Free Form Roleplaying - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com 

And two pages on "Play By Forum Role Playing Games": Play by Forum Role Playing Games - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Harry Potter Roleplaying: Harry Potter Role-playing - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's "The INFJ Cafe Storytelling Game": [INFJ] The INFJ Cafe Storytelling Game - PersonalityCafe



City of If:


			
				cityofif.com said:
			
		

> Storygames are different than other types of free                    online RPGs. Instead of rolling dice to determine the outcome of an action, the author of each story posts a chapter up to a "decision point." Players then describe the actions they would like to take, which is then put into a poll and voted on. The outcome of each poll determines where the game goes from there. The end result is like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure gamebook, but with a group of players choosing together which path to take, and with each chapter being written as the game is played.
> 
> You can play in our interactive stories, or you can write your own and have others play in yours.




From the same site, here's an essay, *Myth and Roleplaying Games: Seven                  Treasures and Five Dragons* Myth and Roleplaying Games: Seven Treasures and Five Dragons .

A Wikipedia article on a broader category that includes the more free form games: Online text-based role-playing game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 5, 2011)

Anyhow, the immediate thing is that many people not only don't feel a need for 1000+ pp. of rules, but if they are aware of the phenomenon they may _dis_like it or find it wanting.

The longer-term possibility to which I alluded is that our current fetish for Official Rules -- upon which the big business end of RPGs has been built -- may turn out to be an exceptional phase. The "hobbyist" culture prior to the fad may better exemplify the norm to which "the market" shall return.

I don't mean a state in which nobody is a hard core follower of the D&D branded product line, but one in which that's a niche market. Just as there are few under-20s today acquainted with Avalon Hill type games, so a "critical mass" of kids for whom D&D figures as a hobby among their peers may no  longer (or soon not) be there.

I'm not sure that is likely, but it occurs to me as a possibility.

Note that RPGs rose to prominence during the great era of commercial wargames, especially of boardgames. Board wargames still appear, and historical miniatures games go on, but with nothing like the volume or visibility there was prior to sometime in the 1990s.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 5, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> The fact that WotC *apparently* sees no features in D&D outside of Fighting Encounters is alarming to me. Because it, more than anything, makes me think eventually they'll just decide "screw it, let's make everything a board game."




I said it before, and I'll say it again - you can argue that 4E should have _more_ emphasis on stuff outside of 'Fighting Encounters', but arguing that it _doesn't exist_ is flat-out incorrect. We've got an Adventurer Vault with an entire section of items designed to decorate strongholds. We've got a skill challenge system designed to provide ways to handle all sorts of non-combat encounters, up to and including mass combat scenarios. We've got a DMG2 with lots of advice on running non-combat elements. We've got Epic Destinies which are absolutely a in-game goal for characters to aspire to, many of which include significant story-based elements. We even have some Paragon Paths along these lines, such as the Guildmaster Thief. 

Now, things that I would like to see? 
-Some rules for Paragon level goals comparable to Epic Destinies, but smaller in scale. Stuff like the keeps and armies you've mentioned - we'll see how well the Dragon article on Strongholds pulls it off. Or a general refocusing of Paragon Paths to be more along these lines, rather than just generic elite dudes. 
-Some options for PCs to have non-adventuring specialties, without having to undercut their adventuring skills to do so. We see bits and pieces of this in backgrounds and themes, and Player's Option: Champions of the Heroic Tier, is rumored to have stuff along these lines. Again, hopefully they can condense some of these elements into a solid unified system. 

What specific elements are you looking for? More detailed rules for henchmen? Titles?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 5, 2011)

MrMyth, to me (not necessarily mattcolville) the key is in published scenarios and actual play.

Considering what a cliché it has become to aver that D&D back in the day was nothing but fighting, I reckon *it's a really bad sign when old-time D&Ders find your game to be not much but a wargame.*

"Encounter" now effectively means a game in itself, and in my experience it's not much of a game except with the fighting rules that are plainly the centerpiece.

The answer is not "more rules" or "fewer rules". The answer is actually to _want_ something other than a Checkers/Magic TG hybrid with wargame "fluff". 

See, if that were what WotC and their fans wanted, then that is what they would *do*.

What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 5, 2011)

What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs.[/QUOTE]

This is so true.  It describes 4E to a T.  Except for the fact that the combats will often take well over an hour.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 5, 2011)

TaiChara said:


> Oh please, not another one of these again.  I suppose it's time to crawl out of my den of lurkerdom and address this tired and tiresome handwringing before disappearing once more into the ether.
> 
> I'm not addressing the WotC subject here; on that, I don't really give a damn.  It's the _other_ slant of the OP's post that I'm stepping up to.
> 
> ...




Are you really serious?  Is this really an online phenomenon for adolescents?  You may be right, but seeing my step kids online, I find this very difficult to believe.  "Roleplaying" of the sort you describe would be the last thing they would do online.  To be honest, it's hard for me to picture today's teenagers actually doing what you describe.  This is the first I've heard of this so I may not be as common as you think.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 5, 2011)

The issue that comes with adding those rules to D&D's current set up is that having those outside sources of revenue and resources risks enabling a player to have more money and more buying power than the already established guidelines concerning what a character should have at a given level.  You also have the issue of followers turning out to be worthless; in a 3.5 game, no amount of level 1 followers could hope to challenge someone a handful of levels higher.  While 4E does lessen the power curve between levels, that same issue would still exist. You could create some sort of seperate minigame which handles such things, but then you have the current issue of not really getting what you want out of your non-encounter focused interests.

I will again stress that I won't say it can't be done.  It can be.

However, for me, I still feel it's better to play a game other than D&D 4E if you'd like to place more focus on goals which aren't easily quantified in a combat encounter atmospher.  There are games in which combat rewards and other types of rewards (as well as their respective risks) are weighed on the same scale and given equal prominence.  Whether or not I can do things is not the issue -as I've said before.  For me, the issue is whether or not the game can quantify the things I want to do a manner which is meaningful to me in the context of the game.


Example?

In a non-D&D game I'm involved in, the same resources are used to buy both combat ability and non-combat ability for a character.  This does mean putting points in one area takes points away from the other; however, both areas are also equally supported.  The game doesn't assume that combat will be a central focus (even though the combat system is rather robust,) nor does it assume other types of play will be.  It doesn't make any assumptions at all.  It places both aspects of my character in play at all times.  I don't have different abilities and skills available depending upon whether the GM decides the game is in skill challenge mode, encounter mode, or rp mode.  All are in play at all times.

For the player who has chosen to dump all of his resources into combat ability, that's not a problem.  He has done so.  However, there are times when hack & slash isn't the best answer.  As such this allows the guy who spent more of his resources on other things to have a place in the party without feeling suboptimal.  

Likewise, when I choose to spend some of my resources on stronghold building or political wrangling, the game can reward success (or failure as the case might be) just as equally as rewarding the combat monster and the skill monkey.  There's not any sort of metagame (i.e. you should have X items worth Y at level Z) assuption which gets broken.

To be fair, there are a few things D&D does better than the other game.  That's exactly my point though.  Instead of continually hacking and chopping at a set of rules and coming away still feel somehow betrayed (How dare WoTC not think building a castle is cool!) it might be beneficial to see what things are like on the other side of the fence.

Note: I intentionally chose to not mention the name of the other game and be somewhat vague about the mechanics and details.  I didn't want to turn this thread into a flame war about system preference, nor did I want to come across as though I was bashing one way of play or another.  The point is that D&D is built upon certain design ideals.  Other games are built upon different ideals.  For me, I've found that -even if I intend to modify the rules anyway- I have a better experience if I start with a framework which has ideals about gaming which are more similar to what I want.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:
			
		

> While 4E does lessen the power curve between levels



I don't remember an AC bonus by level in 3e, except as a variant in a supplement. In 4e, the sum of reciprocal chances to hit seems to stay about the same, so a bonus for me is a penalty for you.

My impression is that the Powers system has a similar effect, more pronounced than Feats in 3e.

Above all, the recovery of resources between "encounters" means that attrition is not the factor it used to be.

I'm not a 3e maven, but in AD&D a 13th-level fighter might have twice the chance to score a hit vs. plate as a 5th-level one -- but get worn down to half the hit points (or less). Heck, it's possible (if improbable) that the Lord would _start_ with less at peak. (e.g., poor avg. 3 x 13 = 39, vs. good avg. 8 x 5 = 40)

If memory serves, h.p. recovery in 3e -- both innate and magical, the latter depending on caster level -- got a level bonus. However, both resources were still basically on the old daily time scale.



> In a non-D&D game I'm involved in, the same resources are used to buy both combat ability and non-combat ability for a character. This does mean putting points in one area takes points away from the other...



... whereas in old D&D, x.p. and levels both are artificial constraints only on the particularly fantastic elements that figure in the "dungeon adventure" scheme.

If something does not earn x.p., then neither does it require them! My fighter can also be a lover, a scholar, a gentleman, a philanthropist and an intriguer regardless. He can go on to more such accomplishments even if he happens also to have hit the level limit for a Hobbit.



> The point is that D&D is built upon certain design ideals.  Other games are built upon different ideals.



D&D *is* other games built upon different ideals.

That is one big problem here.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 6, 2011)

rounser said:


> D&D cannot beat the computer games, except in three key areas: Self actualisation, improvisation, and arcane-ness.  D&D's fun is NOT in the combat engine, but as a fantasy construction kit to make your own world, characters and adventures, and should support that more.  Prep time is still ridiculous, and support for improvised play near nonexistent.  D&D can never beat the computers at combat, so IMO they should just relinquish that pie in the sky and speed it up.  The focus should be on epic quests, not 60 minute single encounters.




Truer words were ne'er spoken!

The selling point of DnD (the king of paper and pencil games) is that ANYTHING can happen.  ANYTHING.  

And that's because if the STORY.  

But 4E removed the story and just left the action seens.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 6, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I don't remember an AC bonus by level in 3e, except as a variant in a supplement.




Level doesn't feed into AC directly, but indirectly - through GP.



Ariosto said:


> If memory serves, h.p. recovery in 3e -- both innate and magical, the latter depending on caster level -- got a level bonus. However, both resources were still basically on the old daily time scale.




GP (and possibly XP) allows HP recovery per encounter.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 6, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Level doesn't feed into AC directly, but indirectly - through GP.
> 
> 
> 
> GP (and possibly XP) allows HP recovery per encounter.




All very true. 3E was, to a large part, built upon the christams tree concept, and high level characters had tons of resources in their magical items. Much more than any edition before or after.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 6, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> What specific elements are you looking for? More detailed rules for henchmen? Titles?




A game outside of skirmish-level combat.

D&D has _rules_ for stuff out of combat, but those rules are mostly disconnected elements floating off on their own. The combat rules, on the other hand, form a self-contained, tactically interesting, carefully built mini-game. That's why 4E feels so combat-focused, despite having arguably more rules support for noncombat situations than any previous edition--it's not the absolute level of support, but the contrast between the combat rules and the rest of the system.

Skill challenges were an attempt to develop social and exploration encounters in the same way, but as written they fall pretty flat. There are very seldom any meaningful choices to be made in a by-the-book skill challenge. You pick the best skill you can find an excuse to use, and then it's all up to the dice. When skill challenges work, it's usually because the DM either a) took the basic framework and built an ad hoc mini-game on top of it, or b) successfully concealed from the players that a skill challenge was going on at all. In both cases, the DM is doing the heavy lifting. The rules are providing about as much entertainment as BECMI's rules provide for a duel between two vanilla fighters.

What I would like to see is an effort to build a more substantial framework for social, exploration, and other types of noncombat encounters. I'm not asking for anything as heavy or mechanically rigid as the combat rules, mind you. Social encounters in particular need a lightweight approach to keep the rules from bogging down the roleplaying. But I would still like to have a system which offers meaningful choices between the various skills, and which actively helps the DM construct engaging noncombat scenarios.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2011)

> What I would like to see is an effort to build a more substantial framework for social, exploration, and other types of noncombat encounters. I'm not asking for anything as heavy or mechanically rigid as the combat rules, mind you. Social encounters in particular need a lightweight approach to keep the rules from bogging down the roleplaying. But I would still like to have a system which offers meaningful choices between the various skills, and which actively helps the DM construct engaging noncombat scenarios.




Can't slap you with XP, Dasuul, but...+1.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> That's why 4E feels so combat-focused, despite having arguably more rules support for noncombat situations than any previous edition--it's not the absolute level of support, but the contrast between the combat rules and the rest of the system.



It's cool that that's why it feels that way, to you. However, I don't think that's "the" reason in the larger context.

Original D&D, Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha, etc., (mainly the emphasis in spells/mutations, magic/tech items and monsters), Top Secret, Traveller, RuneQuest, Skyrealms of Jorune ... I've met a lot of rules books with more detail on combat than on any other activity, for games that were not zoomed in on it like 4e.

Heck, even Call of Cthulhu gets more into particular weapons and weapon skills (and special-case rules for firearms, combat and injuries) than into the generally more helpful Library Use or Credit Rating.

The big difference to my eye is the method of play. It's "all about the combat" because that's how the designers designed it, the presenters present it, and the players (often enough) play it.

Dragging down everything else to taking an hour to resolve a minute of imaginary activity might be mathematically a "balance" -- but a "four-minute game day" is probably not going to be more fun for people who want _adventure_.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jan 6, 2011)

Shazman said:


> Are you really serious?  Is this really an online phenomenon for adolescents?  You may be right, but seeing my step kids online, I find this very difficult to believe.  "Roleplaying" of the sort you describe would be the last thing they would do online.  To be honest, it's hard for me to picture today's teenagers actually doing what you describe.  This is the first I've heard of this so I may not be as common as you think.




I'm jumping in in the middle here - kind of a tl;dr, sorry - but I think what Tai'Chara is talking about is boards like hexrpg.com and hprpg.net. They're popular enough that more than half, I would say, of the kids in my classroom have heard of this sort of roleplaying, even if they haven't tried it themselves.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 6, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I don't remember an AC bonus by level in 3e, except as a variant in a supplement. In 4e, the sum of reciprocal chances to hit seems to stay about the same, so a bonus for me is a penalty for you.
> 
> My impression is that the Powers system has a similar effect, more pronounced than Feats in 3e.
> 
> ...





In 3e, the amount of resources available to a character given simply just from leveling up were greater.  Your BAB increased; your saves increased, and you were (usually) given better class features.  You were also expected to have a certain number of items which were of certain levels.

My point?  A level 20 fighter with great cleave could instantly 'teleport' through a whole battlefield with a never ending number of attacks if the enemy army of low level followers was fighting in formation.  

This was especially pronounced for mages where the difference of one or two levels could mean the difference between having things such as haste available.

In 4E, there is somewhat the same issue; however, the math of the game is structured in such a way that it takes more levels before a foe is too strong for you to handle.  Likewise, 4E tends to assume less item slots are filled with appropriate level items.


As for the XP and such... well, I agree...  There are games in which the concepts of levels and XP don't exist at all.  As such, what my character accomplishes depends upon what the character does, and actions are not limited by those artificial constructs - whether I'm in a dungeon, on a boat, in a plane, or farming a rice field.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 6, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> A game outside of skirmish-level combat.




I think "game" is a good choice of words.

Outside of combat, how do the mechanics respond to the choices the players make?  Do they feed back into character resources?  The adversity the players face?  The rewards the characters earn?

I think the mechanics don't do anything outside of combat because they aren't part of the game.  A successful Perception check at the right time & place isn't going to reveal a cache of treasure (character resources) that the PCs wouldn't have found anyway.  You might do things other than combat because you enjoy it, but it doesn't tie into anything the system cares about (like HP, GP, the powers you have, your attack bonus, defences, etc.).

Skill challenges do grant XP, but there are issues with skill checks that cause problems when you use skill challenges.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 6, 2011)

fumetti said:


> But 4E removed the story and just left the action seens.



Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If YOU removed the story from YOUR games, why is a particular edition of game rules to fault?

MY 4e games have seen an increase in non-combat scenes compared to previous editions.

Your statement might be somewhat accurate if you said that (almost all) WotC adventure modules concentrate on the action scenes. But anything beyond that is simply highly inaccurate.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> My point? A level 20 fighter with great cleave could instantly 'teleport' through a whole battlefield with a never ending number of attacks if the enemy army of low level followers was fighting in formation.




@Johnny3D3D

I dont see how-Great Cleave Just lets you use your cleave attack an unlimited times per round. Cleave lets you make an immediate extra attack if you drop an enemy to 0 or lower HP-but ONLY if the enemy is in reach, and you cant take a 5 ft step. With a spiked chain (despite the name Cleave doesnt say it can only be used with slahing weapons) I can see him clearing everything within reach in a single turn, which would look rather impressive if just ONE guy were completely surrounded.

Make for one helluva intimidate check.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#cleave


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 6, 2011)

Shazman said:


> Are you really serious? Is this really an online phenomenon for adolescents? You may be right, but seeing my step kids online, I find this very difficult to believe. "Roleplaying" of the sort you describe would be the last thing they would do online. To be honest, it's hard for me to picture today's teenagers actually doing what you describe. This is the first I've heard of this so I may not be as common as you think.




You can mark that one down as confirmed.  Start with sixwordstories.livejournal.com (not good - just damn big).  Yes, two thirds of the characters being roleplayed there at _least_ are from films or TV.  Your point?



Ariosto said:


> MrMyth, to me (not necessarily mattcolville) the key is in published scenarios and actual play.
> 
> Considering what a cliché it has become to aver that D&D back in the day was nothing but fighting, I reckon *it's a really bad sign when old-time D&Ders find your game to be not much but a wargame.*




Why?  Because of the massive irony-factor involved?  When D&D has since 1974 been slapped onto a minatures wargame.



> "Encounter" now effectively means a game in itself, and in my experience it's not much of a game except with the fighting rules that are plainly the centerpiece.




Encounter means scene.  Start from that premise and things fall into place.  And I for one find the skill challenge rules excellent - near the sweet spot of providing me as DM enough to resolve things without being constraining or meaning I need to disrupt the scene to look things up.



> The answer is not "more rules" or "fewer rules". The answer is actually to _want_ something other than a Checkers/Magic TG hybrid with wargame "fluff".




And 4e to me is the first edition to provide that without heading hard down the simulationist rabbit hole and in the direction of GURPS Vehicles (why not just use a CAD package?)  The DC setting in 3e makes me want to tear my hair out as a DM.  And let's not get into 2e's mess of NWPs.



> See, if that were what WotC and their fans wanted, then that is what they would *do*.
> 
> What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs.




Really?  That's what some do.  But not often what happens at my tables.

In short, every single thing you say 4e doesn't do it does for me.



Ariosto said:


> I don't remember an AC bonus by level in 3e, except as a variant in a supplement. In 4e, the sum of reciprocal chances to hit seems to stay about the same, so a bonus for me is a penalty for you.




But that's not the only measure of power.  (And a bonus is always the flip side of a penalty).  Yes, there's a quantitative jump in 4e at each level.  But there's a qualitative leap in older editions - each new spell level (i.e. every other level) makes you massively more effective.



> My impression is that the Powers system has a similar effect, more pronounced than Feats in 3e.




And less pronounced than spell levels.  Which is why the fighter drops off the radar as an effective class fast.  There's a reason in 3e every two levels is a doubling of power by the EL system and in 4e it's every four levels.



> Above all, the recovery of resources between "encounters" means that attrition is not the factor it used to be.




You're thinking of 2e not 3e.  Wands of Cure Light Wounds delt with a lot - leaving just daily resources as the attrition system.  4e limits healing.



> If memory serves, h.p. recovery in 3e -- both innate and magical, the latter depending on caster level -- got a level bonus. However, both resources were still basically on the old daily time scale.




Until you got rich enough to afford Wands of Cure Light Wounds.  (A wand of CLW cost 750gp and stored 50*5.5 = 275hp).  At that point (4th level or so) only very poor parties with extremely stingy DMs needed to worry about time healing. 



> If something does not earn x.p., then neither does it require them! My fighter can also be a lover, a scholar, a gentleman, a philanthropist and an intriguer regardless.




And here is the flipside of the castle/follower rules.  Because that hard codes things.



fumetti said:


> Truer words were ne'er spoken!
> 
> The selling point of DnD (the king of paper and pencil games) is that ANYTHING can happen. ANYTHING.
> 
> ...




Bollocks!  4e, with skill challenges, has more non-combat support than any previous edition, along with a DMG pushing them hard.  Now if you're talking about 4e _modules,_ you have a point...



Dausuul said:


> A game outside of skirmish-level combat.
> 
> D&D has _rules_ for stuff out of combat, but those rules are mostly disconnected elements floating off on their own.




Yeah, this is why I can't stand AD&D.  For that matter the combat rules are too disconnected to suit me.



> The combat rules, on the other hand, form a self-contained, tactically interesting, carefully built mini-game. That's why 4E feels so combat-focused, despite having arguably more rules support for noncombat situations than any previous edition--it's not the absolute level of support, but the contrast between the combat rules and the rest of the system.




But this is how I like both.  When things matter to the milimetre with imminent danger of death things are nailed down.  When there's longer to play with, things are looser.



> Skill challenges were an attempt to develop social and exploration encounters in the same way, but as written they fall pretty flat. There are very seldom any meaningful choices to be made in a by-the-book skill challenge.




The ones in modules _suck_.



> You pick the best skill you can find an excuse to use, and then it's all up to the dice.




And are rolling against hard DCs at best.  If you're playing the situation I'll be handing out easy DCs.



> When skill challenges work, it's usually because the DM either a) took the basic framework and built an ad hoc mini-game on top of it,




Which is precisely what skill challenges are meant for 



> or b) successfully concealed from the players that a skill challenge was going on at all. In both cases, the DM is doing the heavy lifting.




Yes, it's a rope and pulley system.  In older editions I don't even have to do that.  I need to construct my own framework for any complex action.  



> The rules are providing about as much entertainment as BECMI's rules provide for a duel between two vanilla fighters.




The rules are providing what I need.  Resolution mechanics that match the PCs abilities and then fade into the background.



> What I would like to see is an effort to build a more substantial framework for social, exploration, and other types of noncombat encounters. I'm not asking for anything as heavy or mechanically rigid as the combat rules, mind you. Social encounters in particular need a lightweight approach to keep the rules from bogging down the roleplaying. But I would still like to have a system which offers meaningful choices between the various skills, and which actively helps the DM construct engaging noncombat scenarios.




A Big Book Of Illustrated Skill Challenges would be sweet.  The guidance on how to use them sucks.  Which is very different from nto finding them extremely useful.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 6, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> MrMyth, to me (not necessarily mattcolville) the key is in published scenarios and actual play.




Now, that I can't really argue with. There are some solid 4E adventures and scenarios, but many of them are really poorly done. But it has also been commented on that those written this way are often counter to the actual advice given in the DMGs - I don't think that is a failing of the system itself, as much as the adventure writers. 



Shazman said:


> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> > What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs.
> ...




Well, it doesn't describe my 4E game, or the 4E game as presented in the rulebooks themselves. I can't claim to speak on behalf of 4E adventures, though, so there may be some that fall into this sort of description. 

I think part of the problem here, though, is skill challenges (the 'random Dice Challenge' mentioned above). On the one hand, we've got concerns such as those of Ariosto, where having rules for this sort of thing means it replaces problem solving and NPC interaction. At the same time, we've got Dausuul who is specifically looking for a rules system for these non-combat encounters. Which we do have in the form of skill challenges - except they are a lot harder to balance and run than actual combat encounters. And that's half the problem. 

But even if they got skill challenges perfectly right, we still see this disconnect here, where what one side is looking for is completely counter to what others are looking for. And some of that could be addressed by having optional rules for one approach or the other, so DMs can choose whatever works for them. And we've seen bits and pieces of that, in the form of rules for quest XP, or later, the guidelines for giving out XP based on RP accomplishment alone. 

But even then, a lot of this seems to focus on wanting WotC to 'encourage' certain approaches or styles of play, and figuring out how to accomplish that can be very hard to actually pin down - how do you present something for PCs to 'want'? By having actual rules for strongholds? Or just by having adventures where PCs have opportunities to gain titles or land? 

Anyway, I may be coming across as Devil's Advocate here, but both the elements mentioned thus far (better scenarios, and a more robust framework for non-combat scenes) are ideas I can get behind. At the same time, I still see complaints ("4E removed the story") that don't seem actually rooted in 4E itself, but instead simply in someone's vague perception of 4E that has little to no actual connection to the game itself.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Well, it doesn't describe my 4E game, or the 4E game as presented in the rulebooks themselves.



Mine either. Our campaign is a story-heavy, characterization-heavy, and god knows in-character _dialog_-heavy sandbox, in which the PC's enact one crackpot plan (crackplot?) after another in search of fame, fortune and violence. 

(I'll admit, the combat scenes _do_ take a rather long time.)

These conversations tend to follow a similar pattern: critics of the recent edition compare idealized, "best-of" examples of old-school play... 

"D&D used to be an intellectual knife-fight between large, bearded Renaissance men. Whose interests and acumen were as expansive as their waistlines."

...with shallow caricatures of contemporary play... 

"Now D&D is just a board game with all role-playing/problem-solving replaced by Yahtzee, played by scrawny, dumb video game addicts with the attention spans of caffeinated fruit flies."

Now does that seem fair? Or, better yet, even remotely accurate?

Plenty of old-school campaigns were dumb and combat-focused, just as plenty of new-school ones are smart and varied. And vice-versa.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 6, 2011)

Mallus said:


> These conversations tend to follow a similar pattern: critics of the recent edition compare idealized, "best-of" examples of old-school play...
> 
> "D&D used to be an intellectual knife-fight between large, bearded Renaissance men. Whose interests and acumen were as expansive as their waistlines."
> 
> ...




It sure seems that way sometimes.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> It sure seems that way sometimes.



Not to me. But maybe I'm just lucky to game with the people I do. Or I'm more objective. Perhaps a bit of both?

Don't get me wrong, I love the core of old-school play: DM-adjudicated role-playing/puzzle-solving occurring largely outside the purview of a formal rule system. Which I why I bring a heaping dollop of that to my 3e and 4e campaigns.

But I'm deeply suspicious of any attempt to characterize old-school play as "smarter" because so much of occurred outside the purview of formal rules. Sure, a DM created puzzles and posed challenging situations and the players solved them using their own wits. But did that make the puzzles or their solutions "smart"? What if the puzzles where inane, and the player-proposed solutions equally so? This describes a fair amount of the play I participated in back in the AD&D era. 

Describing old-school play in such a rosy light seems, at best, a little self-congratulatory, and at worst, like a circle jerk.

"How do I know I'm smart? Well, all my friends tell me I am. And I tell them the same thing."


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 6, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Not to me. But maybe I'm just lucky to game with the people I do. Or I'm more objective. Perhaps a bit of both?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the core of old-school play: DM-adjudicated role-playing/puzzle-solving occurring largely outside the purview of a formal rule system. Which I why I bring a heaping dollop of that to my 3e and 4e campaigns.
> 
> ...




Fair enough. I'm just comparing some of my old school experiences with my experience playing at Encounters. And the contrast is so close to your caricature it's remarkable.

On the other hand, that's choosing some of my best old school experiences with my worst experience playing D&D ever, so I see your point.

But I'll never, ever like "roll to see it" mechanics, or social mechanics in any rpg. And even my best 4E experiences have been of plodding combats punctuated by mini-games of D20 Farkle.

So I acknowledge that your caricature is in fact a caricature, but that doesn't make it entirely inapposite.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:
			
		

> I dont see how-Great Cleave...



Well, in old (TSR) D&D, a 20th-level fighter gets 20 attacks per round vs. normal men.

(Dave Arneson also suggested a provision like your "Cleave".)



> Make for one helluva intimidate check.



In old D&D, it's called "morale".


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Mine either. Our campaign is a story-heavy, characterization-heavy, and god knows in-character _dialog_-heavy sandbox, in which the PC's enact one crackpot plan (crackplot?) after another in search of fame, fortune and violence.



Well, my spin on this has been and remains that no system can stop roleplaying and anyone can roleplay anything in 4E that could be roleplayed in any other system.

But, when assessing the merits of one system over another, the equivalencies that players bring to the table are really irrelevant.  It is the how the mechanics in the book integrate with the roleplay that define the quality.

And, for my desires (and clearly many people agree), the mechanics of 4E do a perfectly adequate job of supporting roleplay.  But when choosing between adequate and awesome, the choice is easy.

That in no way whatsoever reduces the amount of roleplay that any individual group may be adding on top of their 4E mechanics.  But, clearly there are highly significant differences in what some people demand of the mechanical side.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 6, 2011)

Perhaps some will disagree, but the combat system is at the heart of all versions of D&D.  It's the reason we all say "I kill them and take their stuff," not, "I persuade them to give up their stuff."

So as I think back to when 2e came out (really hazy memories), when 3e came out (much more clear) and now with 4e, what I experienced was at the beginning, the games were much more combat oriented.  We were learning the new rules and since combat is the heart of the rules system, that was the initial focus.  Over time we became experienced and comfortable with the combat rules and we expanded our game to have more depth.  If for some reason we ever were dissatisfied with the combat rules of a new edition, the odds are we would have given up on it, and never having really pushed the game beyond those early combat-focused runsand would have limited opportunity to judge the merits of the game in greater depth.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> (And a bonus is always the flip side of a penalty).



Not in the matter of mathematics that is actually relevant here.

In old D&D, I get a better chance to hit as I go up in levels (until that stops accruing). *That has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's chance to hit.* A monster with a 30% chance to hit has a 30% chance to hit whether it's taking a swipe at high-level me or lowly Frank the Factotum.



> And less pronounced than spell levels.



Really? I'm not seeing that, but I'm no expert on fine points of WotC-D&D.

Maybe the designers have some insight, though.

The designers of 3e suggest a range of encounter levels mainly (65%) from equal to, to 4 higher than, party level; 5% 5+ higher ("overpowering"); and 30% lower ("easy").

The designers of 4e suggest 1/8 each at the extremes of just 1 level lower and 3 levels higher, and 3/4 at level +0 or +1.



			
				Mr Myth said:
			
		

> On the one hand, we've got concerns such as those of Ariosto, where having rules for this sort of thing means it replaces problem solving and NPC interaction.



May I speak for myself, please?

Having rules for this sort of thing *never in three decades* was a problem I ever encountered *until WotC-D&D*. (I didn't play much 2e AD&D, and I have since _heard of_, and even from, people who made a problem of "non-weapon proficiencies" and the like.)

The rules were there, but not the problem. Not with original D&D or EPT, MA or GW. Not with Top Secret. Not with C&S or Land of the Rising Sun. Not with Traveller or Space Opera. Not with RuneQuest or Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu or Ringworld. Not with The Fantasy Trip. Not with Villains & Vigilantes or Champions or Superworld. Not with The Mechanoid Invasion or Palladium Fantasy. Not with DragonQuest. Not with Rolemaster. Not with Stalking the Night Fantastic or Chill. Not with Gangbusters or Flashing Blades. Not with Bushido or Aftermath. Not with Twilight: 2000. Not with Lords of Creation or Powers & Perils. Not with Swords & Glory or Gardasiyal. Not with GURPS. Not with Prince Valiant or King Arthur Pendragon.

Not with _any_ of the many other rules sets with which I played.

*What I in fact wrote in that post* was that 4e-ers, from what I have seen -- including, yes, the authors of the rulebooks, _in the rulebooks_ -- have made it a series of wargame scenarios one after another. If memory serves, I *very explicitly* wrote that it's not a matter of "more rules" or "fewer rules" but rather of the method of play.

The method of play in 4e is pretty strange relative to what I was accustomed to, in the previous long tradition of "role-playing games".

It is immediately recognizable from experience with close-tactical wargames. "Here's the arena, now FIGHT!"

That kind of thing can be fun (although 4e is not what I would pick), but it's not what _Dungeons & Dragons_ means or ever meant to me and my friends. It's not just the tail wagging the dog; it's the tail _without_ the dog!


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 6, 2011)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Perhaps some will disagree, but the combat system is at the heart of all versions of D&D.  It's the reason we all say "I kill them and take their stuff," not, "I persuade them to give up their stuff."




The problem I have about the "kill them and take their stuff" meme is that it's actually false. The notion of the meme is that old school D&D was about killing monsters and taking their stuff. And that's simply not true... at most it was about taking their stuff, but you only had to kill them first if you messed up and got yourself into a scrum.

Grabbing a single, low-mid level treasure was worth killing thousands of orcs. And the orcs could kill you back. Solution: get the treasure without a fight, if possible.

Speaking of caricatures, sometimes it seems like 3E and later editions were designed by people who saw caricatures of D&D and thought they were true.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 6, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> @Johnny3D3D
> 
> I dont see how-Great Cleave Just lets you use your cleave attack an unlimited times per round. Cleave lets you make an immediate extra attack if you drop an enemy to 0 or lower HP-but ONLY if the enemy is in reach, and you cant take a 5 ft step. With a spiked chain (despite the name Cleave doesnt say it can only be used with slahing weapons) I can see him clearing everything within reach in a single turn, which would look rather impressive if just ONE guy were completely surrounded.
> 
> ...




I may be mis-remembering the name of the feats I'm thinking of.  I recall there being one which allowed you to take a step between the attacks.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Fair enough. I'm just comparing some of my old school experiences with my experience playing at Encounters. And the contrast is so close to your caricature it's remarkable.
> 
> On the other hand, that's choosing some of my best old school experiences with my worst experience playing D&D ever, so I see your point.



To be fair, my experiences playing 3e and 4e have been with a great group of people who do not lack for cleverness, smarts, general amiability and role-playing skills, so that obviously informs my opinion of latter-day D&D, and I've never played an Encounters session, in fact, I haven't been to a convention/organized-play event in almost 20 years. My gaming experiences being exclusively campaigns with friends.



> But I'll never, ever like "roll to see it" mechanics, or social mechanics in any rpg.



I'm not a fan of social mechanics, either, and when I run 3e/4e, I leave it to players whether they want to roll social skill checks. I'm happy talking things out exclusively.



> So I acknowledge that your caricature is in fact a caricature, but that doesn't make it entirely inapposite.



Oh, I'm sure your caricature of 4e play in entirely appropriate in some cases. It just not appropriate, or rather accurate, to locate smart and creative play in any particular edition(s) of the game. Smart and creative play depends on who's playing the game, not what edition they use.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But, clearly there are highly significant differences in what some people demand of the mechanical side.



This invites the question: what mechanical support for role-playing --use any definition you prefer-- did previous editions offer? And what kind of mechanical support do you prefer?

From my perspective, all 4e lacks is the role-playing support department, is the 3e spell casting system. Which is kinda a plus, unless you really want to role-play a 3e caster...


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Mallus said:
			
		

> ...with shallow caricatures of contemporary play...



False.

With the *actual examples* of contemporary play I have seen. With the texts that impart and reinforce it. With what mostly gets talked about when people talk about the game right here at EN world, too.

That you are an exception does not nullify the rule. For the most part, people either
(A) play the game as the books instruct because they have no previous experience doing "D&D" any other way; or
(B) bought the thing in the first place because it is so thoroughly in agreement with their view that "encounteriz4tion" is more fun than what we used to call role-playing; or
(C) happen to prefer RPGs, and D&D, as they have been known (even if only in the previous decade), and so not to be invested in 4e


----------



## Dm_from_Brazil (Jan 6, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> False.
> 
> With the *actual examples* of contemporary play I have seen. With the texts that impart and reinforce it. With what mostly gets talked about when people talk about the game right here at EN world, too.
> 
> ...




FALSE.

What YOU have seen or read is an exception that does not nullify the rule. 
For the most part, people either play in a myriad of ways - and that, of course, is just an IMHO and a personal point of view - as mostly EVERYTHING posted here in En World, by the way... But we are all such a specialists, "RPG studies" researchers and know-it-all, isn´t ?

(As you see, this game can be played by two - now you come and say that all I said is false, and we enter an endless loop)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

Dm_from_Brazil said:


> now you come and say that all I said is false, and we enter an endless loop




Alternatively, the space-time continuum could collapse.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2011)

Mallus said:


> This invites the question: what mechanical support for role-playing --use any definition you prefer-- did previous editions offer? And what kind of mechanical support do you prefer?
> 
> From my perspective, all 4e lacks is the role-playing support department, is the 3e spell casting system. Which is kinda a plus, unless you really want to role-play a 3e caster...



There have been, literally, hundreds of threads on this topic.
Pretending you have not personally participated in them does not make them go away.


As to your perspective, that is perfectly fine.  I respect your perspective.  But, you can't respect other people's perspectives without admitting it exists.  And it exists in very large numbers.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs.





Dausuul said:


> Skill challenges were an attempt to develop social and exploration encounters in the same way, but as written they fall pretty flat. There are very seldom any meaningful choices to be made in a by-the-book skill challenge. You pick the best skill you can find an excuse to use, and then it's all up to the dice.



Neither of these comments reflect my own experience with skill challenges.

I have a collection of rulebook quotes I like to pull out on occasions like this:

From the player’s point of view (PHB pp 179, 259):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

From the GM’s point of view (DMG pp 72–75):

More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure…

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​
So it's not about "making excuses" to use skills. A player has to _explain what his/her PC is doing_ to resolve the challenge. If this is not a _meaningful choice_ with potentially _meaningful consequences_, that's only because the GM is not making the effort to set up skill challenges with meaningful stakes, where methods of resolution make a difference. As a very simple example, whether a social challenge is resolved using Diplomacy or Intimidate should have very obvious consequences for downstream relationships between the PC(s) and NPC(s) in question - and even for subsequent checks during the challenge (eg -2 to future Diplomacy after successful Intimidate).

The main difference between a skill challenge and "free-form" but skill-based encounter resolution of the sort supported by games like Traveller, Runequest and Rolemaster is that a skill challenge imposes a mechanical constraint on resolution - no more than 12 successes can be required by the GM (and XP must be allocated accordingly) and no more than 2 failures may be permitted with success still being possible. The rationale for this sort of quantification (which resembles eg extended contests in HeroQuest or some aspects of the Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel) is that the GM and players aren't free to just string the encounter along until they reach an agreement on its resolution. This imposes pressure on the GM (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, players) to narrate the outcome of skill checks in such a way that a sensible resolution within those mechanical constraints is feasible.

Whether this is a good or bad thing might depend in part on whether you see "free-form" resolution as open-ended an innovative, or as GM-fiat-"mother-may-I". As a GM who has found "free-form" resolution increasingly frustrating over the years, I personally like it.



LostSoul said:


> Outside of combat, how do the mechanics respond to the choices the players make?  Do they feed back into character resources?  The adversity the players face?  The rewards the characters earn?



Based on what I've said above, I think the answer is "Yes". Player choices should affect the resolution of a skill challenge, by opening up some options and foreclosing others. This in turn feeds into adversity. It can also feed into rewards. A very simple example: a successful skill challenge might lead to a magic item being given as a gift, which otherwise is obtained only following a fight. More complex examples might involve access to healing, to information, to social positioning that opens up mechanical and/or ingame options, etc.



LostSoul said:


> there are issues with skill checks that cause problems when you use skill challenges.



I'd like to hear more about this.



Neonchameleon said:


> I for one find the skill challenge rules excellent - near the sweet spot of providing me as DM enough to resolve things without being constraining or meaning I need to disrupt the scene to look things up.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The guidance on how to use them sucks.  Which is very different from nto finding them extremely useful.



I think the guidance on how to use skill challenges could be better. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it sucks - the passages I've quoted above are pretty clear. But I disagree with you about the _rules_ being excellent. I think they have at least a few problems. The main one that crops up for me repeatedly is a lack of clear rules on integrating powers and rituals into skill challenge resolution. Now I'm not an idiot, and so some of this I can work out myself (helped by what is said in DMG 2). But given the intricacy of the mechanical balance in 4e, exactly what is the expected likelihood of saving a healing surge (a fairly standard issue in a skill challenge) by using a ritual costing X gp (DMG 2 says a ritual is worth an automatic success, but this just obviously can't be right eg for a 1st level ritual used by 10th level PCs).



Neonchameleon said:


> 4e to me is the first edition to provide that without heading hard down the simulationist rabbit hole



Agreed.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

DM_from_Brazil said:
			
		

> FALSE.



Based on what?

I have given you the basis for my claim. I am pleased that you should weigh it on its merits.

You offer none whatsoever for yours. I weigh it on its merits.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So it's not about "making excuses" to use skills.



Yes, it is. That's how it comes into existence in the first place.

It's an "encounter", remember, in the WotC-speak sense of the term!



> Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks).




That says it all, which is the problem.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> And 4e to me is the first edition to provide that without heading hard down the simulationist rabbit hole and in the direction of GURPS Vehicles (why not just use a CAD package?)  The DC setting in 3e makes me want to tear my hair out as a DM.  And let's not get into 2e's mess of NWPs.



This is one key difference.

By ALL means, play what is fun TO YOU.

But if you are going to compare 3E to CAD work and say things about your ability to figure DCs that would get someone else warned by a mod had they said them about you, then please keep in mind that those of us who do these things on the fly are going to immediately understand that anyone saying these things does not offer any real insight into what is valuable to *our* games.

Yes, 4E is much easier.  But, to me, the value added there is null and the cost is decisive.

They are different games with different expectations of different target audiences.  This is not REMOTELY to say that there is no overlap.  But, the main target is different.  

If I was some voice in the wilderness, then that would be that.  But looking back over the past 12 years it seems very easy to say that D20/3E revitalized the market and 4E has chopped it into pieces.  Yes, 3E was old and done.  It was time to move into something new.  But, I'm convinced that something new that accepted that some players would feel they were pulling their hair to much would have retained a notably larger fan base.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Fair enough. I'm just comparing some of my old school experiences with my experience playing at Encounters. And the contrast is so close to your caricature it's remarkable.




Stop right there.  You've been playing _Encounters_.  Something designed specifically to be drop-in lowest common denominator game runnable by a random DM with no experience.  Criticising a lack of complex thinking and deep roleplaying in _Encounters_ is like playing the Castle Grayhawk module and then saying that D&D is not a serious game.

You do not often get deep and meaningful games in random dropins with inexperienced players and sessions that are designed for a very basic taster both in front of and behind the screen.  Essentials is what it is designed to be and works wonderfully for that.  It gets people into the game.  It is not the be-all and end-all of 4e and is at one extreme of the spectrum.



BryonD said:


> And, for my desires (and clearly many people agree), the mechanics of 4E do a perfectly adequate job of supporting roleplay.  But when choosing between adequate and awesome, the choice is easy.




For my desires, as a PC the mechanics of 4e do as good a job as any edition of D&D, although it doesn't have things like aspects to invoke.  As a DM, I find improvising easier in 4e than other editions due to the Skill Challenge DC table allowing me to add in the random factor very easily and account for PC rather than player skill.  But to be honest that's a minor factor.  Ultimately, out of combat, no edition of D&D has _ever_ had strong mechanics (although 3.x made you work hard and had detailed ones).



Ariosto said:


> In old D&D, I get a better chance to hit as I go up in levels (until that stops accruing). *That has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's chance to hit.* A monster with a 30% chance to hit has a 30% chance to hit whether it's taking a swipe at high-level me or lowly Frank the Factotum.




That's assuming Frank the Factotum has the same armour, dexterity, and magic as you do.  A ... dubious assumption, especially in 3.X.  (More valid in older editions).



> Really? I'm not seeing that, but I'm no expert on fine points of WotC-D&D.




You don't see high level spells as qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones?  Fascinating.



> Maybe the designers have some insight, though.




And maybe assumptions have changed.  After the outcry when WoTC put in a Roper (IIRC) into a low level campaign.



> The designers of 3e suggest a range of encounter levels mainly (65%) from equal to, to 4 higher than, party level; 5% 5+ higher ("overpowering"); and 30% lower ("easy").
> 
> The designers of 4e suggest 1/8 each at the extremes of just 1 level lower and 3 levels higher, and 3/4 at level +0 or +1.




Different goals.  The 4e encounters are all meant to be beatable.  The 3e ones _aren't_.  As I said, they changed that (IMO massively for the worse) after an early fan outcry.  And the editions use a different attrition and daily resource model - a pre-4e wizard can fire off _all_ his spells in one fight for instance.  And wizards casting spells always takes resources pre-4e.  So even a cakewalk has a cost, whereas in 4e you just stick to the encounter powers and maybe lose a healing surge or two between the party.  Not a measure of encounter difficulty so much as encounter annoyance.



> Having rules for this sort of thing *never in three decades* was a problem I ever encountered *until WotC-D&D*. (I didn't play much 2e AD&D, and I have since _heard of_, and even from, people who made a problem of "non-weapon proficiencies" and the like.)




The problem isn't with WoTC D&D per se.  The problem is with 3.X.  In specific, the problem is the Diplomacy skill and more specifically the Influencing NPC Attitudes table.  That's not a skill.  That's _Charm Person_ usable on everyone with a simple skill roll and no downside.  And it's no harder to use on a high level dragon than a kobold.  As far as I know, no other game has that broken an implementation of a diplomacy skill - with the rules as written allowing for serious Diplomancy and giving the DM about as much leeway as a computer game would have.  And at fairly minimal resource investment.  (And to an extent this has continued into 4e because a lot of 4e players first learned on 3.X)



> It is immediately recognizable from experience with close-tactical wargames. "Here's the arena, now FIGHT!"




Oh, hi, Essentials.  Arena fight is now, admittedly the new Monty Haul.



Korgoth said:


> The problem I have about the "kill them and take their stuff" meme is that it's actually false. The notion of the meme is that old school D&D was about killing monsters and taking their stuff. And that's simply not true... at most it was about taking their stuff, but you only had to kill them first if you messed up and got yourself into a scrum.




Ah yes.  The XP for treasure rule.  One of the more ignored rules in D&D - and removed in 2e.  Which is one reason I _really_ do not like 2e.  That risk/reward incentive model did a hell of a lot for older editions of D&D.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

BryonD said:


> This is one key difference.
> 
> By ALL means, play what is fun TO YOU.
> 
> But if you are going to compare 3E to CAD work and say things about your ability to figure DCs that would get someone else warned by a mod had they said them about you, then please keep in mind that those of us who do these things on the fly are going to immediately understand that anyone saying these things does not offer any real insight into what is valuable to *our* games.




I was less than clear there.  I was comparing _GURPS Vehicles_ to CAD work.  Not 3e which was just a step down that road.  For the record, GURPS Vehicles contains rules for vehicle design - and I don't think it has more than one sample vehicle.

In order to start to design a vehicle you work out its volume in cubic feet.  And then use that to obtain the surface area in square feet (the square of the cube root of the volume if you're interested).  The surface area then provides the base weight and cost for the internal structure and the armour (depending on the materials you use).  Sloping the armour modifies this for each side you slope - as do more complex structures.  If you have a multi-part vehicle (specific examples given include wings, turrets, and limbs) then you do this for each part of the vehicle.  Step two (I think) is to say how many kilowatts you want your vehicle's power plant to produce (there's a conversion factor for horsepower).  You aren't going to find how fast your vehicle can go until you've added the drivetrain (distinct from the engine and added much later in the process), worked out the total weight of this contraption, and run that through various formulae for the accelaration, the cruising speed, the top speed (you also get the fuel efficiency there if you want it) and a few other factors.  Assuming the damn thing will handle something resembling safely at that speed.

I wasn't kidding about the CAD package for GURPS Vehicles.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'd like to hear more about this.




Sure.

"When you use a skill, you make a skill check."

I think that sums up the problem: you don't resolve the action the character takes in the game world; you use a skill and make a skill check.  This leads directly into the sort of "exercise in dice rolling" that many people notice when running Skill Challenges.  Players use a skill and make a skill check against a set DC based on their level.  Interaction with the game world isn't required, and that has an effect on the game: unexpected outcomes aren't going to happen, players will have a hard time paying attention to the game world, and smart or cunning plans aren't any more effective than saying "I roll Diplomacy".

I believe that the point of using mechanics at all is to get unexpected results that everyone is happy with but no one would have come up with.  If you get expected results or results that players are not happy with, you might as well go to free-form RP.  (I'm not talking about results that end up with PCs failing, I'm talking about results that make the players sit back and say, "Well that is stupid."  1E d20 Star Wars snowspeeders being far tougher than AT-ATs, for example.)​
It seems that this was the idea behind Skill Challenges from WotC; otherwise I don't think they would have spent the time in their modules to detail what characters are doing when they make a specific skill check.  They would have detailed the opposition, its disposition and methods and left it up to the group to work out.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> That's assuming Frank the Factotum has the same armour, dexterity, and magic as you do.



So does getting only +x, based on difference in levels. So what? (Those of a logical bent can see that "what" is you arguing with great clarity _against yourself_!)



> A ... dubious assumption, especially in 3.X. (More valid in older editions).



No kidding?



> You don't see high level spells as qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones? Fascinating.



I don't see high level Powers, etc., as *less* qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones. Why do you make a false claim about what I wrote when it's there for anyone to see?



> Different goals.  The 4e encounters are all meant to be beatable.  The 3e ones _aren't_.



All of them up through level+4 ("very difficult") are meant to be beatable. I take your point, though. This is indeed not a sound basis for assessment of the question.



> In specific, the problem is the Diplomacy skill and more specifically the Influencing NPC Attitudes table.  That's not a skill.  That's _Charm Person_ usable on everyone with a simple skill roll and no downside. ...giving the DM about as much leeway as a computer game would have.



Says who? I'm not seeing a stipulation that DMs must be Lawful Stupid in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. (I don't have the 3.0 books handy.)

Where is the rule that circumstantial modifiers do not apply? That's the really big deal to me, because if an idiotic move is as good as a brilliant one, then you can get yourself a Dragonbone because I'm a _game player_ not just a random number generator.

Where are the supposed "no leeway" definitions of what actions result and for how long? Where is the admonition that there is no downside?

Mind you, I'm not inclined to quibble if someone with a bonus of +49 (equivalent to a charisma score of 108 or 109) goes about routinely and repeatedly changing attitudes from "hostile" to "helpful" with just a smile.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> I was comparing _GURPS Vehicles_ to CAD work.  Not 3e which was just a step down that road.



...about *20 years* behind _Striker_ (1981 rules set for 15mm _Traveller_ miniatures).


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> I was less than clear there. I was comparing _GURPS Vehicles_ to CAD work. Not 3e which was just a step down that road. For the record, GURPS Vehicles contains rules for vehicle design - and I don't think it has more than one sample vehicle.
> 
> In order to start to design a vehicle you work out its volume in cubic feet. And then use that to obtain the surface area in square feet (the square of the cube root of the volume if you're interested). The surface area then provides the base weight and cost for the internal structure and the armour (depending on the materials you use). Sloping the armour modifies this for each side you slope - as do more complex structures. If you have a multi-part vehicle (specific examples given include wings, turrets, and limbs) then you do this for each part of the vehicle. Step two (I think) is to say how many kilowatts you want your vehicle's power plant to produce (there's a conversion factor for horsepower). You aren't going to find how fast your vehicle can go until you've added the drivetrain (distinct from the engine and added much later in the process), worked out the total weight of this contraption, and run that through various formulae for the accelaration, the cruising speed, the top speed (you also get the fuel efficiency there if you want it) and a few other factors. Assuming the damn thing will handle something resembling safely at that speed.
> 
> I wasn't kidding about the CAD package for GURPS Vehicles.





It's worth point out that GURPS Vehicles was a completely optional book, and not at all required to create vehicles.  It was a more complex system offered for those who wanted a more complex system.

Even considering that, I would hardly say it is CAD work.  Complex? Yeah.  Impossible?  Not at all.  I will give you that it was somewhat clunky, but it hardly required an engineering degree.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 7, 2011)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Perhaps some will disagree, but the combat system is at the heart of all versions of D&D.  It's the reason we all say "I kill them and take their stuff," not, "I persuade them to give up their stuff."




That phrase is used satirically. It lampoons a stereotype of hack-and-slash D&D that is used as an implied comparison to a more sophisticated game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Sure.
> 
> "When you use a skill, you make a skill check."
> 
> I think that sums up the problem: you don't resolve the action the character takes in the game world; you use a skill and make a skill check.




That's possibly poor wording.  But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll."   Explaining the meta and mechanical rules.  And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much _in character_ meaning as THAC0



Johnny3D3D said:


> It's worth point out that GURPS Vehicles was a completely optional book, and not at all required to create vehicles. It was a more complex system offered for those who wanted a more complex system.
> 
> Even considering that, I would hardly say it is CAD work. Complex? Yeah. Impossible? Not at all. I will give you that it was somewhat clunky, but it hardly required an engineering degree.




Just a long time and computer assistance would have been extremely useful.  Seriously, the square of the cube root of an Imperial measurement - and estimating volumes in cubic feet (I have _no idea_ how many cubic feet a car is).



BryonD said:


> There have been, literally, hundreds of threads on this topic.




And every single thread on how 4e is bad for roleplaying has come up with the same arguments - that having social skills is detrimental to roleplaying, that not having detailed skills of the level of 4e is detrimental to roleplaying, and generally arbitrary issues.  The only criticisms that make sense that I've ever seen and that don't slam prior editions (normally either 3e or OD&D) harder than 4e come from the Indy Gamers asking for aspects.



Ariosto said:


> So does getting only +x, based on difference in levels. So what? (Those of a logical bent can see that "what" is you arguing with great clarity _against yourself_!)




So if level has any useful feature, it is a measure of the _power level_ of the character.  Iron Man can beat up Tony Stark.  Equipment is a part of that power level - and there has always been an expectation of equipment.  (Made explicit in the WoTC editions, but implicit in prior ones). 

Also by focussing exclusively on AC, you miss other measures of defence.  Hit points being the obvious one.  A level 1 wizard with a charisma of 10 has (IIRC) 20 hit points and gains 4 per level.  His hit points double first in 5 levels, then in a further 10.  A level 1 AD&D wizard has an average of 2.5 and gains an average of 2.5 per level.  His hit points double first in 1 level then in a further 2, then in a further 4; far, far faster than in 4e.  (3e hit point doubling is more complex due to constitution boosters).



> I don't see high level Powers, etc., as *less* qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones. Why do you make a false claim about what I wrote when it's there for anyone to see?




To confirm, because we appear to be getting tangled, I see a quantitative increase in power in 4e.  In older editions for casters, there's a qualitative difference.  Fly is not simply a beefed up version of levitate.



> Says who? I'm not seeing a stipulation that DMs must be Lawful Stupid in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. (I don't have the 3.0 books handy.)
> 
> Where is the rule that circumstantial modifiers do not apply?




Some circumstance modifiers apply.  If they have problems hearing you.  But the ones for demeanor are already included in that stupid table.  Hostile means 'willing to risk their own life and limb to hurt you'.  At that point the only further they could go is magical mind control.  So sure you can add additional circumstance modifiers for making the diplomancer breathe helium or a language barrier.  But it is every bit as hard coded by the rules as jumping distances.



> Where are the supposed "no leeway" definitions of what actions result and for how long?




The specific actions are as open as they are from Charm Person.  Making someone friendly... Making them not attack.  How they do this is another matter.



> Where is the admonition that there is no downside?




No expenditure of resources.  No making the situation worse.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> That's possibly poor wording.  But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll."   Explaining the meta and mechanical rules.  And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much _in character_ meaning as THAC0




You don't find it interesting that the same editions that have expanded on what happens when you attack have reduced other interactions to THAC0?

If you understand some folks' problems with combat in older editions, surely you must understand some other folks' problems with a much wider range of things in newer ones?


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> May I speak for myself, please?




Whoa, my apologies if I mispresented your viewpoint. I wasn't tossing out any value judgement one way or the other, just that there seemed to be some conflicting opinions in the thread. In this case, your comment that, "What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs."

That seemed to indicate that you felt using Skill Challenges meant removing problem solving and NPC conversations. Which I took to indicate a preference for those lost elements over something like Skill Challenges. 

If that wasn't what you were saying, then my apologies for misreading your point. 

Nonetheless, I think my point remains: For some people, more elaborate rules for non-combat mechanics are desirable, while for others, they can just get in the way of purer roleplaying. Finding a balance between those two desires is never going to be easy.

As for your other points... for myself, there have certainly been 4E scenarios that are nothing but dungeon crawls, but there have been others that contain both skill challenges, as well as puzzles to solve and plenty of NPC interaction. Given what is actually in the rulebooks, I simply can't agree with the claim that "the authors of the rulebooks, _in the rulebooks_ -- have made it a series of wargame scenarios one after another" - but if that has been your experience with it, my sympathies.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You don't find it interesting that the same editions that have expanded on what happens when you attack have reduced other interactions to THAC0?
> 
> If you understand some folks' problems with combat in older editions, surely you must understand some other folks' problems with a much wider range of things in newer ones?



No, I don't find that interesting.  I find it a complete misrepresentation of what 4e has actually done.  I find athletics or the 3e climb skill far more flexible and usable than a Climb Walls: 85% chance.  I can see where the 3.x folks are coming from (I disagree with them - I don't think the detail you can put into skills in 3.x really matters).  But the quote I was comparing to THAC0 was taking something out of context when the full context and guidance to me mean the opposite of what it is being claimed to mean.  It's certainly the opposite of how I use them.

4e has expanded what happens out of combat.  It's added skill challenges rather than 1e's Thief Skills, 2e's NWPs (ack!), and every prior edition's pass/fail single point issues and overwhelming magic.  (3e does have a more _detailed_ skill system - but I like the lack of skills either being trained and automatic or not and therefore massively lower in 4e).  It is, however, a rules light expansion and not as expanded as the combat system is.  But that's very different from the claim that it's _reduced_.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> That's possibly poor wording.  But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll."   Explaining the meta and mechanical rules.  And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much _in character_ meaning as THAC0




(I was never a big fan of THAC0 - I prefer Palladium Fantasy's combat system.)

I think it's a matter of resolution ("using a skill") and then coming up with something to fit what just happened versus having your character attempt some kind of action and then resolving that action - which may or may not require using a skill.  I think that Skill Challenges will only work well if you do the latter.  (Not always, but for the most part.)  

I think that 4E should have taken steps to make sure that skill checks followed the latter process.  I tried to do that in my 4E Hack.  Seems to work.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> And every single thread on how 4e is bad for roleplaying has come up with the same arguments - that having social skills is detrimental to roleplaying, that not having detailed skills of the level of 4e is detrimental to roleplaying, and generally arbitrary issues.  The only criticisms that make sense that I've ever seen and that don't slam prior editions (normally either 3e or OD&D) harder than 4e come from the Indy Gamers asking for aspects.



That is just radically untrue.

But clearly there is no chance of getting you to say anything otherwise.

It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That is just radically untrue.
> 
> But clearly there is no chance of getting you to say anything otherwise.
> 
> It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.




You are accusing me of burying my head in the sand and not reading posts.  Put up or shut up.  Explain in detail how the _rules_ in 4e impede your roleplaying without taking single sentences out of context and claiming them as proof that they mean the _reverse _of what the paragraph in question is trying to say.  Out of combat 4e has a rules light system, somewhere between OD&D and 3e in complexity with an additional light mechanical resolution system added for extended and complex actions and solely under the DM's discretion.

Come to think of it, there is one other argument that holds a little water.  Combat is better therefore everything else isn't as strong by comparison.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 7, 2011)

BryonD said:


> It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.





How about you not make this personal?  

Folks, if you find yourself wanting to say something bad about other posters, it is time for you to step away from the discussion until you can behave like a mature individual.

Please, enforce this discipline yourself.  I can virtually guarantee that you'll like it even less if we have to do it for you.  

Thanks, all.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> You are accusing me of burying my head in the sand and not reading posts. Put up or shut up. Explain in detail how the _rules_ in 4e impede your roleplaying without taking single sentences out of context and claiming them as proof that they mean the _reverse _of what the paragraph in question is trying to say. Out of combat 4e has a rules light system, somewhere between OD&D and 3e in complexity with an additional light mechanical resolution system added for extended and complex actions and solely under the DM's discretion.
> 
> Come to think of it, there is one other argument that holds a little water. Combat is better therefore everything else isn't as strong by comparison.





I can't speak for anyone else.  This is just how I see things, and how the game sometimes feels to me...


I 100% agree that D&D 4E cannot stop you from roleplaying.  I also agree that a rules light approach combined with GM fiat can produce results which work and are satisfying for many people.  I will thirdly say that I agree with the many people who claim rules are not needed for roleplaying.

However, for me, while I do not need rules for roleplaying, it is nice to have rules as some sort of guideline for how to meaningfully quantify non-combat related rewards in a way that can interact with the rest of the game yet not break any assumptions the game has about what resources I should have available at certain levels.  

"Ok, so what the heck does that mean?"

If, at a given level, a game assumes I have X amount of resources, it stands to reason that having more resources by virtue of extra income (i.e. taxes from a plot of land, a business on the side; etc,) will allow me to break that assumption.  Since -in theory- the game is balanced around those assumptions, having one player who is able to break those assumptions also allows that player to interact differently with the intended balance.  This is what I mean when I say not breaking any assumptions the game has.

What I mean when I say rewarding me in a meaningful way deals with the opposite end of the spectrum.  Some have suggestion that what a character does outside the dungeon should be seperate from the rest of the game.  You can make money, you can gain fame, you can do all manner of other things, but none of it has any significant impact on the adventuring facet of your character.  Having success in this way is very satisfying for many people.  For me, it often isn't.  

D&D 4E has offered suggestions to try make such things more meaningful by granting Boons or offering alternative Utility powers or a +2 to a skill and a variety of other things.  All are excellent ideas.  All find a way to (more or less) stay without the bounds of the game's assumptions; most don't threaten the balance of the game any more than anything that is already there.  To some people -and to me sometimes- these rewards are meaningful too.  However, here too, the game can feel a little more shallow than I'd like.

For me personally, what is most satisfying (when I want a game which strays away from Dungeon Fantasy, and the level/loot paradigm) is to have all facets of my character available at all times and place on equally balanced scales.  The costs and rewards of building a castle or writing a tell all book about the members of my party should (I feel) be able to be weighed and measured in a way which is consistant with the risks and rewards of dungeon delving.  Furthermore, I believe the two should be able to interact and both be equal parts of my character.  

This does mean spending resources on one may risk meaning I have less available in the other, but it also means both are on equal footing.  I have all aspects of my character available to interact with the game world at all times.  The combat focused swordsman, the silver tongued diplomancer bard, and the snooty ivory tower lord have much different strengths and weaknesses, but they can coexist in the same party because there's no one way to solve problems which is given more default system support than others.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 7, 2011)

After reading the majority of this thread, I believe I have to conclude that the insanity part should not be attributed to WOTC but rather to internet gamers posting on message boards. And of course, as we are insane, we don't actually realize it-thus the claims re: WOTC.

Straightjackets and therapy are to be provided for all ENWORLD subs both existing and going forward.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> No, I don't find that interesting.  I find it a complete misrepresentation of what 4e has actually done.  I find athletics or the 3e climb skill far more flexible and usable than a Climb Walls: 85% chance.  I can see where the 3.x folks are coming from (I disagree with them - I don't think the detail you can put into skills in 3.x really matters).  But the quote I was comparing to THAC0 was taking something out of context when the full context and guidance to me mean the opposite of what it is being claimed to mean.  It's certainly the opposite of how I use them.
> 
> 4e has expanded what happens out of combat.  It's added skill challenges rather than 1e's Thief Skills, 2e's NWPs (ack!), and every prior edition's pass/fail single point issues and overwhelming magic.  (3e does have a more _detailed_ skill system - but I like the lack of skills either being trained and automatic or not and therefore massively lower in 4e).  It is, however, a rules light expansion and not as expanded as the combat system is.  But that's very different from the claim that it's _reduced_.





(Shrug)

I like the basic design of the SRD skill system, and used it as the basis of the one for RCFG.  The only thing that I did was reduce the amount of "scaling to level".  Well, I reduced "scaling to level" to 0.

The "85% climb chance" had an advantage in that the DM need only determine how much harder than average a given wall was; he didn't have to base his modifiers on what any given character could do.  I find this makes it easier to create adventures, as well as a self-consistent persistant world.  YMMV.

Also, I note that if you reversed your post, you could use it to explain how 0e's combat rules are not "reduced" in relationship to 4e's!    It's all relative!


RC


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Put up or shut up.



It didn't take long to get back to the start of this loop.  There have been *hundreds* of threads covering the point.  I don't choose to play the game of "they didn't happen if no one admits it, therefore start everything over again for the 101st time."




> Explain in detail how the _rules_ in 4e impede your roleplaying



Never said they do.  Actually, I said EXACTLY the opposite.  I said that NO game can interfere with roleplaying.  BUT, some games work with it much better than others and I (and a very significant number of others) choose to play those.





> without taking single sentences out of context and claiming them as proof that they mean the _reverse _of what the paragraph in question is trying to say.  Out of combat 4e has a rules light system, somewhere between OD&D and 3e in complexity with an additional light mechanical resolution system added for extended and complex actions and solely under the DM's discretion.



Google for a prior thread in which I discuss Andy Collins comments on the root design idea of 4E.  

And for the record, I didn't take anything out of context.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Yes, it is. That's how it comes into existence in the first place.
> 
> It's an "encounter", remember, in the WotC-speak sense of the term!



This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, a skill challenge is an "encounter", in the sense of the 4e rules. In HeroQuest it would be called a "contest". I don't see what follows from this, other than a trivial point about terminology.

I still don't see where this issue of "excuses" comes from. Repeating some of my rules quotes:

you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail . . .

it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation​
This is not about "excuses". This is about engaging the ingame situation and the player explaining what the PC is doing. If the player does not describe an action that makes sense in the gameworld (ie "in the adventure and situation"), then no skill check can be made and no success accumulated.



Ariosto said:


> That says it all, which is the problem.



This is like saying "The problem with HeroQuest extended contests is that a certain number of success points must be accumulated by side A before they are accumulated by side B" - that's not a problem, it's just the rules structure. Yes, it's not a free-form resolution system. My earlier post said as much. But what is the objection to structure? And why is 4e uniquely vulnerable to this objection, and (for example) HeroQuest and Burning Wheel immune? Alternatively, if the contention is that HeroQuest and Burning Wheel also impede roleplaying because they have structured non-combat action resolution, then it strikes me as to laughable for words! (Of course, there are other features to HQ and BW which might be seen to set them apart from 4e - but structured action resolution isn't one of them.)



LostSoul said:


> "When you use a skill, you make a skill check."
> 
> I think that sums up the problem: you don't resolve the action the character takes in the game world; you use a skill and make a skill check.
> 
> ...



Consistently with the rules text I've quoted here and upthread, I think that interaction _is_ required. You don't get to make your skill checks except as the mechanical expression of the enacting of your smart/cunning plan.



LostSoul said:


> I think it's a matter of resolution ("using a skill") and then coming up with something to fit what just happened versus having your character attempt some kind of action and then resolving that action - which may or may not require using a skill.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think that 4E should have taken steps to make sure that skill checks followed the latter process.



Again, based on the rules text I've quoted, I think that 4e _has_ taken these steps. (In practice, of course, there's a degree of tail-wagging-dog, insofar as a certain type of player will always attempt to describe actions that suggest the use of skills in which his/her PC is strong. In this respect 4e does not differ from many other RPGs - it encourages players to try to draw on the strengths of their PCs when engaging a situation.)



LostSoul said:


> Players use a skill and make a skill check against a set DC based on their level.



I agree that this introduces complexities, in that the benefit of the cunning plan, as far as DCs go, can't be greater than a +2 circumstantial modifier. But a cunning plan should have other benefits eg facilitating the use of skills that are better for the party, or meaning that the resolution of the challenge leaves the PCs in a more advantageous ingame situation than otherwise they might find themselves.



LostSoul said:


> It seems that this was the idea behind Skill Challenges from WotC; otherwise I don't think they would have spent the time in their modules to detail what characters are doing when they make a specific skill check.  They would have detailed the opposition, its disposition and methods and left it up to the group to work out.



Now this I can't rebut - I personally chalk it up mostly to poor adventure design by WotC, and also a failure to follow through on the promise of their system. But even the modules at the back of the original HeroWars rulebooks suffer from this to some extent, in that they try to anticipate the likely actions on the part of the PCs, and indicate how those would play out in the context of the scenario in question. In the HeroWars adventures this is more explicitily presented as guidelines/predictions than "here's how it will play out", but that also reflects a more general difference between 4e style and the style of other RPGs. 4e is deliberately written in a way that is (I assume) intended to make it more accessible. It also adopts some traditional D&D-isms, of writing the rulebooks as if they (to an extent at least) themselves part of play - whereas HeroWars in both its modules and rules text is much more clear that it is talking to players and telling them how to play a game, with the actual game occurring only when play itself takes place.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> while I do not need rules for roleplaying, it is nice to have rules as some sort of guideline for how to meaningfully quantify non-combat related rewards in a way that can interact with the rest of the game yet not break any assumptions the game has about what resources I should have available at certain levels.



In 4e, this is easy enough (in principle, at least) - some treasures can be associated with a skill challenge rather than a combat encounter.

In practice, it might be tricker to stage things like running a keep or a tavern as a skill challenge, given the assumptions that underlie 4e encounter design. On the other hand, if what is at stake in running a tavern isn't the sort of thing that could make for a skill challenge, then the amount of money at stake is probably not such that it is going to unbalance the game one way or another. For example, an extra 10 gp per game day for even a mid-heroic tier PC is not normally going to have any meaningful consequences for 4e game balance. (And if the ingame timeframe is such that large amounts of time _are_ passing then we resort to plan A - over the course of a game year 10 gp per day would amount to an 8th level item, which can be duly handed over in lieu of the relevant parcel).


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Consistently with the rules text I've quoted here and upthread, I think that interaction _is_ required. You don't get to make your skill checks except as the mechanical expression of the enacting of your smart/cunning plan.




I concede the point.  I think it would be better - stronger - if you couldn't proceed without that interaction - the DM would be left sitting there scratching his head when the player says, "I make a Diplomacy check", similar to having a player say "I attack".  Well, who do you attack?  How?  Obviously that was a goal of mine when I wrote my hack for skill checks.

(As for cunning plans, I think that some of what's been written on Skill Challenges says that you can either make a secondary check to get a bonus on other rolls or even an automatic success.  I recall the PCs in my game running into a wandering monster - a Skull Lord who was searching for the Black Tower of Vumerion.  The PCs knew where it was; they told him, and the Skill Challenge ended right there, with no rolls.  Of course that will have some effect later down the road.)

It reminds me of playing Burning Empires/Wheel.  One of the players would often say, "I'm doing a Flank and rolling Tactics, ForKing in Hammer-wise" when we got into Firefights.  I also had similar experiences with Duel of Wits; too often I'd see "Point; rolling Persuasion, ForKing in Noble-wise" or something like that.  

I had a big "eureka" moment when I went through (as a player) a DoW where we focused on what the characters were saying.  It was amazing.  The outcome - and a big moment of character "growth" for my PC (he lost faith in mankind) - was based on the mechanical result and what the characters were actually saying, the latter being the focus.  Unexpected results, but awesome ones, that really set up the climax of the game.

Since I had gone through that with BE/W, I knew how to handle Skill Challenges.  (I think the BX games would be better if there was more focus on the in-game stuff, but that's just me.  )


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In 4e, this is easy enough (in principle, at least) - some treasures can be associated with a skill challenge rather than a combat encounter.
> 
> In practice, it might be tricker to stage things like running a keep or a tavern as a skill challenge, given the assumptions that underlie 4e encounter design. On the other hand, if what is at stake in running a tavern isn't the sort of thing that could make for a skill challenge, then the amount of money at stake is probably not such that it is going to unbalance the game one way or another. For example, an extra 10 gp per game day for even a mid-heroic tier PC is not normally going to have any meaningful consequences for 4e game balance. (And if the ingame timeframe is such that large amounts of time _are_ passing then we resort to plan A - over the course of a game year 10 gp per day would amount to an 8th level item, which can be duly handed over in lieu of the relevant parcel).




It's doable, and that's actually a pretty good idea and a good example of how something like that can work.  Though, I think what some people mean when they say D&D 4E impedes roleplay can be found in your solution.  Eventually, your reward becomes and item or some other resource which is related to the encounter portion of the game.  Hence what I've been saying in previous posts: I think if what someone wants is a game which does not revolve around the looting and level; if instead they want to ignore the ideas about encounters and skill challenges and play something else... well, they should.  

It is my belief that a lot of the gripes people have concerning the current edition with D&D stem from trying to make 4E play like a different game.  Then, instead of trying different games, there are complaints about what WoTC is doing with D&D.  In the beginning, I would say this was understandable because it is also my belief that some of the preview material and early interviews were somewhat misleading.  However, at this point, there have been plenty of articles, webcasts, and sidebars in books which talk about some of the ideas behind 4E.  Can you play against those ideals? Yes.  Can you modify 4E to work differently? Yes.  Can you roleplay? Yes.  I just think, if you go through all that and still don't feel happy, you might benefit from see how some of the other rpg systems work.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, a skill challenge is an "encounter", in the sense of the 4e rules. ... I don't see what follows from this, other than a trivial point about terminology.



The terminology _has meaning_.

In old-fashioned role-playing games


			
				1st DMG said:
			
		

> *Encounter --* An unexpected confrontation with a monster, another party,etc.




In 4e, an "encounter" is a game in itself, with objectives and rules set beforehand by the DM. (I am sure I read a very well written passage summing that up, somewhere in the 4e books, but I cannot find it just now.)

Basically, "an encounter" means what we wargamers call "a scenario".

In 4e, the DM defines "combat encounters" and "non-combat encounters". The DM determines that X number of dice rolls must be made in a challenge, from a particular menu of numbers, before the players get to do anything.

*This is all thoroughly backwards* relative to long established practice!

What is that practice?
(1) Find out what the players are trying to do.
(2) Assess the likelihood of success.

Depending on the situation, different resources may be applicable and probabilities may range anywhere from 100% to 0%.


----------



## giant.robot (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> *This is all thoroughly backwards* relative to long established practice!
> 
> What is that practice?
> (1) Find out what the players are trying to do.
> (2) Assess the likelihood of success.




Now the practice is:
(1) Find out what the players want to do
(2) Break up those actions into one or more ability or skill checks
(3) Assess the likelihood of success and assign a difficulty to the checks

This is no different to what RPGs have been doing forever. The DM doesn't have to pre-plan all the actions (and resolutions) in 4E any more than they need to in any previous edition. just because "encounter" are highly structured doesn't mean they need to be planned in excruciating detail and without any involvementbof the players and their actions. 

In fact I think 4E's encounter and treasure building mechanisms make for great tools in building off-the-cuff encounters. The updated monster rules from MM3 go even further giving the DM a nice tool for creating whatever challenge she needs on the fly. 

Another nice feature of 4E is when you model that complex action or series of actions the players want to do as a skill challenge the rules make it easy to make the rolls fair and to provide an adequate XP reward. This is especially useful for new DMs. Us old hats know how and when to dole out XP and other rewards. 

The players' creativity may have let them avoid a combat encounter you had planned. A DM has an easy way to reward them without making them go through combat. A new DM that has previously only played D&D Encounters or some badly written modules may not immediately catc on that combat isn't the only avenue for characters to advance or be rewarded.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The DM determines that X number of dice rolls must be made in a challenge, from a particular menu of numbers, before the players get to do anything.
> 
> *This is all thoroughly backwards* relative to long established practice!




Isn't that exactly the same as having an AC and HP?

X number of dice rolls - damage vs HP
Menu of numbers - AC

I don't know where you get the idea that players don't get to do anything.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

> Now the practice is:
> (1) Find out what the players want to do
> (2) Break up those actions into one or more ability or skill checks
> (3) Assess the likelihood of success and assign a difficulty to the checks
> ...



It sure as hell is different!

First, (1) is NOT "find out what the players want to do".
(1) is "design the 'encounter'."
(2) is _tell_ the players what they're going to do.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, in Step 1 we have already established what is what; in Step 3, we are just settling details.



			
				Lost Soul said:
			
		

> Isn't that exactly the same as having an AC and HP?



Is it exactly the same thing as having a shoe size and a hair color?

No. That things have qualities is _not at all_ the same as that I am required to perform a particular action. It is _not at all_ the same as every possible action requiring X multiple dice rolls to ensure a priori roughly Y probability of failure regardless.

In any RPG I've ever played, the only reason to make a "lock picking" or "pocket picking" or "banjo picking" or "nose picking" roll is _because I'm trying to do that thing_.

If I decide to shoot a Dark Troll, then I roll for that attack. If the shot kills the DT, then it's dead. If while it's not dead I decide to Hide and then Sneak and Pick its Pocketses, then Sneak back, that's probably several chances to slip up. If they all pass muster, then I've got what I've got; otherwise, I probably got caught! Maybe I'll try a line that warrants a Fast Talk roll at a plus or minus, or spend my time building longer lasting Persuasion. 

Maybe I'll do something that calls for another roll, or for none at all.

Maybe at some point I'll try on its boots, or otherwise make an issue of its shoe size. Maybe I won't.

If it really makes no difference, then why pay cash money for it? Why champion and proselytize for it? If the new boss is just the same as the old, then wherefore the revolution?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> In 4e, an "encounter" is a game in itself, with objectives and rules set beforehand by the DM.



No. The goal is set by the players (though in practice the GM will have a likely goal in mind when designing an encounter - many GMs know their players well).



Ariosto said:


> In 4e, the DM defines "combat encounters" and "non-combat encounters". The DM determines that X number of dice rolls must be made in a challenge, from a particular menu of numbers, before the players get to do anything.
> 
> *This is all thoroughly backwards* relative to long established practice!



So, like I said above, HQ and BW also fall foul of your critique - which to my mind is a reductio on your critique.



Ariosto said:


> First, (1) is NOT "find out what the players want to do".
> (1) is "design the 'encounter'."
> (2) is _tell_ the players what they're going to do.



This bears no connection to anything in my 4e game, or anything that I recall reading in DMG, DMG2 or DM's kit book.

It does resemble some 2nd ed AD&D railroads I played through.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 8, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I may be mis-remembering the name of the feats I'm thinking of.  I recall there being one which allowed you to take a step between the attacks.




That was actually a class ability that a few PrC's had, not a feat.  I think the Master Samurai had it in 3.0, and the Frenzied Berserker and maybe the knight protector had it in 3.5.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It sure as hell is different!
> 
> First, (1) is NOT "find out what the players want to do".
> (1) is "design the 'encounter'."
> (2) is _tell_ the players what they're going to do.




The only times I've told players what they are going to do in my games are when they e.g. need to make balance checks to stay standing.  You are posting with a caricature in part due to poor modules.  (A lot of 4e fans bitch about published 4e modules and how they _ignore the guidance in the DMGs_)

1 is set the scene.  Normally based in part on previous PC actions.  This is unchanged.
2 is let the players tell you 



> In any RPG I've ever played, the only reason to make a "lock picking" or "pocket picking" or "banjo picking" or "nose picking" roll is _because I'm trying to do that thing_.




Yes, that's why you make a skill check.  Even in a skill challenge.  *That has not changed in 4e.*



> If I decide to shoot a Dark Troll, then I roll for that attack. If the shot kills the DT, then it's dead. If while it's not dead I decide to Hide and then Sneak and Pick its Pocketses, then Sneak back, that's probably several chances to slip up. If they all pass muster, then I've got what I've got; otherwise, I probably got caught!




And in 4e, that whole series of events could be a skill challenge.  Assuming you planned that when you went in rather than were just reacting.  Or it could be a series of skill checks if you were reacting as you went.



> Maybe I'll try a line that warrants a Fast Talk roll at a plus or minus, or spend my time building longer lasting Persuasion.
> 
> Maybe I'll do something that calls for another roll, or for none at all.
> 
> ...




I think at this point it would be easier to explain by giving you an example of a skill challenge I have actually used on the fly.

The whole thing started off as a combat scene with a dragonrider on a young dragon coming down to rescue a fallen ally.  To cut a long story short, and through the dice gods keeping things interesting, the dragon rider killed his ally with friendly fire (rolling a natural 20 to do so).  So the PCs now have a scared dragon rider and dragon and need to get them both somewhere safe to avoid trouble from above with the dragonrider's former allies, and from the city being attacked by dragons (and the rest of the army).  This was in my second or third session DMing.  Ever.  In any edition.

The scene was set.  I asked the PCs what they were going to do.  And of course, they came up with a half-ludicrous PC plan.  Throw the fledgeling dragon half onto a cart.  Wrap blankets over it to disguise it from the air.  Hold lanterns and claim it's a plague cart to keep people from investigating.  How the hell do you work out which details to roll for in a plan like that and how much time to give it before it will get boring?  Especially as there are hundreds of problems you could throw at a plan like that and not only wasn't the situation something I could have prepared for, even if I had I wouldn't have forseen that plan.

What would you do with a PC plan like that?  For bonus marks, what would you do in your third session DMing and having to keep up with that?

My answer was simple and seemed confident (it wasn't, but it was a good enough fake).  I made a mental note that this was a level 3 (the PCs were level 1 at the time), 6 or 8 success skill challenge (I forget which) and that gave me all the mechanical side I needed.  I made them roll for what I considered the parts likely to fail of what they were doing (such as scavenge the cart - streetwise) and evaluated what they were trying as easy, medium, or hard (all you really need).  When they failed a roll, I gave them a couple of curious street-urchins who came to investigate which opened up the rest of the social skills (the PCs got to pick how to deal with the kids of course - and bribing them would have been an automatic success).  Whole thing was paced well, easy to evaluate, easy to give the XP reward, and fun for everyone without causing me to wrack my brains.  (Of course I did not tell the players that I was running a skill challenge - I use them as a DM-side tool).

For that matter, Skill Challenges work very well for most insane PC plans.  And I have some insane planners in my group.  (I'm one when I'm not DMing.)  Some way of bridging the gap between immediate skill check and mini-quest that drags out over a session or more.  Skill challenges are particularly good when you have PCs working together but not in the same place - e.g. two PCs providing a distraction to allow two more to sneak in more easily.  Or for group sneaking when someone's wearing heavy armour - the challenge is to keep anyone from hearing him (or bluff the guards with animal noises or just see the guards coming and hide or...)


----------



## giant.robot (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It sure as hell is different!
> 
> First, (1) is NOT "find out what the players want to do".
> (1) is "design the 'encounter'."
> (2) is _tell_ the players what they're going to do.




Please give some page numbers of these rules. I haven't seen them before and I'd love to integrate them into my game! On second thought don't bother, I don't need to include your fantasy rules into the actual game. 

There's nothing in the rules that match what you describe. Hell, the Dungeon Master's Book from the DM's Kit says specifically on page 171 to make sure you give players choices. On page 172 it gives railroading as an example of bad adventure design. Starting on page 203 it goes into detail about creating combat encounters. Page 224 describes skill challenges as non-combat encounters. These suggestions are such that it's actually pretty easy to build encounters on the fly. They also end up far more balanced and interesting than the 2E random encounter tables.

You're juxtaposing your DM's or your inability to prevent railroading. As I've said, the encounter design rules are easy to use on the fly. You can very easily set up an interesting encounter based on the actions of the players. There's absolutely no need to "design" all of the encounters ahead of time. You throw some monsters of the right level (usefully listed by role) into an encounter template or pick the skills needed for a skill challenge and voila, an encounter!

If this requires massive amounts of pre-planning there's not a lot to do any rules system can do to help you. All of the above should be easy to do on the fly and as a reaction to player's choices. You'll notice Paizo ported this idea to Pathfinder, I doubt they did so because it's an unworkable railroady mess. You can even ignore these design rules if you want. However as a stock design method these are actually pretty damned useful. Again, they're really helpful for new or infrequent DMs which was one of the design goals of 4E. WotC is correct in their belief that the game lives and dies by the number of DMs playing the game.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> No. That things have qualities is _not at all_ the same as that I am required to perform a particular action. It is _not at all_ the same as every possible action requiring X multiple dice rolls to ensure a priori roughly Y probability of failure regardless.




I'm running my own 4E "hack".  In my game I have two explicit ways in which skill challenges are used (I'm planning on adding a third - to make magic items): social conflict and evasion & pursuit.  I've never seen cause to run a skill challenge for anything else.

Anyway, I set the number of successes needed for social conflicts by making a reaction roll.  For evasion & pursuit, I set the number of successes needed by making a morale check.

You can see how those are _qualities_ of the characters involved.



Ariosto said:


> If it really makes no difference, then why pay cash money for it? Why champion and proselytize for it? If the new boss is just the same as the old, then wherefore the revolution?




It's about getting unexpected results.  Using the structured skill challenges has led to unexpected results in my game.  

A quick example: one PC was trying to convince some guards to turn against their master; they didn't particularly like their master (a vain, self-obsessed necromancer; that was determined by DM fiat) and they had a good opinion of the PC (determined by the reaction roll).  The PC's modifier to his rolls was so high he couldn't fail (as long as he was able to apply specific skills), but I decided to follow the rules and play out the challenge.

It led to something interesting.  The guards ended up asking for and getting some concessions from the PC.  Without that structure I would, as DM, have gone with the "expected" result - the guards agree to the PC's demands because he's such an awe-inspiring figure.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 10, 2011)

Both spam posts reported.


----------



## Mircoles (Jan 10, 2011)

I was wondering what that gibberish was about.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 10, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I'm running my own 4E "hack".  In my game I have two explicit ways in which skill challenges are used (I'm planning on adding a third - to make magic items): social conflict and evasion & pursuit.  I've never seen cause to run a skill challenge for anything else.




I've put together a very rough one for magic items, and really any kind of crafting.  I wrote about it a little here, and here.

I find that the "rigid" way in which the skill challenge examples were written caused a lot of confusion.

The great benefit I've found to the skill challenge framework is that it easily allows me to assign difficulty (complexity) and rewards (XP or otherwise).  Everything else becomes an action/reaction, or better yet, an opportunity/reward system.  It allows for a very fluid situation.

The most common "problem" I've seen among the published skill challenges is that they followed the same "rigid" presentation as the samples in the original DMG.  For me, a skill challenge only "works" when it feels organic.  When it has a back and forth between the DM and players (action/reaction).  Someone mentioned "telling" the players what they do or what happens when they use X skill.  I can understand this "disconnect" because reading the samples in the original DMG you get a sense that is how the interchange occurs.  

There were "arguments" that hinged on the "fact" that you could not use intimidate on a social challenge because the example showed it as an automatic failure.  What was missing in that argument was context.  The example portrayed a negotiation with a Duke.  I would probably say a powerful political figure.  One that because of personality can't be cowed by intimidation.  Therefore, using intimidation in that situation would fail because not only would he not comply, he'd probably be offended by the attempt.  That doesn't mean that "every" social situation is the same.  What if the challenge was to convince a local thief?  The situation is not the same and the context is not the same.  Those samples need to be looked at within context.  I think over time WotC has done a better job of "explaining" the framework, but that is all it is, a framework.  The meat of the skill challenge is still the actions of the players, and that is what should be the focus.  How do "they" go about accomplishing a goal.  

The goal can be set by the DM, but that is not exclusive.  In my games I've used skill challenges on different occasions when the players set a goal for themselves.  It provided me a way to "reward" them "appropriately" for their non-combat actions instead of coming with an ad-hoc reward that could easily become inconsistent.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It sure as hell is different!
> 
> First, (1) is NOT "find out what the players want to do".
> (1) is "design the 'encounter'."
> (2) is _tell_ the players what they're going to do.




DMG, pg 12: "Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players. *A player tells the DM what he wants to do*, and the DM responds by telling the character what kind of check to make and mentally setting the target number."

DMG, pg 20: "Once you’re done describing the area, *the players tell you what their characters want to do*... *Your job here is to listen to what **the players want to do* and identify how to resolve their actions."

DMG, pg 74, 'Running a Skill Challenge': "You describe the environment, *listen to the players’ responses*, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results... Sometimes, a player tells you, 'I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.' That’s great—*the player has told you what she’s doing* and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, 'I want to make a Diplomacy check.' In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about *how the character is using that skill*."​ 
​​​​​​​DMG, pg 101, 'Building an Adventure': "*Player* *and character choices must matter in a good adventure*... You must give the players enough information, even in simple situations, for them to *make meaningful decisions*."​ 
DMG2, pg 11-12, "Strongly plotted adventures *provide players with multiple opportunities to make decisions* that insert branch points into the story... Sometimes, players make unexpected choices, forcing you to improvise a suitable response. A DM who prefers to prepare every encounter before starting an adventure might try to nullify the players' choice, encouraging their return to the preplanned set of obstacles. DMs who like to improvise might use these unanticipated decision branches as opportunities to *allow the players to take the story in a new direction*."​ 
DMG2, pg 83, "*Like combat encounters, skill challenges work best when you and the players want one to **happen*.​ 
Let's say you designed a combat encounter for your next adventure. The characters need to cross a bridge, and there's a big, hungry troll in their way. Time for a fight!​ 
That is, unless *the players decide* to sneak around the troll or bribe it with a cask of fine ale. A good DM knows that *sometimes it's best to take the party's **crazy plan and run with it*, especially if the players back up their ideas with a few rolls of 20 on Stealth or Diplomacy checks. A good DM thinks on his feet and rewards clever, interesting ideas.​ 
The same logic applies to skill challenges. Is there a chance that a really good idea could completely trump your skill challenge? Don't fret! That's a good thing. D&D is a game about creativity and imagination*. **If there's only one specific, scripted path to **success, you've lost what makes D&D fun*. When you build a skill challenge, *be prepared for it to head in a **direction you didn't anticipate* or for the party to fail utterly. That way, the game moves on regardless of what happens with the challenge."​


----------



## Kerranin (Jan 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> I think at this point it would be easier to explain by giving you an example of a skill challenge I have actually used on the fly.
> 
> The whole thing started off as a combat scene with a dragonrider on a young dragon coming down to rescue a fallen ally.  To cut a long story short, and through the dice gods keeping things interesting, the dragon rider killed his ally with friendly fire (rolling a natural 20 to do so).  So the PCs now have a scared dragon rider and dragon and need to get them both somewhere safe to avoid trouble from above with the dragonrider's former allies, and from the city being attacked by dragons (and the rest of the army).  This was in my second or third session DMing.  Ever.  In any edition.




Firstly, let me say I was in that session(although the plan wasn't mine) and Neon's handling worked really well. As indeed have the number of other times I have become aware that he was running a skill challenge. (I reckon I miss loads)

Having said that, I run a 4e game myself and I really struggle with skill challenges. I suspect Neon really gets them, and I just don't.  Then again, maybe I just need to read more of the guidance on the subject.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 10, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Once you’re done describing the area, *the players tell you what their characters want to do*... *Your job here is to listen to what*
> *the players want to do* and identify how to resolve their actions."​





A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions.  RPGs have been like this since the 70s.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 10, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions. RPGs have been like this since the 70s.




Certainly. Ariosto seemed to be claiming that this paradigm had changed in 4E - that the approach it recommended was to instead design an encounter, describe it to the players, and then tell them exactly what they must do. 

I simply hunted down some quotes to demonstrate that this wasn't the case, and D&D worked the same as always - as you mention, the DM describes the scene, the players say what they want to do, and the DM figures out what happens from there.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> False.
> 
> With the *actual examples* of contemporary play I have seen.



Fair enough. But what makes you confident these examples _define_ contemporary play? Why are your bad experiences (and the bad experiences you've read about) somehow more representative than my good experiences (and the positive ones I've read about)?

It's like you're holding selection bias up as a virtue. 



> That you are an exception does not nullify the rule.



Well, I'd _like_ to think my group is the exception, that we can turn dross into gold, that we're _exceptionally_ smart, creative, and, hell, let's go all-in and say charming and handsome, too. It would certainly be ego-satisfying.

But it's more likely that we're not so special, that 4e play runs a wide gamut, much like play using the editions which preceded it, that plenty of other gamers run intelligent, creative, and challenging games with 4e.

I mean, there's a lot of evidence of good 4e play here in ENWorld, too. Unless you automatically discount it because it disproves the conclusion you're aiming for. 



BryonD said:


> There have been, literally, hundreds of threads on this topic.
> Pretending you have not personally participated in them does not make them go away.



I'm not pretending anything, Bryon. I know full well that I'm repeating myself, asking the same questions I've asked before, participating in the same debates, etc. So sue me  If you'd like to sit this round out, no worries.

I think it's always worth asking questions like "what kind of mechanical support for role-playing do you prefer/require?" and "what does role-playing mean to you?". Sure, the responses often run the gamut from the repetitive to the contentious (and repetitive!), but there's usually some real insight into our hobby to be found in such, ahem, classic and long-running debates. 



pemerton said:


> This bears no connection to anything in my 4e game, or anything that I recall reading in DMG, DMG2 or DM's kit book.



Mine, either. Our 4e campaign is a fine blend of problem-solving and fictional world-exploring (and, umm, fantasy-themed absurdist satire and grid-based tactical wargaming).

Maybe we're just especially smart and creative people? 



> It does resemble some 2nd ed AD&D railroads I played through.



What Ariosto's description of 4e encounter design sounds like to me is the puzzle room design found in many of the classic AD&D modules. Set up a dungeon 'room', decide on the proper solution or solutions to overcome/bypass it, then list as many solutions that _won't_ work --usually magic spells/items-- to force the players into the designers 'approved' solution path.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions.  RPGs have been like this since the 70s.



Agreed. Where I see skill challenges as differing is only in the imposition of a structure which (i) sets caps on difficulty that are level-governed, and (ii) sets a limit on the number of successes or failures required to actually wrap the situation up and bring the conflict within it to a resolution. 

The effects on play of this structure, however, are (in my view) quite far reaching. As a result of (i), the game takes on a bit less of a simulationist and a bit more of a "narrate the world to fit the mechanics" feel (like some indie games eg HeroQuest). As a result of (ii), the GM has to be able to narrate the results of the unfolding skill checks so that resolution in one fashion or another emerges smoothly out of a finite and fixed number of such narrations. (Again, this resembles some indie games eg HeroQuest).

In my own GMing experience, I have found (i) quite straightforward and even in some ways liberating (it makes a big change from Rolemaster, which I use to GM before 4e). On the other hand, I continue to find (ii) a challenge. It very much improves my own handling of encounter pacing, but it has put pressure on me to improve my skills in narrating the outcomes of players' action resolution attempts, keeping the action moving while not shutting the door to a resoultion that might be just one or two skill checks away.



Kerranin said:


> I run a 4e game myself and I really struggle with skill challenges. I suspect Neon really gets them, and I just don't.  Then again, maybe I just need to read more of the guidance on the subject.



Not every would agree with this advice, but I have found two sources of guidance invaluable: rulebooks for indie games with similar mechanical systems (especially HeroQuest and Burning Wheel); and essays and posts on The Forge that talk about some of the basic techniques of non-simulationist play. Without both of these, I doubt that I could have worked out simply by reading the DMG and DMG2 how to successfully set up and run a skill challenge, because these D&D books don't identify and discuss the consequences I've identified above of adopting the skill challenge structure.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 11, 2011)

I like the concept of skill challenges.  I'm just not thrilled with how they are implemented and how they play out.

The main issue I had with them was the DCs.  Before I decided to sit and re-write the table of DCs, I often ran into an issue where skill challenges were often somewhat pointless.  It was at times literally impossible for a challenge to be failed... at that point, I don't see the reason to even have the challenge.  I'm not out to kill the PCs unfairly, and I know that the point of the game is to keep moving forward; however, if there's no chance at all for failure, I don't see the point of doing the skill challenge.

The second thing which tends to bug me is how sometimes -from the player side of the table- it can feel like a skill challenge is a completely seperate game.  Sometimes it feels as though my character is broken into several parts; what parts I'm allowed to use depend upon which 'game' I'm playing: combat, skill challenge, or other.  

I do use skill challenges, but -for me- when I GM now, the way they work is different enough from the source material to almost be something else behind the curtain.  Like a few other things in the game, they do work as is, but it took some experience with the game and making modifications to it to end up with something which worked in a way which was more satisfying to me.

All that being said, I will repeat that I like the idea of skill challenges.  I've incorporated the concept into some of the other games I play when I run those other systems.  I'm just not always satisfied with how the concept works out as written in 4E.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I like the concept of skill challenges.  I'm just not thrilled with how they are implemented and how they play out.
> 
> The main issue I had with them was the DCs.  Before I decided to sit and re-write the table of DCs, I often ran into an issue where skill challenges were often somewhat pointless.  It was at times literally impossible for a challenge to be failed... at that point, I don't see the reason to even have the challenge.




LostSoul dealt with this upthread:


LostSoul said:


> It's about getting unexpected results.  Using the structured skill challenges has led to unexpected results in my game.
> 
> A quick example: one PC was trying to convince some guards to turn against their master; they didn't particularly like their master (a vain, self-obsessed necromancer; that was determined by DM fiat) and they had a good opinion of the PC (determined by the reaction roll).  The PC's modifier to his rolls was so high he couldn't fail (as long as he was able to apply specific skills), but I decided to follow the rules and play out the challenge.
> 
> It led to something interesting.  The guards ended up asking for and getting some concessions from the PC.  Without that structure I would, as DM, have gone with the "expected" result - the guards agree to the PC's demands because he's such an awe-inspiring figure.





Johnny3D3D said:


> The second thing which tends to bug me is how sometimes -from the player side of the table- it can feel like a skill challenge is a completely seperate game.  Sometimes it feels as though my character is broken into several parts; what parts I'm allowed to use depend upon which 'game' I'm playing: combat, skill challenge, or other.



This bothers me as a GM also. DMG2 has some guidelines on using encounter and daily powers in skill challenges, and rituals also, but more detail would help (eg what level of ritual is equivalent to what sort of skill check - DMG2 just suggets an automatic success, but this can't be right when the ritual is level 1 and the skill challenge level 10).


----------



## francisca (Jan 12, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Today's kids are too jaded with video games and CGI (or ruined, depending upon who you ask). Their imaginations have been filled with garbage imagery from Barney and Sponge Bob to Grand Theft Auto and _Avatar. _They don't want to "make stuff up" because they don't have to - they can just plug in and turn on. Why pull out a piece of paper and _write--_with a _pencil _of all things, as if this was the 20th century--your character down? Aren't the stats supposed to be on the screen? And where's my first-person weapon? Why can't I see it in front of me? All I see is a bunch of over-or-under-weight 30+ year olds sitting around a table laughing and eating snacks and talking about stuff that I can't see or attack with my mouse.




I can only assume you don't have kids.  Mine are incredibly creative.  

They write and illustrate their own stories, build amazing stuff with legos, construct all kinds of stuff from paper, cardboard, tape, and glue, and love playing tabletop D&D and miniatures.  

And lest you think I've shielded them form the evils of TV and videogames, think again.  We have a Wii, they play games on the PC (Zork is one of them, right along side Lego Star Wars), the 2 older boys have Nintendo DS handhelds as well.  They laugh their cans off at Spongebob and Fineous and Ferb (Adventure Time has been banned, however).  

Hell, the older two even play football and basketball (jocks, perish the thought....)  And they love to read.  Even the 4 year old has told the wife and I that we need to teach him how so he can read "Harry Potter and the Dungeon Dragons books".

They don't seem to be atypical, either.  Their friends are much the same, many even having "gamer dads" like me.

But go right ahead and keep selling them short.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 13, 2011)

Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging _in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure_?


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 14, 2011)

Corinth said:


> Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging _in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure_?





I imagine that would depend upon the individual player in question.  Though, some other ideas may include (but are not limited to): being lord of a castle, leading an army, exploring wilderness, ruling over a tract of land, engaging in a murder mystery, political intrigue, playing the part of monsters trying to prevent 'good' heroes from taking their treasure, sailing the high seas, and much more.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> So it's not about "making excuses" to use skills. A player has to _explain what his/her PC is doing_ to resolve the challenge.




This gets to the heart of what I've been talking about.

If the DM sets up a skill challenge, then it's a predetermined encounter that the party must get past.  It is not organic.  It is not chosen by the players, or the effect of players' choices.  This restricts the "sandbox" nature of RPGs.  It in effect becomes yet another tunnel-vision game.





pemerton said:


> Player choices should affect the resolution of a skill challenge




I guess I'm saying that it's best if player choices should effect the _existence _of a skill challenge.

I'm in favor of a game story where most skill challenges and encounters occur as a response to unpredictable player actions.  4E seems structured the other way around.

But of course, I might be wrong.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Stop right there.  You've been playing _Encounters_.  Something designed specifically to be drop-in lowest common denominator game runnable by a random DM with no experience.




The 4E core rulebooks, as well as the Essential paperbacks thus far, read as if they are specifically designed for the Encounters program and not a traditional long-term campaign.

Otherwise, there would be less emphasis on elaborate combat encounters and more on noncombat experiences.  Anyone whose first DnD experience is 4E -- and they don't have DnD veterans around to explain things -- is going to see DnD as a combat strategy game with summarized "filler" inbetween the encounters.

Absolutely, a veteran player can use 4E as a great complex long-term campaign with oodles of noncombat events.  But that player will be drawing from past products and past experiences to carry it out--NOT from the 4E material itself.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> What portion of players paid the slightest attention to that rule? [Becoming a lord and ruling a dominion.]
> I'm certain there were more than a few, including yourself.  But I played in numerous groups back in the day and, without exception, encumbrance got more attention than the by the book presumptions for lordship and the like.  (And encumbrance was pretty well ignored)




I for one lived to become a lord and have a dominion!  It was a great moment in my BECMI campaign to gain a dominion and rule it.  It became about 1/4 to 1/3 of my play for the rest of that campaign (about 10 more levels).

And _sad _is the campaign that ignores encumbrance.  Encumbrance provided a great deal of challenge, especially at high levels!  Killing the dragon was easy compared to hauling all that loot back home!  We had to get a wagon train, and bring dozens of soldiers to protect it.  The trip home became as much an adventure as going in.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Bollocks!  4e, with skill challenges, has more non-combat support than any previous edition, along with a DMG pushing them hard.  Now if you're talking about 4e _modules,_ you have a point...




Nowhere in the previous editions will you find a passage suggesting to simply _summarize _what happens between the encounters.

4E does just that.  (And then gives some basic mechnics for travel, etc. just in case.)

To say 4E "has more non-combat support than any previous edition" is flat ludicrous.  How many 4E publications are dedicated to non-combat?  None.  1E had two.  2E had several.  And BECMI had it running all thru the Companion, Master, Immortal, and Gazetteer publications.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Nowhere in the previous editions will you find a passage suggesting to simply _summarize _what happens between the encounters.
> 
> 4E does just that.




  Really?  

I am not a fan or player of 4e, but I find that difficult to believe.  (And I am not calling you a liar, not by any means, I just can't imagine an edition that would do this.)



> To say 4E "has more non-combat support than any previous edition" is flat ludicrous.  How many 4E publications are dedicated to non-combat?  None.  1E had two.  2E had several.  And BECMI had it running all thru the Companion, Master, Immortal, and Gazetteer publications.




This is true.


RC


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions.  RPGs have been like this since the 70s.




I think the issue here is how each edition's rules structure addresses it.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?
> 
> I am not a fan or player of 4e, but I find that difficult to believe.  (And I am not calling you a liar, not by any means, I just can't imagine an edition that would do this.)




It's in either the DMG or the Rules Compendium.  I can't remember.  At the beginning of the section about travel.

In my mind, to summarize the what occurs between combat encounters is going away from what rpgs are about.  It goes from players creating a story to players just showing up for the fights.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> This gets to the heart of what I've been talking about.
> 
> If the DM sets up a skill challenge, then it's a predetermined encounter that the party must get past. It is not organic. It is not chosen by the players, or the effect of players' choices. This restricts the "sandbox" nature of RPGs. It in effect becomes yet another tunnel-vision game.




Except... isn't that essentially saying that any prep the DM does, either in the form of mechanical or narrative challenges, is a problem?

I just find that silly. Let's take skill challenges out of it entirely. Is it really a problem if the DM decides, before the session, that if the PCs want the magic sword, they need to get it from the castle vault - either via violence, stealth, or smooth talking? You really are suggesting it is better that the DM make _no decisions at all _before the session, and when the PCs say, "We want a magic sword", he has to make everything up on the fly?

If you _aren't_ saying that... then why are skill challenges an issue compared to everything else? They are just a new way to represent the same challenges we've always had. Does the fact that getting the sword now consists of either a combat or a skill challenge really make the game less organic? 

The "sandbox" nature is driven by what choices the players have. Skill Challenges don't affect that, provided they are prepared or used in the same way as anything else - as an option the PCs have to resolve different scenarios. The PCs need to get past the goblin camp. Do they fight them? (Combat) Do they sneak past? (Skill challenge) Do they simply go somewhere else? (Change of situation) Do they go recruit allies from other tribes? (Skill challenge) Do they challenge the goblin leader to single combat? (Combat)

The fact that some of those options include combat or skill challenges doesn't say anything about how restrictive the overall scenario is. The DM can set up several predetermined skill challenges for an obstacle, or a single one designed to be flexible. Or can make up new ones on the fly - honestly, I've seen skill challenges used _exceptionally _well in sandbox games by giving the DM a potentially easy way to resolve unexpected complications. 



fumetti said:


> I guess I'm saying that it's best if player choices should effect the _existence _of a skill challenge.
> 
> I'm in favor of a game story where most skill challenges and encounters occur as a response to unpredictable player actions. 4E seems structured the other way around.
> 
> But of course, I might be wrong.




I mean, I can't say how it is in every game. But I've certainly had plenty where a skill challenge has been _one _way of resolving an encounter, and thus its existence has indeed been determined by player choices. I've even seen the same thing in LFR mods and WotC adventures. I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact advice in the DMGs themselves. 

That's really my curiousity here - you make commentary on 4E structuring itself in a certain way. Do you have any actual quotes from the rulebooks that you feel are encouraging this style of play? 



fumetti said:


> The 4E core rulebooks, as well as the Essential paperbacks thus far, read as if they are specifically designed for the Encounters program and not a traditional long-term campaign.
> 
> Otherwise, there would be less emphasis on elaborate combat encounters and more on noncombat experiences. Anyone whose first DnD experience is 4E -- and they don't have DnD veterans around to explain things -- is going to see DnD as a combat strategy game with summarized "filler" inbetween the encounters.
> 
> Absolutely, a veteran player can use 4E as a great complex long-term campaign with oodles of noncombat events. But that player will be drawing from past products and past experiences to carry it out--NOT from the 4E material itself.




Again, this seems in absolute conflict with the rulebooks, which most definitely encourage long-term campaigns and present options, advice and encouragement for non-combat experiences. We've even got rules for moving to an entirely non-combat game and guidelines on handing out XP for PCs resolving things _solely _through roleplaying!

And you know what? I've seen players for whom 4E has been their first experience with the game. And they've dived into the RP just as much as any, in the way all new players do - tending not to know any better, and just sorta expecting the game to keep up with their imagination. 

Can 4E be played as a "combat strategy game with summarized 'filler' inbetween the encounters"? Sure, I suppose so. But I don't think it is the default of the game, I don't think it is the way most people play it, and I don't think it is encouraged by anything in the rules themselves.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> The 4E core rulebooks, as well as the Essential paperbacks thus far, read as if they are specifically designed for the Encounters program and not a traditional long-term campaign.
> 
> Otherwise, there would be less emphasis on elaborate combat encounters and more on noncombat experiences. Anyone whose first DnD experience is 4E -- and they don't have DnD veterans around to explain things -- is going to see DnD as a combat strategy game with summarized "filler" inbetween the encounters.




If you'd asked me to describe AD&D back in the 90s, I'd have used almost exactly that description other than to throw in that it was about a long term game of hack and slash.  (In the 80s it was more about tomb robbing - but with the death of the XP for GP rules, hack and slash became more dominant).  I mean, other than performing stereotypical actions, monster-slaying was the way to gain exps.

If I read through the 4e PHB (not the best written book), I see highly competent action movie heroes who can turn their hand to anything.  If I read through the 2e PHB I see a system where the characters are crippled outside combat (the drawback to NWPs - if NWPs allow something, if you don't have the NWP you can't).  And a system where details like the type of armour someone's wearing vs your type of weapon matters.  In short, something heavily combat-centric that actively discourages you trying to do things it doesn't outline in detail.  4e on the other hand is combat centric but encourages you and rewards you with experience points for things you try outside combat.



> Absolutely, a veteran player can use 4E as a great complex long-term campaign with oodles of noncombat events. But that player will be drawing from past products and past experiences to carry it out--NOT from the 4E material itself.




Or y'know, from world building and imagination supported by the rules.  Note that I say supported by and not constrained by - which is what too much simulation leads to.  Wandering Monster tables imply huge amounts about the local ecology.  So do ration rates and most other such tables (and let's not get on to some of the more obscure tables).



fumetti said:


> I for one lived to become a lord and have a dominion! It was a great moment in my BECMI campaign to gain a dominion and rule it. It became about 1/4 to 1/3 of my play for the rest of that campaign (about 10 more levels).




You mean the random "You get a keep at level X" in experience tables like the fighter's?  The sort of rules that hard-coded the gameworld and went even further to stereotype the classes, thus inhibiting roleplaying even more than strong yet incoherent alignment rules did?



> And _sad _is the campaign that ignores encumbrance. Encumbrance provided a great deal of challenge, especially at high levels! Killing the dragon was easy compared to hauling all that loot back home! We had to get a wagon train, and bring dozens of soldiers to protect it. The trip home became as much an adventure as going in.




Oh, lovely.  A pixel-bitch.  

*Mod Edit: Ladies and gentlemen, name-calling may work on the schoolyard playground, but we have a dim view of it here.  I suggest you not stoop to this kind of rhetoric, as it'll get you booted from the thread. ~Umbran*

Or did you have serious chance of failure for this trip home?  And no magic items like Handy Haversacks and Portable Holes?



fumetti said:


> Nowhere in the previous editions will you find a passage suggesting to simply _summarize _what happens between the encounters.
> 
> 4E does just that. (And then gives some basic mechnics for travel, etc. just in case.)




I suppose you make your characters roleplay going to the toilet as well?  From memory, the 4e advice is something like "If there's no chance of failure, cut it out".  



> To say 4E "has more non-combat support than any previous edition" is flat ludicrous. How many 4E publications are dedicated to non-combat? None. 1E had two. 2E had several. And BECMI had it running all thru the Companion, Master, Immortal, and Gazetteer publications.




You mean the way 4e has it running all through the rules, the DMGs, and the worldbooks?  (Especially DarkSun).  4e is therefore a match for BECMI by your own metrics.  And that without hardcoding the world building into the rulebooks.

As for "publications dedicated to non-combat", that's because _4e is not a simulationist game_.  Books like the Wilderness Survival Guide are interesting pieces, but high-simulationist.  There are more non-combat rules in both 4e and 1e than there are in Dread.  This doesn't mean that they are more focussed on non-combat matters than Dread.  If I actually want simulationism, I bypass AD&D and reach straight for GURPS.  4e focusses are much more narrative and on the story.  Try reading the DMG2 - IMO the best DMG ever (and indicating a very different game from the Gygaxian one).

For that matter, when did the mere existance of warehouse filling supplements dictate the focus of a game.  If we go by core rules then AD&D is almost literally Dungeons and Dragons (well, wandering monsters).  Skills in the PHB/DMG/MM in AD&D are crippled in 2e and almost exclusive to the thief in 1e.  4e actually has rules for them rather than pixelbitches the way the members of the so-called OSR would have us do.  On the other hand, as I've mentioned, 2e has rules like weapon type vs armour type.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> This gets to the heart of what I've been talking about.
> 
> If the DM sets up a skill challenge, then it's a predetermined encounter that the party must get past. It is not organic. It is not chosen by the players, or the effect of players' choices. This restricts the "sandbox" nature of RPGs. It in effect becomes yet another tunnel-vision game.




Welcome to the 1980s and the Dragonlance Saga.  Also to hexcrawling - seriously, the Isle of Dread may have been officially a sandbox, but because the damn place was so big and we weren't trying to civilise it or otherwise really alter it then the island itself was barely affected by players' choices.  It was just discrete encounters.  As was any 'non-living' dungeon, of which I've seen more than a few in all editions.



> I guess I'm saying that it's best if player choices should effect the _existence _of a skill challenge.




It is and they do.  The reason I love skill challenges is that to me they are a superb mechanic for evaluating Daft PC Plans ™ - very easy to whip up on the fly, provide an appropriate amount of difficulty for both the plan and individual actions, and indication for temporary reverses (and how much suspicion/how many mistakes PCs can attract before the house of cards comes down) and take a decent amount of time to resolve - long enough for the players to get their teeth into and short enough to keep the game's pace up.



> I'm in favor of a game story where most skill challenges and encounters occur as a response to unpredictable player actions. 4E seems structured the other way around.
> 
> But of course, I might be wrong.




That certainly isn't how I use them.  But then I use DMG advice rather than WoTC modules (and have been planning to write my own guidance for them).  The published skill challenges as opposed to the skill challenge rules make me feel like I'm visiting a zoo; those animals belong out in the wild.  What's written down in them is too nailed down for what is essentially an excellent improvised tool that fits in the gap between skill/ability check and session-consuming (or longer) quest.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm not a fan of social mechanics, either, and when I run 3e/4e, I leave it to players whether they want to roll social skill checks. I'm happy talking things out exclusively.




But that can contradict the concept of playing a character.  If the player must "talk out" the social scenario, then he's really using his _own _charisma/skills and not the character's.

Not that I'm saying every conversation should be dice-rolled.  But the mechanics need to be there for the sake of role-playing a character.  

If my character has an 18 charisma and my DM thinks I'm an idiot, odds are disproportionately against my character ever being successful if I try to talk it out rather than skill-check it.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> It's in either the DMG or the Rules Compendium. I can't remember. At the beginning of the section about travel.
> 
> In my mind, to summarize the what occurs between combat encounters is going away from what rpgs are about. It goes from players creating a story to players just showing up for the fights.




Hmm. Let's see what I can dig up. 

DMG, pg 20: "Over the course of a session of D&D, the game shifts in and out of five basic modes—setup, exploration, conversation, encounter, and passing time. The five modes are also five different kinds of tasks or activities the characters engage in during their adventures."

"In exploration mode, the characters move through the adventure setting, making decisions about their course and perhaps searching for traps, treasure, or clues. The game spends a lot of game time in exploration mode. It’s what usually fills the space between encounters. It usually ends when an encounter begins."

"*Describe the environment. *Outline the options available to the characters by telling them where they are and what’s around them. ... *Listen. *Once you’re done describing the area, the players tell you what their characters want to do. ... *Narrate the results of the characters’ actions.*"

So, that seems to say that exploration is a big part of the game, and central to the process of players making the decisions on what their characters will do. 

Now, on the next page, we do find the section you seem to be thinking of: 

DMG, pg 21: "The game has a rhythm and flow, and the action in the game is interspersed with lulls. These lulls are like the places where a movie fades to black and comes up again with the understanding that some time has passed. Don’t give these situations any more time than the movies do. When a rest period passes uneventfully, tell the players that and move on. Don’t make the players spend time discussing which character cooks what for dinner (unless the kind of group you are playing with finds this useful for building characters). Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible."

Hmm. That doesn't actually say to "simply _summarize _what happens between the encounters." It instead says that you can gloss over details like _what is being cooked for dinner_. 

Note as well that it doesn't say that all rest periods pass without incident. Instead, _when they are uneventful_, it recommends skipping past them. 

And it even has a disclaimer that you _can _include these details if it is a style the party enjoys. 

In the end, there is a very big difference between "don't obsess over minute details" and "summarize and skip past everything that occurs out of combat." 

I think the first, which the books actually says, is decent advice. I think the second is, indeed, something to avoid - and, fortunately, seems entirely absent from the 4E DMG. 

If you've got an actual quote of where it says that, feel free to provide it, but I certainly don't see anything along those lines - and plenty of advice that is the exact opposite.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> That certainly isn't how I use them.  But then I use DMG advice rather than WoTC modules (and have been planning to write my own guidance for them).  The published skill challenges as opposed to the skill challenge rules make me feel like I'm visiting a zoo; those animals belong out in the wild.  What's written down in them is too nailed down for what is essentially an excellent improvised tool that fits in the gap between skill/ability check and session-consuming (or longer) quest.




Which comes back to one of my points regarding new players without veteran assistance.  Which is more likely for a game of rookies, to learn and follow the general guidelines of the DMG or the specific example in the official DnD premade adventure?

My point has never been that veterans of previous editions can't roleplay 4E as normal.  It's that the game as written (includes all releases) doesn't read that way.  It reads more limited.

Granted, you guys have shown that it's not as bad as it first seems.  But finding classic roleplaying in 4E rules is about like finding rules in the 1E DMG... you have to dig to find it.  It's not presented as important.

But the structure of Wizard spells, that still screams combat, combat, combat.  

Deep in the grey text I found a passage that said that all spells last 5 minutes unless otherwise noted.  But they could last part of just one round or days depending on how long it took to end the encounter.  That's very weird.  Very far from previous editions' spells.  

They just don't give a hint at how they could be used in adventuring.  And to me that's a major issue, a major shift away from roleplaying an adventure towards just playing combat encounters.  

All that said, the conversation is helping my appreciation of 4E.  (I was considering abandoning it.)


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 14, 2011)

Corinth said:


> Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging _in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure_?




It seems that WOTC's current theory is: the game is about combat encounters punctuated by D20 Farkle. It isn't _about_ anything else, but you're allowed to sit around and jaw about the game world or your paragon path or whatever, as long as that jawing has no game effect.

If you want extra game effects, you can buy collectible card packs though.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> My point has never been that veterans of previous editions can't roleplay 4E as normal.  It's that the game as written (includes all releases) doesn't read that way.  It reads more limited.




You realize, of course, that historically gamers don't worry all that much about how the game is written?  We didn't on the whole, stick exactly to rules-as-written in 1e, 2e, or 3e.  You need to do some heavy justifying that somehow 4e is different in that regard for this to stick.

Sometimes we talk like we are somehow special, that we see all these horrible design flaws, and that nobody else who looks at the rules will fail to see them.  Even more we figure we are so super-smart and can figure out how to work around them, but "they" cannot.

Humbug, I say!  Give the world at large a little credit - if we can see that the system can be used more loosely, so can everyone else!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 14, 2011)

I know, I know, I'm being nitpicky here.

I just think it's funny (and may or may not be indicative of the general "attitude" of 4e and it's designers), but this quote jumped out at me:



> It’s what usually fills the space between encounters


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> So, that seems to say that exploration is a big part of the game, and central to the process of players making the decisions on what their characters will do.




Simply saying in passing that adventuring is important is not the same as actually making it important in the game's rules.

The passage you quoted is like saying "yes, honey, talking is very important" and then skipping past it.



MrMyth said:


> Hmm. That doesn't actually say to "simply _summarize _what happens between the encounters."




Excuse me for using the word summarize to summarize what the text was suggesting.



MrMyth said:


> Note as well that it doesn't say that all rest periods pass without incident. Instead, _when they are uneventful_, it recommends skipping past them.




Here's where you and 4E just don't get what we're trying to say.  By skipping over what seems unimportant, and rushing to the scenario that is important, you give players advanced notice that "hey, this particular clearing is an event."  The players don't discover it, they don't have a chance to miss it due to negligence.  There's just no adventuring element to the game when you do it that way.  It's like watching a football game where you only see the scoring (but the drives leading up to that score is what tells the story of it.)

That kind of structure just robs the thrill of not knowing what's around the next bend...because you _do know_.  Everytime you're not skipping, you're at the encounter.

I would find a game very boring that just teleported me from fight to fight to fight, with no thrill of the unknown, no sense of discovery.  What the DMG describes looks to me like an abridged form of DnD.

But whatever.  To each their own.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Except... isn't that essentially saying that any prep the DM does, either in the form of mechanical or narrative challenges, is a problem?




Nah.  That stuff needs to be there if the scene is critical to the story and the characters have to go through it.

But a lot of adventuring--as I've known it--could be skipped over 4E-style and the players rushed to just the crucial encounters.  To me, all the activity that is not crucial to the story is just as important to the overall roleplaying experience.

On the way to the kill the troll, I might stumble onto an evil warrior who I now have to kill to get past.  Not part of the story at all.  But just out of dumb luck (and some unfortunate wandering monster rolls) my job just got harder.  But I might luck out and score some magical items I can use later.

Of course, with 4E rules it's hard as heck to create random encounters to flavor the adventure.  It would take a fair bit of work just to throw together an evil NPC.



MrMyth said:


> If you _aren't_ saying that... then why are skill challenges an issue compared to everything else?




I think we may have clarified that the real problem is how skills challenges have been presented as published, not necessarily inherent in the SC system itself.  As presented, skills challenges were prefab not so much on the fly.  

But I'm not seeing them just on their own.  When added to the other (apparent to some) element of 4E being just a string of tunnel-vision encounters, the SCs are thrown in with the rest.

(And of course there still remains the whole encounter structure to wizards where everything is defined in in-combat terms.  Really limits the game IMO.)



MrMyth said:


> Can 4E be played as a "combat strategy game with summarized 'filler' inbetween the encounters"? Sure, I suppose so. But I don't think it is the default of the game, I don't think it is the way most people play it, and I don't think it is encouraged by anything in the rules themselves.




I think it's the fault of WOTC for creating core books that over emphasize combat strategy and then create an in-store representation that is precisely nothing more than a combat strategy game with filler in between the encounters!

I keep my focus on how newbies are going to react to the product as published.  4E is supposed to bring in a new generation of roleplayers.  Except  when they buy the PHB and go to the Encounters game, they're going to find something a bit different from roleplaying as I've known it.

And now that everything is apparently going to Essentials, all the PHB and DMG stuff does exist about roleplaying isn't going to be there.  So there will be even less emphasis.

It's not like all this is the end of the world or anything.  It's just something I felt like talking about.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the noobs will see it the way we want them to see it and become classic roleplayers not just combat strategists...


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, lovely.  A pixel-bitch.




If you have nothing better to post than personal attacks, don't post at all.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Umbran said:


> You realize, of course, that historically gamers don't worry all that much about how the game is written?  We didn't on the whole, stick exactly to rules-as-written in 1e, 2e, or 3e.  You need to do some heavy justifying that somehow 4e is different in that regard for this to stick.




Home-ruling isn't at issue here.  We've been talking about the content of the published books.  

Home-ruling is only an issue insofar as that it's a bad product if your players _have _to home-rule to make it work.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If you have nothing better to post than personal attacks, don't post at all.




fumetti, report it to the Mods and don't use RED text; RED is for official Mod warnings and stuff. You should pick another color (you seem like a good sort so I don't want you to get hammered).


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> On the way to the kill the troll, I might stumble onto an evil warrior who I now have to kill to get past.  Not part of the story at all.  But just out of dumb luck (and some unfortunate wandering monster rolls) my job just got harder.  But I might luck out and score some magical items I can use later.




I think wandering monsters are a good example of rules that help make the area between "encounters" interesting.  Adding in wandering monsters means that you have to consider where the PCs are, their environment, their marching order, how much noise they are making, their light source, how much time they are taking, that sort of thing; without them, those sorts of things aren't part of the currency of the game.  It just ignores it.



fumetti said:


> Of course, with 4E rules it's hard as heck to create random encounters to flavor the adventure.  It would take a fair bit of work just to throw together an evil NPC.




No, it's really easy.  I do it all the time.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If the player must "talk out" the social scenario, then he's really using his _own _charisma/skills and not the character's.



Yes. Much like when players uses their own intelligence, or lack thereof, to formulate a plan, or solve a riddle, or decide on battle-tactics. Role-playing is always a mixture of player abilities and character abilities, unless you run a campaign where player skill plays not part in deciding outcomes.

Also, I didn't say anything about forcing players to talk out social encounters. I wrote the opposite: I left it up to the individual whether or not to roll for it. 

Personally, I like when players choose to talk it out. The game is much funnier that way. 



> If my character has an 18 charisma and my DM thinks I'm an idiot, odds are disproportionately against my character ever being successful if I try to talk it out rather than skill-check it.



In that case, you'd be wanting a chap like me as DM. I'd give you a choice; all talk, all skill-check, or a combination of the two.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Simply saying in passing that adventuring is important is not the same as actually making it important in the game's rules.
> 
> The passage you quoted is like saying "yes, honey, talking is very important" and then skipping past it.




This is the section on the fundamental elements that the game consists of, and it gives exploration the most overall detail in those pages. How is that skipping past it or saying it in passing? 

Again, feel free to show me some quotes from the rules. But I'm not seeing them in there. 



fumetti said:


> Excuse me for using the word summarize to summarize what the text was suggesting.




Whoa, that wasn't the part of the quote I was critiquing. You said the rules suggest to "simply _summarize _what happens *between the encounters.*" It is that last part which isn't in there. Instead, it tells us to describe what happens between encounters, let the players choose what they want to do and how they want to do it, and then the DM figures out what that involves or how to resolve their plans. 

Again, there is _nothing_ in the 4E rules which suggests that the DM should fast-forward past events between encounters. We have direct quotes which suggest otherwise. 



fumetti said:


> Here's where you and 4E just don't get what we're trying to say. By skipping over what seems unimportant, and rushing to the scenario that is important, you give players advanced notice that "hey, this particular clearing is an event." The players don't discover it, they don't have a chance to miss it due to negligence. There's just no adventuring element to the game when you do it that way.




Again, I think you are misreading the text. It doesn't recommend just sticking to the important parts. It simply recommends not obsessing over the _mundane_. Do you really not see the difference?

Look, I enjoy games that don't feature non-stop combat. Players unravelling a mystery in town, chatting over clues by the campfire, trying not to piss off townsfolk, discovering ancient ruins in the wild - all those are interesting things which don't have to involve a single dice roll. 

Having someone spend 30 minutes describing how they cook dinner? Spending that long having the DM describe how uneventful things are throughout the night? That isn't my idea of an especially entertaining scenario. 

Maybe it is for others, maybe not. But you are suggesting that the only options we have are either that level of obsession over detail _or _we don't bother with 'exploration' or 'adventure' and just fast-forward to all the combat. And that is _absurd. _There is a vast spectrum of styles of play between those two levels, many of which involve all sorts of rich and rewarding roleplaying. 

The only style that 4E advices against is one of the absolute extremes, and even then, says you can indulge in it if the group enjoys that approach. 



fumetti said:


> That kind of structure just robs the thrill of not knowing what's around the next bend...because you _do know_. Everytime you're not skipping, you're at the encounter.
> 
> I would find a game very boring that just teleported me from fight to fight to fight, with no thrill of the unknown, no sense of discovery. What the DMG describes looks to me like an abridged form of DnD.
> 
> But whatever. To each their own.




Again, you are reading stuff into the text that isn't there. It _never _suggests to skip from one encounter to the next. _All _it suggests is to bypass specific mundane details. 

I'm not arguing that "teleporting from fight to fight" is an excellent style of play. I'm sure some like it, and some don't. What I'm saying, and you seem unwilling to consider, is that the 4E rules don't ever suggest anything remotely like that anywhere in the rules. 

You say the DMG described "an abridged form of DnD" - then, by all means, show me where it does so. Because I don't see it and I've shown you several references that directly indicate otherwise


----------



## Umbran (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If you have nothing better to post than personal attacks, don't post at all.





Ladies and gents, Neonchameleon won't be joining you for the remainder of this conversation.

Fumetti, you're new around here so I'd not expect you to know - while politely asking others to keep to the Rules of EN World is usually okay, generally we don't look kindly on folks outright telling others when and where and how they can post, or otherwise giving orders.  Aside from meeting rudeness with more rudeness, you don't have any authority to back it up with, so it turns things into an ego-contest that generally doesn't end well.

If you do have a problem with another user, feel free to report the problematic post - there's a little exclamation point in a triangle icon on the bottom-left of every post for the purpose).

And, as others have mentioned, red and orange text is usually reserved for moderators - we use those when we're speaking in official capacity that we don't want folks to miss, and having others use those colors causes confusion.

Welcome to EN World!  I hope you have fun!


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 14, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Nah. That stuff needs to be there if the scene is critical to the story and the characters have to go through it.
> 
> But a lot of adventuring--as I've known it--could be skipped over 4E-style and the players rushed to just the crucial encounters. To me, all the activity that is not crucial to the story is just as important to the overall roleplaying experience.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure where you got that idea. I've found one of the strengths of 4E has been the ease of which you can put together a random encounter. Via easy formulas to quickly generate stats, or by taking some monsters and giving them a new description, or using the skill challenge system to resolve a complicated scenario that you didn't expect the PCs to wander into. 

In what way does the existence of a skill challenge limit your ability to have a random evil warrior pop up on the way to a troll?

I mean, there definitely are issues with skill challenges, even with all the advice for them. But I don't think they have any connection whatsoever with "tunnel vision" or discouragement of a sandbox style game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 15, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If the DM sets up a skill challenge, then it's a predetermined encounter that the party must get past.  It is not organic.  It is not chosen by the players, or the effect of players' choices.  This restricts the "sandbox" nature of RPGs.  It in effect becomes yet another tunnel-vision game.



Why, if I prep a skill challenge, must the party get past it? That's like saying that if I prep a room, the party must explore it.

Like most GMs of the past and present, I do my best to prep only what I think will be used. I use my ability to predict my players' interests to help me with this. But if (for whatever reason) they don't encounter an encounter, they don't encounter that encounter.

Given that prepping a skill challenge actually takes about 5 minutes, it's not that big a deal.

You might also find this actual play report interesting.



fumetti said:


> The 4E core rulebooks, as well as the Essential paperbacks thus far, read as if they are specifically designed for the Encounters program and not a traditional long-term campaign.



Other than the rules for playing characters through 3 tiers of development, and the guidance in DMG, DMG2, the DM's Kit, The Plane Below and The Plane Above on designing and running multi-tier campaign arcs.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 15, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Simply saying in passing that adventuring is important is not the same as actually making it important in the game's rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would find a game very boring that just teleported me from fight to fight to fight, with no thrill of the unknown, no sense of discovery.



Well, the most canonical way to run interesting adventuring in 4e is via a skill challenge -which is the action resolution vehicle for moving, as you put it, "from fight to fight".

I mostly use skill challenges now for all overland travel where there is anything at stake (in terms of time, or health at the end of it, or possible encounters en route). If you like random encounters, you can stick them as as consequences for failures.

But the post in my previous response linked to a game that I ran which was focused more on classic exploration - and because there was nothing clear at stake in that exploration per se, I didn't use a skill challenge. (But I did use skill challenges at various stages of it.)

And even if you gloss over travel altogether, it nedn't be "fight to fight" - in my game, the encounter that resulted from success in the most recent travel skill challenge was a social one (with some witches), not a fight.



fumetti said:


> But the structure of Wizard spells, that still screams combat, combat, combat.



Other than rituals, which are all about non-combat. And the wizard PC in my game uses them all the time (especially information-gathering ones) and has done so since 1st level.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 15, 2011)

On the idea of skill challenges.

I'm trying to build a system here that allows the players to announce a skill challenge to scout out large sections of a very large dungeon.  

There's absolutely nothing preventing players from initiating skill challenges.  In my first 4e experience, I initiated a skill challenge to go around town, impersonating various people, spreading the fame of my character and singing his praises so that when I finally met up with the rest of my party again, the townspeople would be singing my praises, giving me free drinks and whatnot and completely ignoring the rest of them.

I was playing a doppleganger rogue at the time with a serious trickster bent.  It worked like a charm and, because the rest of the group actually didn't know what I'd done, was funny as all get out.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Why, if I prep a skill challenge, must the party get past it? That's like saying that if I prep a room, the party must explore it.
> 
> Like most GMs of the past and present, I do my best to prep only what I think will be used. I use my ability to predict my players' interests to help me with this. But if (for whatever reason) they don't encounter an encounter, they don't encounter that encounter.




I can see what you're saying, but it kind of depends on how the DM is using the skill challenge system. If he's the type who builds skill challenges on the fly, such as using the skill challenge rules to adjudicate the PCs choosing to cross a desert or extract information from the Krogan mercenary company at the arms dealers trade show, then the PCs really can't avoid the skill challenge. But since it's based on what the PCs are choosing to do, I'm not sure it really matters much.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 16, 2011)

BillD, I do use skill challenges in the way you describe - but complaining that the players can't avoid those is like complaining that when they start a fight with a group of bandits they can't avoid the combat mechanics - skill challenges are the mechanical method for resolving desert-crossing and information extraction in 4e (well, almost - sometimes a single skill roll will do - like in HeroQuest, the choice of whether to go simple - single roll - or extended - skill challenge - is up to the GM, but the GM should be having regard to what the players care about, as well as pacing issues, etc etc).


----------

