D&D's Story Manager Answers Your Questions on Camera

Chris Perkins, story manager for the upcoming Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, took some time out this past weekend at the D&D Experience event to talk back to us. He answered the concerns of five readers who had commented on their responses to our earlier questions from January. With a large amount of information about Fourth Edition now out in the open and the NDA for playtesters lowered, there's been a floodgate of new concerns over the latest change to this tabletop icon. You might also be interested in the other videos from Gamer Radio Zero filmed at the D&D Experience event, which covers everything from DMG design to D&D Insider pricing. Chris's responses can be seen in the YouTube videos included below. Thanks both to Mr. Perkins and Michael Lescault for making this interaction possible. Mongoose Disciple asks "Is there any concern that you've eliminated the most tactically interesting/complex characters from the game?"



Anonymous Coward asks "halivar asked what influence computer games might have had on the design of 4th ed, but what about computer games that are going to use the D&D rule set having an influence on the design of 4th ed? None of the games based on 3/3.5ed appealed to me because of the over-complexity of the rules, I preferred the older titles such as Baldur's Gate that used 2nd ed. That's obviously a personal opinion, but I know it's not an uncommon one. So, were there any design choices made based on the fact that computer games will also use the system?"



skinfaxi asks "Does WotC think all players and DMs are male?"



BobMcD asks "I'm looking at the back of that specific Tiefling Wizard's sheet, and it seems to me that conversion is going right out the window. This 1st level character seems pretty beefy to me, in terms of sheer spell face-meltage. Does 'At-Will' really mean 'as much as you want, just so long as it is your turn'?"



bugnuts asks "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?"

Comments

Was typing too much work?

[slaker]

Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn. Would it have been too much to ask to get some transcripts and/or replies in the standard, text only format that I expect from every single other post on Slashdot, or would all that typing be too much of a hassle?

Re:Was typing too much work?

[SQLGuru]

I concur, many offices now block streaming media (video or audio) due to bandwidth concerns. So, I can read the questions and see the blank space where there would be video, but I'd like to get a transcript, please.

Layne

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Fozzyuw]

Was typing too much work?

To Summerize...

Why did you get ride of complex characters?

We didn't. We're going to sell them to you in another book at a later time.

Did you design DnD4 around video games?

Yes, we designed DnD4 with consideration of selling our rules to video game makers and to work on other platforms.

Are all DM's male?

There is a such thing as a stupid question, and that's one of them.

Will wizards be overpowered because they can cast as many spells a round as they want?

No, a wizard can only perform a certain number of things a round, but they can cast as many number or different spells per combat. We don't want wizards to have to use a xBow because their spells are gone. That's boring.

Does WotC consider everything in DnD their IP?

I don't really know how to answer that question without bringing my legal team down on me, so I'll just say that d20 is symbolic with DnD but other games use it, but logically our IP = our IP.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Stanistani]

If Slashdot continues the drift towards video submissions, well, then I will probably get all my geek interaction from Youtube. Your choice, Taco. Will I dream?

This is a text-based site for good, historical reasons. You want more videos? Put 'em in a link at the bottom as an option.

>Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn.

Best old-school comment ever. Sir, you win.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[tlhIngan]

Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn. Would it have been too much to ask to get some transcripts and/or replies in the standard, text only format that I expect from every single other post on Slashdot, or would all that typing be too much of a hassle?

Not to mention that reading is way faster than speaking, and doubly so when there's enough background noise to make inaudible the speech (futzing with rewind buttons and progress thumbs is quite slow, especially in crappy players that insist on only letting you go back/forth to markers every N seconds rather than anywhere). That, and if you only care about one small part of a video, having to sit there through the entire thing is a pain rather than simple scanning.

Video is great for some things, but other times, it should be used to augment, rather than replace. (E.g., video is great for demos and such, but poor if you're looking at a talking head unless it's used to clarify or illustrate a particularly difficult concept in the text).

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Berkyjay]

That is such BS. This is the most obnoxious attempt to appeal to the WoW crowd and it sickens me. Wizards should prepare spells and if they run out then too bad, they should have planned better.

I'm curious. Why do you feel that wizards should prepare spells and be limited to the number they can cast (per day)? Is it because you simply don't like the "WoW crowd" and don't want WotC to appeal to them or is there another reason?

Yes, I don't like WoW. It's game system is designed to be simple so that our moms and girlfriends can play it and it doesn't belong in D&D. If they want to attract that crowd then they need to go back to the D&D/AD&D system. Make D&D the dumbed down WoW version of the PnP game and keep AD&D deep and complex. The Vancian spell casting system is a foundation of D&D and I can't stand to see them destroy it.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[h4rm0ny]

I'm with you as regards dumbing down, but I think we know too little yet to say if this is the case. For example, I don't think that a wizard running out of spells is exactly gone, so much as supplemented with some basic magic abilities to be used when they run out instead of being forced to shoot their friends in the back of the head with a crossbow.

Don't get me wrong - my two main concerns with 4th ed. are that it turns out to be dumbed down and that it focuses too much on being a defining everything in terms of combat. For example the Pit Fiend entry we have seen details "Tactics: The Pit Fiend acts as follows..." which rings alarm bells. However, there are some very talented people working on this game and they are long time players. These include Mike Mearls who wrote the incomparable Iron Heroes alternative player's handbook.My ideal scenario would almost to have seen them just revamp the core ideas of that game for 4th Edition with a few of the weaknesses filled in, but failing that I'm optimistic that he'll bring across some of the expertise he showed there to the new game.

4th Edition might be the dumbed down money extractor that we fear, but there are positive signs with a lot of this, so please reserve judgement. You can be sure I'll be as loud as anyone in complaining if I feel it's damaging the game I care about.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Yosho]

I'm going to guess that you aren't actually that familiar with the rules. There are two very important things to know about playing a good wizard:
1) You don't have to prepare all of your spell slots at once. At the beginning of the day, just prepare a few good combat spells of various levels that you'd want to have if somebody got the drop on you, and leave the rest of your slots open. You can sit down for a few minutes at any time later that day and prepare spells in those slots.
2) Find magic scrolls? You get Scribe Scroll at first level. Making scrolls is cheap. Use it. You should go ahead and make multiple scrolls of every utility spell you know -- especially the specialized ones, so that you never need to spend a slot preparing them -- and it's also a good idea to prepare scrolls of combat spells that don't rely heavily on caster level, so that you can use them in combat when you run out of prepared spells.

Also, there are lots of spells that seem specialized until you actually put your mind to thinking of alternate uses for them. Just out of the level five spells you derided -- teleport, transmute rock to mud, telekinesis, overland flight, baleful polymorph, shadow evocation, persistent image, wall of force, prying eyes, summon monster 5, major creation... all of those spells are very powerful and can quickly disarm many different situations if used creatively. And none of them are direct damage spells (at least, that's not their intended use). Or were you just setting up a strawman argument that you didn't actually want anybody to disprove?

I'm not saying that the wizard class is perfect, mind you -- I welcome the addition of at-will powers (perhaps like the reserve feats in some of the recent splat books) so that you wizards don't have to pull out a crossbow when they've run out of their daily spells. But I am saying that you don't know how to play a wizard correctly, and it's not the class' fault that you suck.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Arterion]

1) The book says you can do this, but NO WHERE does it actually detail the rules for it. Like how long it takes to prepare a single spell. I've tried before, to do the math on it taking "an hour" to prepare all your spells, and basing the numbers off that, but you end up with huge charts.

2)It's REALLY stupid to make magic items. Even scrolls. They not only cost XP which only the wizard pays, even though they benefit the ENTIRE parte, but they also cost a CRAZY amount of gold for "magical materials". And that's never explained or defined anywhere, either.

Sure, you can say it's all up to the DM, but that's always rule 0. Something that integral to the viability of a class should be clearly spelled out in the rules. And the Wizard is pretty much suck as much as the GP says, in my experience. Yes, I've thought about your suggestions, but they're just not very good ones, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I won't even get into the issue of being able to lose your spellbook, and the concept of "learning" a spell, even though you need special feats to prepare it without the spellbook.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Yosho]

1) The book says you can do this, but NO WHERE does it actually detail the rules for it. Like how long it takes to prepare a single spell. I've tried before, to do the math on it taking "an hour" to prepare all your spells, and basing the numbers off that, but you end up with huge charts. PHB page 178. See the section titled "Spell Preparation Time". It's very clear; preparing all of your spells takes an hour, preparing a small number takes an amount of time proportional to how many you prepare, but at least 15 minutes. It's not as clear as a lot of things in the book, but that's still high school algebra -- the amount of time is equal to (number of spells you want to prepare) / (total number of spells you can prepare) in hours, with a minimum of 15 minutes. No chart necessary.

2)It's REALLY stupid to make magic items. Even scrolls. They not only cost XP which only the wizard pays, even though they benefit the ENTIRE parte, but they also cost a CRAZY amount of gold for "magical materials". And that's never explained or defined anywhere, either. This is true in a lot of situations, unless you're playing a class that specializes in making magical items (see Artificer). But scrolls are cheap. Look at how much it costs to make a scroll compared to character wealth by level. It's a little pricey if you're cranking out scrolls of the highest level you can cast, but the cost of scrolls a level or two lower is a pittance. The GP cost is simply part of being a well-rounded wizard -- do you refuse to buy a new axe when you're playing a barbarian or more ammunition when you're playing a ranger? Do you complain about buying new armor because you being a better tank "benefits the entire party"? The XP cost is practically little more than a rounding error -- a 9th level scroll costs only 153 XP! By the time you can cast 9th level spells, you can sneeze on something and get that much XP back. If you don't mind a little bit of cheese, take a look at the Complete Adventurers' Thought Bottle, and all of your XP problems are gone.

But that's not the only way to end your "running out of spells per day" problem. Be a specialist, get a few Rings of Spell Storing or Pearls of Power, and get a Headband of Intellect for more bonus spells.

Sure, you can say it's all up to the DM, but that's always rule 0. Something that integral to the viability of a class should be clearly spelled out in the rules. It's not all up to the DM. Aside from the specifics of "magical materials" -- which I admit is a bit vague, but can easily be explained away as the cost of specially prepared paper, magical ink, etc., all available from your corner adventurers' market -- all of that is pretty clearly spelled out.

I won't even get into the issue of being able to lose your spellbook First, you know that a typical spellbook has 100 pages, and it takes one page per spell level to scribe a spell in it, right? You're probably going to be hauling around several spellbooks. Losing one will suck, but it's not the end of the world. You can also re-scribe any spells you had in memory at the time it was gone into a new book. Second, any DM who destroys a spellbook is a cruel bastard. Yes, it's a viable tactic, but it's no different from making all of the fighter-types fight waves of rust monsters. All it does is piss off players.

Of course, a respectably high-level wizard will have a couple of Boccob's Blessed Books with copies of his favorite spells in all of them. One of them will probably be in a Leomund's Secret Chest, too. Yeah, it sucks if you lose one, but you've lost less than a fighter whose magic sword got sundered.

and the concept of "learning" a spell, even though you need special feats to prepare it without the spellbook. Wizards don't "learn" spells, they copy new ones into their spellbooks. I think you need to re-read the chapter on magic.

I guess Zonk doesn't work for a living.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Hey, Zonk, did it occur to you that some of us are at work, and thus don't have time to watch a bunch of YouTube clips? It's a lot easier to skim a text interview while waiting for the compiler than it is to sit and watch the guy talk slower than I can read.

zwhu?

[lotekppc]

Transcripts would be appreciated. I read about an order of magnitude faster than people talk, so it drives me up the fucking wall to click on a link to find videos. Bah. No time, no time.

The answer to my question...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Summary:

My original question above: "Is there any concern that you've eliminated the most tactically interesting/complex characters from the game?" Meaning, none of the classes we've seen to this point for 4E are on the strategy/forethought/complexity level of any of the "prepared" casters in 1-3E.

The response, paraphrased: We realize that all of the characters in the new base game are middle of the road complexity-wise, none of them as complex as 3E wizard and none of them as simple as 3E fighter. Later material will introduce some more complex choices.

Assuming this is true, I'm happy with this response and for the first time I'm actually hopeful about 4E. I know a ton of people (mostly current or former convention-circuit gamers) who strongly prefer the more complex characters (even when they're not necessarily more powerful), and I have hope that they won't be alienated from the game. When you're looking at playing the same character for literally thousands of hours of play, a character that isn't going to be doing the same 5 things in 99% of combats becomes a lot more appealing than it otherwise might.

I'm sure I won't ever play again the way I did during my 'con' years, but I'm at least interested in giving the 4E rules a shot now.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Gutboy]

The response, paraphrased: We realize that all of the characters in the new base game are middle of the road complexity-wise, none of them as complex as 3E wizard and none of them as simple as 3E fighter. Later material will introduce some more complex choices.

See, I heard him say (paraphrased): We are giving you the boring classes, so you'll spend more money on our products later to get the interesting classes.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Maybe that complexity will not scale as characters rise in levels, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

At least as of the beta tests, it didn't really scale -- at least, not anywhere near as much as complexity did by level in 3E. A mid-level wizard would basically be doing the same 3-4 things in every combat whereas that wasn't very true in 3E.

I didn't go to D&D Experience and haven't talked to anyone who did yet though, so no idea if it's any different based on feedback they received.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[The Aethereal]

I hope not. I read about his death yesterday, so if he died today, someone has some explaining to do.

He failed his saving throw

[Serenissima]

Vs Verbosity. But luckily, he was wearying his +3 Armor of Monotonous Speaking.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Mr. Bad Example]

> No one seems to have mentioned this but the creator of D&D died today:

Someone failed his saving throw vs. dupe.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Paranatural]

That was yesterday. It made front page coverage on slashdot, and, somewhat surprisingly, almost every major news source. So apart from that, yeah, no one mentioned it.

Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming License

[SirGarlon]

First of all, no, I did not watch the damn videos of Perkins spewing marketer-speak. If I wanted to see video I would go to YouTube, not Slashdot.

Second, the elephant in the room is the Open Gaming License, or "Game System License" as it will be called for 4E. Basically, Wizards of the Coast is dropping open gaming in all but name. Some details are here; highlights are:

The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.

Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.

The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date.

Translation: we are moving from free-as-in-speech to free-as-in beer because we think it's in the best interest of our brand.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Rydia]

Like how AD&D created the dichotomy between classes and races? That wasn't D&D.
Or how 2d Ed threw in proficiencies and different movement rules? That wasn't D&D.
How about 3d Ed, which created feats and skills and standardized exp? That certainly wasn't D&D.

Dungeons and Dragons is a brand, a bundle of concepts and mechanics upon which a concrete game is built, and a franchise which provides consumers with an indicator of a) a level of quality and b) a general "feel" that differs from other games (such as Legend of the Five Rings). If we go by your ridiculously restrictive definition, then everything from AD&D on was "a new product cashing in on the D&D name.

1st Edition is simpler than ever with OSRIC

[halivar]

Did that sound like an advertisement?

OSRIC is an OGL compilation of OD&D ("Old" D&D) rules, put together in a much more easily comprehensible format than the original books. It's sort of like an SRD for 1st Edition. If you miss 1st Ed., you may want to give it a try with your kids.

well, there is only one thing left to do.

[geekoid]

I'm sorry it has come to this, but I think we all need to make video replies and link them.

I'll start when I get home

Re:the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[Khopesh]

Ooh, the Technomancer Press website is actually responding today ... I'd better quote them while I can. From the Technomancer Press FAQ [1]:

1. Are Technomancer Press books d20 System® compatible?
   
   First, we would like to stress that "Dungeons and Dragons" and "d20 System" are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, not us. Yes. All books by Technomancer Press are compatible with Dungeons and Dragons® and other d20 System® games. A couple of them are d20-only (The Player's Companion and ConQuests), but most of them can be used with virtually any system.
   
   
2. Why don't Technomancer Press books have d20 System® logos on their covers?
   
   The short, quippy answer is "it is against the terms of the d20 System License to publish the d20 System® logo in black and white." Again, we'd like to start by making it clear that d20 System® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, not us. To answer the question, if you read the text of the Open Gaming License (version 1.0a), it actually restricts companies from using certain terms in their books: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. This means that saying our books are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons (a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast) is a violation of the Open Gaming License. Further, the system reference document for D&D 3.5 released by Wizards of the Coast states: The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual... In addition, the d20 System® Guide, v5.0 states: You may refer to the Player's Handbook by title or as the PHB. You may refer to the Dungeon Master's Guide only as the DMG and the Monster Manual only as the MM. You may refer to the Psionics Handbook only by title. You may refer to the Epic Level Handbook by title or as the ELH. You may refer to the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game only by title. You must not cite page number references... Technomancer Press finds these requirements to be restrictive and more beneficial to Wizards of the Coast than any of the d20 System® licensees. We also find it to be hypocritical, considering that Wizards of the Coast's initial product line consisted of books intended to be used in other role-playing systems. Technomancer Press believes that the d20 System® is a clever way for Wizards of the Coast to maintain their market share by advertising on their competitors' covers. The funny thing is that initially we decided that we couldn't officially do the d20 System® because they require the logo to be printed in color, and our covers are printed in black and white! We learned all the other stuff later.
   
   
3. So you guys think the open gaming movement is BS?
   
   Hell no! We applaud the open gaming movement, and invite everyone to create new material inspired by our content. We just aren't pleased with Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming License. By agreeing to the OGL, you give up some rights in return for "receiving" others*. By not signing the OGL, we are not bound to WotC's restrictions. *We contend that the rights they are "granting" are rights we already have anyway, without needing their permission.

[1] www.technomancer-press.com/index.php?mact=Glossary,cntnt01,show,0&cntnt01tid=9&cntnt01returnid=59

Kind of sad

[brkello]

Slashdot is a news site about technology for nerds. It is sad to see when they slightly stray from the norm, everyone freaks out. Yeah, it is a good idea to have a text transcript. But I thought this was a site full of people who like the cutting edge...the early adopters...the intelligent. But oh no! Streaming video is presented in front of you and this site becomes a bunch of old curmudgeon, get off my lawn types. I can't see this stuff at work either, but if I am truly interested, I will go watch it at home. It's a games article after all...your next meeting won't rely on the fact that you watched these videos. Just wish people would lighten up on here instead of threatening to move to Canada when something changes slightly.

Re:the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[SirGarlon]

They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding

It seems you understand the difference between the SRD, the OGL, and the D20 License, but a lot of readers might not. So others can follow as we get technical: the OGL is the Open Gaming License, which I and some others would argue is not really very open. The SRD is the System Reference Document, which are the D&D 3.x rules as trimmed down and released under the OGL. The D20 System License is a separate license one could use to put a "D20 System" logo on one's product, which was supposed to indicate some level of compatibility with D&D. To get that logo one had to consent to rather odious and very non-free license terms.

What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?