Slashdot Mirror
The D&D Designers Answer Your Questions
In January we had the chance to ask the designers of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition a few questions about the new version of the classic tabletop game. The Wizards of the Coast Community Manager, Mike "Gamer_Zer0" Lescault put our questions to members of the development team, including: Andrew Collins, Chris Perkins, Scott Rouse, and Sara Girard. Some of the questions weren't quite answered in as much detail as I would have liked. That said, they've given us a great opportunity to follow up on their responses. If you have a follow-up question, put it in a comment below (one question per comment please). We'll pass on five of the best, and the designers will answer your question on-camera at the Dungeons and Dragons Experience at the end of this month. We'll post the video to the site early in March. This is a great chance to put a face to some legendary designer names, and get your unanswered issues resolved. Get asking.
Why 4th Edition? by DrMrLordX:
3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically. Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Wizards of the Coast:
The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications. There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.
How long will this edition last? by Erwos:
It upset quite a few folks when D&D 3.0E transitioned to 3.5E relatively soon after release, and made some people's investments in D&D become basically worthless overnight. While I appreciate that it's sometimes time to spawn a new edition that's incompatible with the old, it felt like 3.5E should have been an errata to 3.0E, rather than a totally new set of books. I understand that WotC can't commit itself to any firm "we will not release another edition for X years" guarantee, but it would be nice to hear some sort of assurance that we won't see a repeat of the 3.0E->3.5E debacle. What's the plan? What lessons have you learned?
WotC:
I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 happened a little too soon. Would Wizards of the Coast have released 3.5 if we knew at the time that 4th Edition was coming? My guess is probably not. We would like to have 4th Edition last 8 to 10 years just like previous editions.
Player's Online Component? by Zonk
I know this component is still 'in the works', but I have to ask: what are you planning for the online pricing for players vs. DMs? You've said that accessing D&D Insider and the 'online tabletop' will cost between $10 and $15, but is that for everyone? I just can't see telling my players they *each* need to pay $12/month to play online, let alone shelling out $30/month for myself and my wife. Also, will I need to have a paid subscription in order to access PDFs of the 4th edition books that I buy?
WotC:
We will be announcing pricing and subscription details at the D&D Experience convention in two weeks.
Open Gaming License by egg_green:
With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?
WotC:
The initial 4th Edition plans for allowing third-party publication of compatible supplements have been announced, and we're currently working with a number of independent publishers to iron out the details and get them started. Our goal is to allow 3rd party publishers, both large and small, the opportunity to publish products compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
Will combat be more streamlined? by DeafDumbBlind:
At higher levels in D&D 3.5, a fight between the party and a group of enemies can easily last a couple of hours. How has combat been streamlined?
WotC:
Two significant changes to gameplay that accelerate and streamline high-level combat are the reduction in the number of dice rolls required on each turn, and the drastic simplification of monsters. No more "full attack actions" requiring handfuls of d20s. No more monster powers hiding in feats, or that require you to look somewhere else to understand what they do--monster powers are self-contained, specialized abilities appropriate to that monster's role, its tactics in a battle, and its identity in the world.
Magic Item Requirement by Blackeagle_Falcon:
One of the things I dislike about 3rd edition is that at medium and high levels magic items are such a big part of a character's power. A PC has to be decorated like a Christmas tree with various magical doodads in order to be effective. Running a campaign in a world where magic items are rare or nonexistant required a lot of house rules and adjustment on the part of the DM. Will it be easier to run a low or no magic item campaign in 4e?
WotC:
We're definitely reducing the number of magic items that a typical character will carry around. Magic items aren't going away--they're a great way for characters to specialize their tactics, shore up weaknesses, and otherwise differentiate themselves from other characters--but they'll be a smaller overall portion of a character's array of special abilities. In addition, we're being clearer to the players and DM what mechanical benefits we expect all characters to derive from their array of items, which makes it easier for a DM running a "low-magic" campaign to know what his characters are missing (so that he can either take that into account by reducing monster stats, or provide the missing benefits via other methods).
D&D and WOW by halivar:
It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?
WotC:
Just as the design teams of most computer games draw on their experiences with Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games, we look to other games for inspiration and innovation. Many of us in RPG R&D play or have played MMOs and other computer games. Some of the lessons we learned about gameplay on those platforms have helped us craft a better tabletop RPG, both for current D&D players and for potential new players who either haven't yet tried D&D or haven't found previous iterations of the game to their liking.
The balance between easy and good by Mongoose Disciple:
How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.
WotC:
The struggle between playability and tactical depth is a constant one for any game designer, and D&D is no different. We're always wrestling with the right balance between providing streamlined, intuitive play and giving players all the options they want. For example, by giving more characters customizable options for their actions in combat, we've added a dramatic level of depth (both strategic, in building your character, and tactical, in employing those options during a fight), but at the cost of increasing complexity for some characters. We think that's a net positive effect, because the lack of tactical and strategic options for fighters, rogues, and many other characters had become a glaring weakness in the game. The key is to ensure that players of different sensibilities can still find a rewarding play experience within the game's framework. A player who prefers simple options can select those and still feel like he's creating an effective character, while his buddy who thrives on complexity can load up on interesting combos without grinding the game to a halt.
New content for old Settings? by andphi:
I know that some of the old settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammers, Dark Sun, Planescape) have been transitioned to other companies or have been quietly kept alive by their fans with knowledge bases and efforts at rules translations between old rulesets and 3.5. Will any of these old, orphaned settings being making a comeback in 4.0? (Planescape. Please, Planescape!) If not, are the 4.0 rules being written to make these on-going translation efforts easier?
WotC:
We appreciate the devoted fans who have continued to run campaigns in our older campaign settings. For a variety of reasons, we can't give every setting an equal amount of support, but we certainly expect to revisit older settings from time to time on D&D Insider. We constantly re-evaluate the role of older settings in our business plans and product schedules, and it's entirely possible that some of those settings may well stage a full-fledged return at some point in the future. For now, though, we're focusing on relaunching the Forgotten Realms campaign setting in August of 2008, with the Eberron campaign setting following in 2009. When we firm up any other plans, we'll certainly share those.
Negative Press by eldavojohn:
Short intro, I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. Play a lot of computer games. Enjoy reading up on lore and the like. But I never got into D&D. I had friends that played it but I was never into it. I tried playing it a few times and had some fun experiences. But there's always been a sort of negative stigma associated with it among ... well, the general populace. What are you doing to break free of this? Or do you embrace it? What are your thoughts & opinions on this strange negative publicity that popular movies push onto D&D players? Do you ever try to break free of that?
WotC:
(Note from Gamer_Zer0: Sorry Zonk, I tried my best to get this question answered for you, but apparently the Sci-Fi channel was having an original Battlestar Galactica marathon and the entire D&D team was no where to be found!)
Complexity vs. other gaming systems by Mechagodzilla:
Has there been any thoughts or discussions on reducing the amount of books needed to play? Donating a bookshelf to every new edition is getting a little ridiculous for the casual gamer. I have 40+ books from first and second edition. I bought the Player's Handbook from the third edition, read the first thirty pages and went "bleh". I know it goes against the business model, but can you actually make a game that can be played with less than four books?
WotC:
The only book any player needs to play the game is the Player's Handbook. In addition, the DM will want a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual (to help him craft encounters, build adventures, and run an entertaining game). Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels. Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them. That said, a large number of D&D players want more options than the core rulebooks provide--so we publish additional supplements and sourcebooks to meet that desire--but the game's fully functional without them. Of course, with the new online tools provided by D&D Insider (including a full rules database), it'll be easier than ever to carry around even your whole collection of D&D books wherever you play--just log on and there they are!
DRM? by MykeBNY:
Many people are acting as if a new edition will not only obsolete their old books, it will actually prevent them from accessing the ruleset at all. Level-headed people of course regard that as silly, nobody's going to sneak into your house and burn your old books! However, with more and more importance being placed on digital content (not specifically Wizards of the Coast, but in general) ... Is the issue of whether to DRM or not, and why and how being treated very seriously within the company?
WotC:
There is still a fair amount of non-rules content in the 3.x books that is still usable with 4th Edition. The rules themselves are changing and the old rules content will be obsolete. We plan to sell digital versions of our books for use online. Our DRM philosophy is to be as unobtrusive as possible.
Character sheets like by coppro:
We know that you are providing a tool for editing character sheets on your computer, although you have not specified anything else. An editable PDF sheet seems likely. However, there have been many popular tools (e.g. PCGen) that can update many aspects of data automatically based on game events, rather than numbers. Will the suite of digital tools released with 4th Edition include a tool that can maintain a character sheet that can be updated based on effects and modifications, rather than simple numeric input? If so, will it be extensible with published supplements/user-provided data?
WotC:
Our character builder application let's you build characters of any 4E class and level. It will also let you populate the sheets with content from the D&D database, and to update your characters as they grow.
Arcane/Divine Balance? by Rydia:
In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells. How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?
WotC:
One of the most significant design goals of 4th Edition was to clarify the roles filled by each of the character classes in the game. Not only does this help prevent one class from being good at too many things--such as the cleric--but it also prevents classes from being unable to accomplish any role effectively (such as the bard or monk). For example, clerics in 4th Edition occupy the "leader" role (sometimes also known as the "healer" or "party buffer" role). Their damage output is decent, but far behind that of the wizard or rogue, and they don't have the defenses or melee-control abilities of the fighter.
Who are you trying to please? by HikingStick:
I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers. I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. My question is this: who are you trying to please? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?"
WotC:
The "beneath the surface" answer is, "Because this edition is the most exciting and playable version of D&D that has ever been published." In order for Dungeons & Dragons to continue to thrive, it needs to retain current players while also attracting new players to the fold. Third Edition D&D succeeded wildly on both counts, and also brought thousands of lapsed D&D players back into the game (in some cases after years away from the tabletop). We have every expectation that Fourth Edition will repeat that success.
The fact that the Player's Handbook continues to be a strong-selling book years after its publication tells us that new players still enter the game every month. We also know from our RPGA programs that the game environment is full of diehard veterans from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as new players trying out their first characters. But in order for us to continue to please existing players (whose preferences in gaming continue to evolve) and also attract new players (whose needs may be quite different from veteran gamers), the game must keep pace with an enormously volatile and variable marketplace.
D&D has always been a tabletop-based game, and Fourth Edition won't change that. However, we recognize that people think about games, information storage, and even social gatherings differently now than they did in 1974, and we want the new D&D to recognize and embrace those differences rather than risk becoming obsolete. So now you'll be able to access your rulebooks online via the Rules Database, craft the perfect look for your PC with the Character Visualizer, and even game with players across town or across the globe on the Digital Game Table.
At the end of the day however, we really just want to please the fantasy gamer inside all of us and feed that insatiable desire to keep the adventure fresh and exciting!
3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically. Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Wizards of the Coast:
The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications. There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.
How long will this edition last? by Erwos:
It upset quite a few folks when D&D 3.0E transitioned to 3.5E relatively soon after release, and made some people's investments in D&D become basically worthless overnight. While I appreciate that it's sometimes time to spawn a new edition that's incompatible with the old, it felt like 3.5E should have been an errata to 3.0E, rather than a totally new set of books. I understand that WotC can't commit itself to any firm "we will not release another edition for X years" guarantee, but it would be nice to hear some sort of assurance that we won't see a repeat of the 3.0E->3.5E debacle. What's the plan? What lessons have you learned?
WotC:
I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 happened a little too soon. Would Wizards of the Coast have released 3.5 if we knew at the time that 4th Edition was coming? My guess is probably not. We would like to have 4th Edition last 8 to 10 years just like previous editions.
Player's Online Component? by Zonk
I know this component is still 'in the works', but I have to ask: what are you planning for the online pricing for players vs. DMs? You've said that accessing D&D Insider and the 'online tabletop' will cost between $10 and $15, but is that for everyone? I just can't see telling my players they *each* need to pay $12/month to play online, let alone shelling out $30/month for myself and my wife. Also, will I need to have a paid subscription in order to access PDFs of the 4th edition books that I buy?
WotC:
We will be announcing pricing and subscription details at the D&D Experience convention in two weeks.
Open Gaming License by egg_green:
With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?
WotC:
The initial 4th Edition plans for allowing third-party publication of compatible supplements have been announced, and we're currently working with a number of independent publishers to iron out the details and get them started. Our goal is to allow 3rd party publishers, both large and small, the opportunity to publish products compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
Will combat be more streamlined? by DeafDumbBlind:
At higher levels in D&D 3.5, a fight between the party and a group of enemies can easily last a couple of hours. How has combat been streamlined?
WotC:
Two significant changes to gameplay that accelerate and streamline high-level combat are the reduction in the number of dice rolls required on each turn, and the drastic simplification of monsters. No more "full attack actions" requiring handfuls of d20s. No more monster powers hiding in feats, or that require you to look somewhere else to understand what they do--monster powers are self-contained, specialized abilities appropriate to that monster's role, its tactics in a battle, and its identity in the world.
Magic Item Requirement by Blackeagle_Falcon:
One of the things I dislike about 3rd edition is that at medium and high levels magic items are such a big part of a character's power. A PC has to be decorated like a Christmas tree with various magical doodads in order to be effective. Running a campaign in a world where magic items are rare or nonexistant required a lot of house rules and adjustment on the part of the DM. Will it be easier to run a low or no magic item campaign in 4e?
WotC:
We're definitely reducing the number of magic items that a typical character will carry around. Magic items aren't going away--they're a great way for characters to specialize their tactics, shore up weaknesses, and otherwise differentiate themselves from other characters--but they'll be a smaller overall portion of a character's array of special abilities. In addition, we're being clearer to the players and DM what mechanical benefits we expect all characters to derive from their array of items, which makes it easier for a DM running a "low-magic" campaign to know what his characters are missing (so that he can either take that into account by reducing monster stats, or provide the missing benefits via other methods).
D&D and WOW by halivar:
It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?
WotC:
Just as the design teams of most computer games draw on their experiences with Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games, we look to other games for inspiration and innovation. Many of us in RPG R&D play or have played MMOs and other computer games. Some of the lessons we learned about gameplay on those platforms have helped us craft a better tabletop RPG, both for current D&D players and for potential new players who either haven't yet tried D&D or haven't found previous iterations of the game to their liking.
The balance between easy and good by Mongoose Disciple:
How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.
WotC:
The struggle between playability and tactical depth is a constant one for any game designer, and D&D is no different. We're always wrestling with the right balance between providing streamlined, intuitive play and giving players all the options they want. For example, by giving more characters customizable options for their actions in combat, we've added a dramatic level of depth (both strategic, in building your character, and tactical, in employing those options during a fight), but at the cost of increasing complexity for some characters. We think that's a net positive effect, because the lack of tactical and strategic options for fighters, rogues, and many other characters had become a glaring weakness in the game. The key is to ensure that players of different sensibilities can still find a rewarding play experience within the game's framework. A player who prefers simple options can select those and still feel like he's creating an effective character, while his buddy who thrives on complexity can load up on interesting combos without grinding the game to a halt.
New content for old Settings? by andphi:
I know that some of the old settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammers, Dark Sun, Planescape) have been transitioned to other companies or have been quietly kept alive by their fans with knowledge bases and efforts at rules translations between old rulesets and 3.5. Will any of these old, orphaned settings being making a comeback in 4.0? (Planescape. Please, Planescape!) If not, are the 4.0 rules being written to make these on-going translation efforts easier?
WotC:
We appreciate the devoted fans who have continued to run campaigns in our older campaign settings. For a variety of reasons, we can't give every setting an equal amount of support, but we certainly expect to revisit older settings from time to time on D&D Insider. We constantly re-evaluate the role of older settings in our business plans and product schedules, and it's entirely possible that some of those settings may well stage a full-fledged return at some point in the future. For now, though, we're focusing on relaunching the Forgotten Realms campaign setting in August of 2008, with the Eberron campaign setting following in 2009. When we firm up any other plans, we'll certainly share those.
Negative Press by eldavojohn:
Short intro, I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. Play a lot of computer games. Enjoy reading up on lore and the like. But I never got into D&D. I had friends that played it but I was never into it. I tried playing it a few times and had some fun experiences. But there's always been a sort of negative stigma associated with it among ... well, the general populace. What are you doing to break free of this? Or do you embrace it? What are your thoughts & opinions on this strange negative publicity that popular movies push onto D&D players? Do you ever try to break free of that?
WotC:
(Note from Gamer_Zer0: Sorry Zonk, I tried my best to get this question answered for you, but apparently the Sci-Fi channel was having an original Battlestar Galactica marathon and the entire D&D team was no where to be found!)
Complexity vs. other gaming systems by Mechagodzilla:
Has there been any thoughts or discussions on reducing the amount of books needed to play? Donating a bookshelf to every new edition is getting a little ridiculous for the casual gamer. I have 40+ books from first and second edition. I bought the Player's Handbook from the third edition, read the first thirty pages and went "bleh". I know it goes against the business model, but can you actually make a game that can be played with less than four books?
WotC:
The only book any player needs to play the game is the Player's Handbook. In addition, the DM will want a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual (to help him craft encounters, build adventures, and run an entertaining game). Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels. Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them. That said, a large number of D&D players want more options than the core rulebooks provide--so we publish additional supplements and sourcebooks to meet that desire--but the game's fully functional without them. Of course, with the new online tools provided by D&D Insider (including a full rules database), it'll be easier than ever to carry around even your whole collection of D&D books wherever you play--just log on and there they are!
DRM? by MykeBNY:
Many people are acting as if a new edition will not only obsolete their old books, it will actually prevent them from accessing the ruleset at all. Level-headed people of course regard that as silly, nobody's going to sneak into your house and burn your old books! However, with more and more importance being placed on digital content (not specifically Wizards of the Coast, but in general) ... Is the issue of whether to DRM or not, and why and how being treated very seriously within the company?
WotC:
There is still a fair amount of non-rules content in the 3.x books that is still usable with 4th Edition. The rules themselves are changing and the old rules content will be obsolete. We plan to sell digital versions of our books for use online. Our DRM philosophy is to be as unobtrusive as possible.
Character sheets like by coppro:
We know that you are providing a tool for editing character sheets on your computer, although you have not specified anything else. An editable PDF sheet seems likely. However, there have been many popular tools (e.g. PCGen) that can update many aspects of data automatically based on game events, rather than numbers. Will the suite of digital tools released with 4th Edition include a tool that can maintain a character sheet that can be updated based on effects and modifications, rather than simple numeric input? If so, will it be extensible with published supplements/user-provided data?
WotC:
Our character builder application let's you build characters of any 4E class and level. It will also let you populate the sheets with content from the D&D database, and to update your characters as they grow.
Arcane/Divine Balance? by Rydia:
In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells. How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?
WotC:
One of the most significant design goals of 4th Edition was to clarify the roles filled by each of the character classes in the game. Not only does this help prevent one class from being good at too many things--such as the cleric--but it also prevents classes from being unable to accomplish any role effectively (such as the bard or monk). For example, clerics in 4th Edition occupy the "leader" role (sometimes also known as the "healer" or "party buffer" role). Their damage output is decent, but far behind that of the wizard or rogue, and they don't have the defenses or melee-control abilities of the fighter.
Who are you trying to please? by HikingStick:
I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers. I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. My question is this: who are you trying to please? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?"
WotC:
The "beneath the surface" answer is, "Because this edition is the most exciting and playable version of D&D that has ever been published." In order for Dungeons & Dragons to continue to thrive, it needs to retain current players while also attracting new players to the fold. Third Edition D&D succeeded wildly on both counts, and also brought thousands of lapsed D&D players back into the game (in some cases after years away from the tabletop). We have every expectation that Fourth Edition will repeat that success.
The fact that the Player's Handbook continues to be a strong-selling book years after its publication tells us that new players still enter the game every month. We also know from our RPGA programs that the game environment is full of diehard veterans from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as new players trying out their first characters. But in order for us to continue to please existing players (whose preferences in gaming continue to evolve) and also attract new players (whose needs may be quite different from veteran gamers), the game must keep pace with an enormously volatile and variable marketplace.
D&D has always been a tabletop-based game, and Fourth Edition won't change that. However, we recognize that people think about games, information storage, and even social gatherings differently now than they did in 1974, and we want the new D&D to recognize and embrace those differences rather than risk becoming obsolete. So now you'll be able to access your rulebooks online via the Rules Database, craft the perfect look for your PC with the Character Visualizer, and even game with players across town or across the globe on the Digital Game Table.
At the end of the day however, we really just want to please the fantasy gamer inside all of us and feed that insatiable desire to keep the adventure fresh and exciting!
The bold on video as if youtube hasn't been around for years..
The reason geeks haven't been able to get girls in like... hold on, it's my turn...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
WotC likes to tout the 8 to 10 years number for the longevity of a release of D&D. They do some interesting accounting to get there.
What they do is ignore the period of time that Wizards of the Coast has owned the D&D brand. *TSR* was certainly capable of producing a radical revision to the rules only every 8 to 10 years. Thus far, Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro) has NEVER managed to meet that standard.
GURPS, BTW, has published their most recent edition. They *do* keep to such long periods between publications, and there's a rather large amount of compatibility between their 3rd and 4th (most recent) editions, allowing those who invested in 3rd edition's many supplements to maintain the value of their investments....
I'm looking forward to 4th Ed, but damn that was sanitized. Straight from a marketer's mouth. I'd actually hoped for something more frank.
How long was 2nd Edition good for? Then they buy the company and you constantly need new books. Plus the books are too expensive.
Look, I'm beginning to see the answer.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
Legendary? The 4e design team is like a who's who list of the B and C team designers left over from 3e.
Do you want to get off the Wizards of the Coast treadmill? Do you miss the old editions, but like the simplified, unified mechanics? Want to play a game that's essentially "open source?" Check out Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game (BFRPG). It's very similar to taking some d20 mechanics and retrofitting them to the old Basic and Expert sets that many of us started with as kids.
At first I didn't think I'd go that way, but it's really grown on me. It's a complete game in a few pages and has streamlined mechanics (except for the thief skills, but that suits me, actually). There are many add-ins to adjust it for flavor, and you can use much of your old B/X, 1e and 2e material with some minimal changes. You should really check it out. It's even a supported, living system and the creator is quite friendly and approachable, and many folks discuss it regularly.
Oh, yeah, if anybody would like to join up with an old-school (ie, dungeon crawling/swords & sorcery) BFRPG game in the Sugar Land, Texas area...
Check out the core rules for free: GURPS Lite
The Basic Set books are only available in print, but you can pick up cheaply on Amazon.com:
GURPS Basic Set: Characters
GURPS Basic Set: Campaigns
The rest you can buy DRM-free PDFs from Warehouse 23: GURPS 4th Edition
The rules are easy to learn, and you'll get amazing value out of each book. (I've got plenty of old GURPS 2nd and 3rd edition books that are *still* valuable references to this day!)
------
Oh wait, this article was about D&D? What's D&D?
as much as we WANT hard answers like "yes, you can convert you epic duskblade/bard character to 4.0" and "No, we are not going to screw all your players with the online section" we are more likely to get marketing answers. They want... NEED to sell more editions/books/modules and there are only so many new monsters and classes you can throw into the mix while keeping the game fun/balanced.
Then again, that's up to the DM to say "No, we only use THESE books. You're only allowed 4 magic items at a time from the MIC and no draconian ones... etc" not the publisher...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Start your own TSR and create stuff for nerd by nerds. No marketing bullshit, and mostly you'll be making your own rules. Why bother waiting for some gay ass company to recreate the same core books and rape the settings you had by making changes they think are good and then make you pay for it. Dnd is about imagination, and most of you have bought a whole collection of rulebooks, so why not take the DM'ing to a higher step and not just create the setting,stories,quests,etc... but also the rules. 95% of dnd is made by you so why not fill in that remaining 5% with a mix of old lore(previous editions/rules you like) and creativity(stuff YOU'd like see added on). And don't forget to have fun.
Where is the clitoris?
I rented the first dragonlance animated movie this weekend. What a pile of crap! I was expecting it to be somewhat bad, but it was horrible!
At least they haven't ruined the darksword trilogy or the deathgate books yet.
I am extremely concerned regarding the response to the question on Character Builder customizations. One of the most compelling reasons to play a Pen and Paper game over another media is largely one of customizations and options. I have played D&D in every edition since I first colored in my dice with a white crayon in 1981 and I cannot recall a single campaign that stuck to "content from the D&D database". The canned response to Coppro's question either failed to answer his question or implied a complete lack of interest in meeting the customized needs of the playerbase. Either is disheartening.
I'm seeing a lot of this anti-4e sentiment, but what's interesting to note is that a lot of this is coming from the same people who swore they wouldn't upgrade to 3.5, and now they're defending it.
The issue here is that 3.5 was rushed, unnecessary and disappointing, leaving players doubting the next edition. In reality, 4e is making all the changes they were afraid to make in 3.5. This edition is literally the version that the 3.5e revision failed to live up to. Rather than saying "4e will suck because 3.5e sucked", we should rather be saying, "Because 3.5e sucked, 4e will be awesome."
I don't know about you, but I'm going to at least give it the benefit of the doubt until release day. http://d20.jonnydigital.com/
jd
Bah, who needs relatiohships?
Unless you are inclined to breed, in the modern world, you are better off single.
How do you self-actualize? Do you like investing time in the cultivation of that powerful geek brain of yours? What about the cultivation of physical skills? Such things bring great fulfillment, make you a better person, and require time.
If you spend that time prioritizing someone else's desires over your own, just so you can get laid now and then, are you not cheating yourself?
What is so wonderful about a relationship that it is worth allowing your higher potentials go unexpressed?
Granted, it *is* possible to have a relationship with someone who will actually augment your efforts, which would be ideal. In my experience, not many relationships are like that. Most relationships, it seems, are a matter of doing what you have to do to manipulate the other person into fulfilling your desires. Like any addiction, it brings some joy (and not much else) and comes at great cost.
Let it go. In the modern world, solitude is a luxury that we can not only afford, but is actually cheaper than the alternative. Don't let outdated value systems rob you of your free will. Disobey!
(I am not a misogynist. All of this applies equally well to either gender.)
"One must tether the heart to free the spirit." -- Nietzsche.
"The demand to be loved is the most arrogant of presumptions." -- Nietzsche.
"Suffering is caused by desire" -- The Buddha
"Everything is meaningless" -- King Solomon
"Girls don't like boys, girls like cars and money." -- Good Charlotte
Has anyone have more info on this? Will there be online web based maps with chat based tools and possibly VoIP?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The only book any player needs to play the game is the Player's Handbook. In addition, the DM will want a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual (to help him craft encounters, build adventures, and run an entertaining game). Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels. Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them.
Okay... so the Monster Manual will be unnecessary for all shapechanging and summoning powers...
This is either a damn lie, or they're making powers far more limited and less interesting.
My favorite part is where they don't want you to own books any more. They just want you to pay $15/month forever for the privilege of accessing them from your $1000 laptop with the small, low-res, low-contrast screen, and having it on the kitchen table where a bunch of dorks are eating messy snacks, spilling drinks, and flailing their arms spasmatically.
How does the Open Gaming License affect WotC's view on computer programs? Does Wizards consider the actual rules, the type of map, the genre, the number of d20's, etc to be their IP?
In other words, if some enterprising hotshot programmer wrote a program that might somehow compete with Wizards or silently incorporated some of the D&D rules, should he expect retaliation and C&D letters, or would Wizards consider it free marketing for them?
in our group and I have been married for fifteen years.
We have a six year old daughter that plays a halfling rogue.
I find the inevitable "D&D players never get laid" responses to RPG stories bitterly amusing, but getting old.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
Do you still take design commentary from D&D legends like Gary Gygax? Or are all of these design decisions based on modern gaming sessions?
She wants your crap out of her basement by Friday.
Here's to hoping they get it right this time. I played plenty of 2nd and when 3rd came out like many of us I bought that. Then a few years later 3.5 comes out and all that money is wasted. This is especially important now that I play at the FLGS and not with a bunch of friends in someone's kitchen/basement and play in the living campaigns. To continue playing in one of these campaigns you techinically have to own the current rule book or you can't play. After the 3.5 revision I only bought books I absolutely needed and is the only edition I don't own a DMG for and were it not for the short lifespan of 3.0 would also be the edition I owned the fewest books for. With 2nd I would buy books without a second thought so I believe change editions so often and obsoleting previous books does more harm than good.
What's the concern with all these new releases? Why would anyone bother with them?
I played AD&D off and on for years, and just last week played 3rd edition for the first time (never played 2nd). It felt pretty much the same. It's still a dungeon crawl simulator focused on battle mechanics, some of the rules have been streamlined, though there seemed to be more of them.
3rd ed. is a ploy to sell source books. The marketing drone's bullshit answer about why 4th ed. is needed tells me that things aren't going to change.
Play Command HQ online
Sounds like I'll continue to stick with 2e. It ain't (significantly) broke, they should never have tried to fix it.
Most insightful and funny post I've seen for some time ;)
which is totally what she said
D&D is, and has been, tedious to play, the rules are incoherent and gameplay in combat is slow.
;)
These are NOT just bugs, this is brokenness by design. Some concepts like "levels" or "character classes" or the dichotomy of monsters vs. characters are just not fit for coherent rules and fast gameplay.
For contrast, compare this to RuneQuest (1977):
- Monsters, animals, characters, whatever, are all the same, follow all the same rules.
- events which have similar effect all use the same rule: there is one rule for hits by falling debris, dragons and falling off towers. There is one rule for chocking, suffocating, drowning and getting chocked.
- there are no levels. there are just skills you can get better in. You can get more hitpoints by increasing attributes like strength, but there is some definive cap on that, which is about 18 for humans; for comparison, the average is about 13. And even a new character can start with 18 hitpoints.
- A sword will do 1d8+1 damage, plus damage bonus. Even the strongest and best human fighter can be slain in one lucky hit. Which makes combat very deadly and fast. And fun
The game isn't much newer than D&D, but the mechanics are of a complete other generation, way more modern.
If I wasn't so much into Live-Action Roleplaying, I'd play RuneQuest (or its derivates Call of Cthulhu, Nephilim, Ringworld or ElfQuest) or Hârnmaster (which is similar to RuneQuest).
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
So, I've been playing D&D since 2nd Ed. I moved over to 3rd when it came out, and then 3.5 even though many people chose to stay behind. I did this because each new edition seemed to only add to the game, not subtract from it. I could play a fighter/mage/thief in 3 and 3.5 - only they called them "bards" now. This, to me, meant that you never felt like you lost anything by "upgrading" to the latest edition - only gained new stuff with new rules to better game play.
Now enter 4th ed. It seems to me that there is a distinct deviation from the feeling that I'm not losing anything by changing over (except my old rule system). Why the hatred for the bard? Admittedly, this question is spawned because this is my favorite class, and I am a little offended to hear the bard called a useless class. They were the natural diplomats and party leaders in most of my games - and I'm annoyed that the cleric is now taking over that function. I guess my question in essence is this: Why take away aspects of the game that - although you might not have seen the intrinsic value - other players dearly loved? It seems like you are just trying to alienate people who have played D&D for a long time while attempting to appeal to the new "MMO" set of players. Couldn't you have accommodated us both?
"Does bouncing count?" - Silk, Magician's Gambit by David Eddings
Translation: You're not even on our radar. In fact, we didn't even comprehend your question. Honestly, the only people who are pleased with this edition are us marketing droids.
And the last sentance should tell us that this edition is yet another turd in a can.
Frankly, I'd rather play Rolemaster.
I can see the fnords!
All of this information is available on other sites, and these answers aren't as informative as the information available at enworld.org.
:P, the Open Gaming License is no longer Open, so it's going to be more restrictive. They are probably not going to be calling it the open gaming license anymore- it's going to be the Game System License, and you very likely won't be able to create things like the d20 SRD with rules information.
To answer one of the questions
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218511
Hello,
(First question!)
It seems that almost 3.0/3.5 party is basically a bunch of people walking around in chain shirts, with one or two of them with no armor, and many one wearing a full plate. The problem is that the better protection provided by heavier armor than the chain shirt is constantly negated by its lower max dex bonus, point for point. Additionally, wearing armor that is heavier than light has considerable disadvantages for no other gain. Has there been any effort made to correct this? Has armor been re-thought to be more than just an AC gain with a max dex cap?
Thanks for your time. I very much look forward to the 4th edition.
it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications
Translation - You used to have the ability to buy the core book and then nothing else. Not anymore, suckers!
Seriously, these guys have made a lot of money by finding ways to turn ordinary RPGs into "value added" schemes requiring constant upgrades and boosters and the like.
Would Wizards of the Coast have released 3.5 if we knew at the time that 4th Edition was coming?
Uhhh... What? If they don't know, who does?
The struggle between playability and tactical depth is a constant one for any game designer [...] A player who prefers simple options can select those and still feel like he's creating an effective character
D&D started as a game by a company called "Tactical Studies Rules" for a reason. Can't hack the depth? Don't play. Go buy a deck of booster cards for one of WotC's many RPGs-of-chance and stay out of the world of "real" RPGs.
We constantly re-evaluate the role of older settings in our business plans and product schedules
Notice that doesn't mention "player interest" or "fun". Business plans. Product Schedules. Profit.
Overall, I would like to see "Who are you trying to please" re-asked. 15 years ago, you could go back and forth between vanilla D&D to AD&D 2nd E, and not get confused about the rules. Now, except for the name you can barely even recognize it as the same game.
This sad excuse for a Q&A response boils down to them doing their best not to come out and say "we need you to buy new books and value-added content". And I don't say that merely as an old-school gamer who doesn't want to learn a new set of rules (I've learned so many at this point, I can't even count them without a checklist) - I say it as a gamer that, at this point in life actually has money to spend on such content, and will not do so to support change-for-its-own-sake (or for boosting profit).
Fail, WotC.
Hello again,
(Second question! See? I respect the rules.)
I know the Monk will not be part of the next Player's Handbook. First, thanks for taking the time to think through this class, because it was very problematic at best. I know you wanted to make it into a "Striker" (a damage dealer like the rogue) and have basically a request. Everyone in my gaming group fondly remembers the monk class from RoleMaster, way back when, that had tons of crazy movement abilities like you see today in movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. He didn't jump a little bit further: he could jump 100 feet even at fairly low levels. My request is this: would you please consider doing something like that with the monk? I mean like making it the striker that would be the undisputed king of mobility on the battlefield, or something like that. I have seen so many people choose a monk and just hope they would be able to do something cool and martial arts-y with it, I do not want ten more years of that.
Thanks very much. I am still very much looking forward to the 4th edition.
until we had to move, we had a couples game going.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
a lot less difference between "some" and "more" than "some" and "none".
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
Pardon me as I hijack this story a bit.
I'm looking for a resource for generic setting information. When the characters show up at $town, I'd like to have a map of it and some NPCs living there. They aren't really part of our story, but I don't want them to be completely flat, either. Any suggestions?
-Dave
and they look like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670
My original question as seen above:
How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.
WotC's response:
The struggle between playability and tactical depth is a constant one for any game designer, and D&D is no different. We're always wrestling with the right balance between providing streamlined, intuitive play and giving players all the options they want. For example, by giving more characters customizable options for their actions in combat, we've added a dramatic level of depth (both strategic, in building your character, and tactical, in employing those options during a fight), but at the cost of increasing complexity for some characters. We think that's a net positive effect, because the lack of tactical and strategic options for fighters, rogues, and many other characters had become a glaring weakness in the game. The key is to ensure that players of different sensibilities can still find a rewarding play experience within the game's framework. A player who prefers simple options can select those and still feel like he's creating an effective character, while his buddy who thrives on complexity can load up on interesting combos without grinding the game to a halt.
Follow-up Question:
Is there any concern that you've eliminated the most tactically interesting/complex characters from the game?
Further explanation/clarification:
As 3.5E D&D stands, I agree that the lack of tactical options for many kinds of characters is a weakness in the game. I'm glad to know that it will be possible to play a tactically interesting fighter without having to comb 10 books for esoteric feats and prestige classes to somehow combine together into a mutt build that ends up tactically interesting.
However, my fear and what my original question was alluding to, is that instead of 'helping the poor', so to speak, you've opted for 'gaming communism'.
I'll try to better clarify that by explaining it in 3.5E terms. Take these three classes for example:
Fighter:
- Moderate strategy at the character-build level.
- No strategy at the day level.
- Few tactical options at the combat level. That is, your fighter with feats picked for mounted combat CAN fire a longbow, but he's not very good at it. His best options in all fights come from a very short list.
Sorcerer:
- Moderate strategy at the character-build level. (Less feats to pick vs. fighter, but now you're picking spells, so...)
- No strategy at the day level.
- Moderate to many tactical options at the combat level. As you reach the mid-levels, you've got a long list of spells and maybe some metamagic feats to apply on the fly.
Druid:
- Moderate strategy at the character-build level. (You pick more skills than sorcerer/fighter, but few feats and a few are so good as to be default choices for many of the picks. Probably your single biggest 'build' choice is your animal companion, how you advance it, etc.)
- High strategy at the day level. You can fill a variety of roles depending on which spells you prepare. How well you anticipate which spells you need will have a huge impact on the usefulness of your character.
- High strategy at the day level. Lots of spells to choose from, an animal companion to manage, wild shape, etc.
Essentially, I'm concerned that instead of making fighter more of a complexity like sorcerer, you've instead chosen to make everyone like sorcerer and that there's no niche in the game for, say, the so-called 'Batman' style wizard; at best, a poor Batman sorcerer style controller seems possible. (See: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500 if you're not familiar.)
Tell me why I should drop a lot of money on books and even more money monthly on this new version.
Oh! We're glad you asked! Really simple - we need a way to inflate our profits. And we knew if we made a new version it would do that for us.
We're also quite envious of all the money spent on online subscriptions to games so we figured that if we made some "Online Content" you would just blithely spend money on us too.
then why not offer players the ability to run their online campaigns using any of the existing rulesets? The basic game mechanics will be the same, it's mainly a matter of tweaking the stats and character/monster classes. And I would have to believe downgrading the governing software from 4.0 to 1st edition or second would not be difficult. And that is WotC doesn't do it, some enterprising young coder will....
Seriously. "clerics in 4th Edition occupy the "leader" role (sometimes also known as the "healer" or "party buffer" role). Their damage output is decent, but far behind that of the wizard or rogue, and they don't have the defenses or melee-control abilities of the fighter."
I swear I had flashbacks to SOE message boards filled with whining Monks. Folks, is this really the hill you want to die on?
There are a great many (hundreds) of role playing games out there. There are many times more tabletop games than that.
My advice to you is that you set down the WotC torch and pick up another game for a while. The worst that can happen is that you'll come back to D&D with a better understanding of why you like it. The best that could happen? You may realize you're paying for an over-designed, over-priced, over-hyped, over-played soulless shell of a role playing game - one that really doesn't do anything badly, but doesn't do anything well, either.
Repeat after me: The system is part of the setting. The system is part of the charm. The system is the soul of the game. Learning new systems is fun. After learning D&D, learning new systems is a friggin' cakewalk.
Try something different. On a budget? Check out CheapAss Games. Want more role playing and less dice rolling, maybe some more flavor in a gaming system? Try out Continuum (time travel/any), Deadlands (western), Earthdawn (swords/sorcery), Unknown Armies (occult/underworld), Paranoia (psychotic and fun), Big Eyes Small Mouth (anime), Ironpaw (yes, furry has an RPG). Want miniatures and grand tabletop battles and strategy? Try Warhammer. That's just a short list of the ones I've enjoyed off the top of my head. Wikipedia has a list, RPGNet has reviews, you know what to do.
Heck, try something like Universalis if you want real innovation - they are designing the GM/DM right out. It didn't quite succeed, but the idea has a hell of a lot of merit. Enough that I think it'll shape the future of interactive storytelling in role playing games. I'll admit, I've been out of the loop for some time. There's plenty more out there I've never heard of.
If you bought 40 D&D 3.5 books, you could have spent that money instead on 50 different RPGs. WotC tends to be expensive. There's more to RPGs than D&D. If you've only ever played D&D then I suggest you really don't know what you are missing, and you should take a few others for a spin - and don't overlook card games, board games, and trivia games either. Those genres aren't standing still. They can make for a great two or three session break in between various campaigns - or a good gaming night for most of your group if too few people show up to play your current campaign.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
I played from a blue box, from a "magenta" box, and from a Deities and Demigods that had Elric and the Cthulhu mythos. It was great. But then I played some other games starting in the mid-80's that had far more elegant rules. After a while, when I would GM, I'd always use home made rules. I slapped together (OK, it was a bit more time consuming than that sounds) some rules, printed off about 12 pages for each player as reference and off we went. I don't want my players telling me that a troll only has X hit dice. I don't want them being rules lawyers. It takes away from the fun. Yes, sometimes I would cheat them. If a fight that was supposed to be epic was going horribly awry one way or the other because I hadn't planned it correctly, I changed it in mid-stride. It was a great game for it's time, but personally I enjoy the idea of making the players really think about what's going on. Too many dice and books can get in the way of enjoying a good story, and to me that's what it's all about.
Besides, D4s suck in bare feet.
All the types of adjustment (dogde, enhancement, synergy, magic, deflection, armour, ... bonus) which don't stack within the class. But what IS a dodge bonus and how does it compare with deflection? How many stackable types can you get?
It was too complicated and far too unexplained for humans to remember but is *just right* for a computer to remember.
All that about facing, threat areas and half/full/double actions and so on? More computer jiggery, or at least requiring graph paper and pictorial creatures.
All to go to make a computer version easier, it seemed.
It's not nearly as simple as wanting more money. To be honest, WOTC seems happy doing what they have been doing all along. It's Hasbro, which is more than 20 times their size that is pulling the strings here. WOTC is merely following orders and making the best of a bad situation. This happens when you're owned by a soulless giant mega-corp. Corporate says do it and you say "yes, boss". There is no discussion permitted, usually. They decree. You implement if you want to keep your jobs.
I've talked to many industry insiders over the last year online(most of whom wish of course to remain anonymous) and the general consensus is that 4.0 is about Hasbro getting anal about IP rights and not about it being a money grab. Hasbro understands dolls and board games and miniatures and the like. Hasbro is also Apple(tm) anal about IP and such and doesn't give a damn about creativity and third party uses for their products. WOTC isn't even 10% of their total sales, after all. (480 million in sales for Hasbro this last year)
So they force WOTC to change enough so that it's not compatible with 3.5 for IP reasons, despite everyone that I've talked to saying that WOTC was more or less happy with 3.5 as it was for the next few years at least.
WOTC of course is doing its best to rush 4.0 to market/make the best of it. They really planned on releasing 4.0 in a few years, so it's unfortunately going to not really be a huge change/improvement like 3.0 was over 2.0.
I feel sorry for them if anything. They honestly don't deserve our anger, but instead, our sympathy for getting their chains yanked. Hopefully they will someday be able to extricate themselves from Hasbro, but it doesn't look too promising at this point.
I watch a lot of G4TV, Gameplay HD, Sci-Fi Channel, Discovery, and the like. I also regularly visit several geek-oriented and video gamer-oriented websites. Why do I never see advertisements for D&D and other tabletop RPGs targeted to "outsiders?" This ask slashdot was the only thing I've ever seen that would even reach outsiders, and even this is geared towards insiders and isn't really an advertisement.
If you had slipped a little flyer into my KotOR case that said something like, "Continue the story with your friends using the Star Wars tabletop RPG," I would have at least been intrigued enough to check it out, and would probably have gotten into it 4 years sooner. I happened to get invited when I moved to a new city, but I'm actually kind of upset you didn't reach out to me earlier. Before I moved here I thought D&D was something ex-hippies used to do back in the 80's.
I'd like to hear some slashdotter advertising ideas. I'll start:
You're one of the most creative companies on the planet with one of the most creative customer bases ever. You can think of something!
This space intentionally left blank.
... the conclusion is that they droned on for 3 pages and basically said nothing good about the product. Drastic oversimiplification of monsters? See the Pit Fiend they put forth, which basically is a WoW ripoff. See how most of the monsters have a set of feats that basically boil down to "do this, then this, then this, lather, rinse, repeat" with no tactical points.
D&D 4e = a transparent attempt to make people pay $15/month to play a tabletop game. That's why they killed the print mags and gave Paizo the big "FUCK YOU", that's why they stuck it all behind the $15/month wall, and that's why all the new books will have only half the content, the other half being "unlockable online with your DDI subscription."
Three questions: 1. Can I have a mountain dew? 2. Can I have an ogre slaying knife? 3. Am I getting drunk? Roll the dice to see if i'm getting drunk.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Link to the Software FAQ.
Note that a lot of this will be changing for 4e. They're backing away from a true "open" license in favor of a new license they've tentatively called the Game System License. They will also not be releasing an SRD which is little more than the PHB with a little Product Identity filed off. They do NOT want people just playing with the SRD and not buying the PHB anymore, so that's going to go away.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Problem with armour it doesn't scale as you go up in level.
Base 10
Full plate +8
Shield +2
Dex +1
+5 plate +5
+5 shield +5
AC: 31.
BAB when you can HAVE +5 everything (15th+ level):
Base: +15
STR: +7
+5 Sword +5
Focus +1
BAB: 28.
Roll a 5 to hit with a d20.
IMO, going up levels should allow your characters' hits to get harder (multiply the damage, fighters get 2x damage when mages get 110% damage, for example). Armour should give reductions on damage (so 20% damage for full plate, 90% damage leather), and the reduction could increase with level. Monks get multiple attacks (others only get multiple attacks when the opponents are much lower level than them) and a chance to avoid any damage. Sort of like "Bulletproof Monk". Or Matrix.
Mages should be able to fight close quaters with magic nearly as good as a cleric and magis resistance should be rare and low %. As with the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master monsters, have monsters immune to spells of level 1-x instead of "MR 45".
Clerics should be more effective aginst demons/angels than mages.
I've played other editions of AD&D, I still have my books, and I've read the material that Wizards has produced describing the new edition. And I feel they've finally learned how to make it a game for all people, not just a slap-together piece. Let's face it, in comparison to spell-casters, melee types ha limited abilities. Feats changed some of that, but they're a bit limited too. Heck, how many abilities are limited to arbitrary restrictions on usage. The new system? Much better. At-will abilities, versus once per battle, or even once per day....works for me. I don't know how it'll all look once it's together, but conceptually, I can't object to the new edition. I think they had their heads on straight when designing it, and that they finally learned something. Now business-wise, I can't object to them putting out a new edition either. It's actually less objectionable to me than putting out mini-books and expansions. And while I'd like them to go over some of the old campaigns (Birthright I miss you!!!! A LOT!), I can't object to them sticking to the Realms and Eberron for a while. I do like Eberron, and the Realms has a place in my heart too.
First, thanks for getting rid of the red-tape-ridden "d20 System License." I'd like to follow up this line of thought with some clarifications on what the OGL can and can't actually do: What is the official response to claims that game mechanics themselves cannot be patented or protected as Intellectual Property (the way Software Patents are)?
The view of OGL presented by Technomancer Press, for example, is that the OGL and d20 System License restrict more than they enable; US patent and trademark law already allows almost everything "granted" by OGL, whereas the only extra bit given by the license is the ability to reproduce the copyrighted text in exchange for restrictions on references to WotC printed materials. (The d20 System License grants use of the copyrighted/trademarked system logo, viewed by the industry as a requirement to sell successfully.) This presentation seems to indicate that a publisher is permitted (by law) to release D&D-compatible products and clearly mark them as such, so long as no WotC-owned logos are used and no copied text blocks are included. What response do you have to such a view?
What are your goals in drafing the next OGL, and how do they differ from the current version? What can you acknowledge as mistakes made with the previous OGL and d20 System License?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
...but I have no idea what this game is by these Hasbro/WotC people.
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
Some however get in too deep into the occulte as portayed in this 8bit documentary:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHdXG2gV01k
I loved 3E. I wasn't so happy about 3.5, as a lot of people will tell you, the changes weren't enough to warrant the update, but just enough to mess up compatibility between 3.5 and 3E.
Having said that, there's a lot of people who don't like it! All AD&D 2nd Ed players... But the only reason you might not like 3E is because you never tried it.
It's much, much simpler than 2nd Ed ever was. The ruleset is more orthogonal, anyone who's a programmer will appreciate the value of a consistent central rule set at the core of the system. 2nd Ed was a big mish-mash of rules that differed dramatically depending on where you look.
They also designed 3E more as a tabletop game, it sounds bad but it works really well. Level advancement is quicker and more consistent. When you're a casual kind of gamer it means you can get players through level progression quickly... and hit the end game roughly about the time that players give up on a campaign anyway. The difference is that in 3E, you've gone from low to high level, but in 2nd you'd probably still be killing kobolds.
I'm hoping 4th Ed will continue the tradition that 3E set, keeping the core rules simple and adding complexity only as much as you're comfortable as a DM or player to do, and being balanced around the way most people play the game.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Seems like every time they release some sort of Character building application, it's Windows only. I'm not a programmer, but it seems like there are a ton of options out there to make applications cross-platform. Maybe just make it a website or something.
My question wasn't really answered :/.
What I meant was, suppose I have a character that gets fatigued and shaken. Do I need to manually update the character sheet on various points to reflect this? What about hits from various spells that have effects, like bane ? Will I be able to do something like PCGen, whereby I just click a button saying I'm hit with bane, and my stats are updated accordingly? Or is it still the gamer's responsibility?
If I had my time again I would be chasing girls instead of listening to the dm talk about how "after your party enters a bar and sits down for a drink you hear one of the clients talking about a tressure deep within an abandoned castle". Holy crap, what a waste of time, and I only realised this after getting layed.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
none of the questions answered were all that new, and were very sanitised. The major question I still have is concerning supplements. I realize that part of a DMs responsibility is to control what he allows in his game so as not to unbalance it. With the huge number of Wizards released supplements in 3.5 this became especially challenging, as few of the new classes or prestige classes seemed at all balanced with core versions and were either very underpowered or terribly overpowered. Same with spells, feats and monsters. My gaming group has collectively picked up 20 or so additional books, from which any player can cherry pick a feat here, PRC there, new spell here, and wind up with something that drastically unbalances the campaign. None of my players are char-op munchkins, but in every book there are one or two neat things that seem quite reasonable on their own but end up with very unreasonable synergy with other non-core abilities.
What is WOTC doing in 4E to more properly balance all content being put out in supplements both against the core rules and against other supplements.
I don't think there's any aspect of the system that needs a full remodeling more desperately than hit points. Subtracting random numbers from a "health pool" until someone reaches zero is no way to model the dangers of combat.
I loved the last question asking why they should adopt. Besides doing P&P for many years, I also loved the Gold-Box series SSI put out. The thing that gamers like is a standard that allows them to pick up any game and jump right into it. With the Gold-Box series, once people 'got-it', they could do any of them. It seems like people are trying so hard to out-do themselves, then defeat themselves. (XP vs. Vista for example)
Dear WotC: Perhaps the greatest value of tabletop games is the opportunity for players to invest themselves in believable characters and to create compelling stories. In what new or improved ways do the 4E rules faciliate story and character development (numbers aside)?
Will you have to join/subscribe to fully enjoy the 4th edition? Can you play it without having to go online? The one of the biggest reason's I started playing D&D was the face to face interaction. When I play a game like WoW, most of the people I encouneter are jerks, and harass me to do PvP with them till i leave. When I don't they proceed to call me names. This one of the things I am dreading with they way it seems D&D 4ed is geared towards. Don't get me wrong, there are still jerks in face to face play. When you're face to face they are less likely to call you names to your face.
Obligatory follow up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4e is coming whether we want it to or not. It seems like it is going to have some good and some bad changes. If you want to stick to 3.5 that's your choice, if you want to move to 4e good for you. I'll be sticking with 3.5 for at least another year or so. Wile I'll probably buy the core rules right when they come out, I will not buy anything else.
Unfortunately my setting of choice is Eberron (just ordered City of Stormreach too) and I won't see jack for this setting until who knows when in '09. I guess I can feel happy that I didn't sink a lot of money into source books... Maybe $150 to $200 for all the Eberron source books. I bought most of my collection from the Amazon.com market place for almost nothing due to having small remainder marks on the bottom of the spine. But, I feel slighted that I won't see anything other than a coffee table book (An Adventurer's Guide to Eberron) for what will probably be well over a year.
Anyone else miss these guys?
Earthdawn is by miles my most treasured setting, and I do not think that place will ever be usurped by anything WotC puts out these days.
Machine9dotNet
There are many cool games beyond D&D and dungeon crawling. Most of these "indie" games are more story-oriented and some don't even have GM but are still fun for competitive players. :)
A good place to start exploring is Indie Press Revolution's Game Recommendations.
chris
cpeterso
Get off my lawn. If you need to pay for an online component in order to fully utilize the game, it is no longer a pen and paper game.
Get off my lawn I say!