General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Well, either "what makes people play your game" got misidentified, or Robyn Laws' theories on narrow focus deserve to stay academic, IMO.
Eh....seems to work for a lot of people. To each his own, right?
Your opinion is valid though, so *please* don't take that as a criticism. We all find different things appealing.
Robin Laws is a rather interesting writer. Did you pick up the DMG2 for 3.5? He worked on that book and I found his insights very helpful. If you haven't seen it, it might worth finding a used copy for that material alone.
I may have missed your answer, but do you have any clue when the next Mailbag podcast will be? With all the new stuff from PHB2, the new stuff we are learning about MM2 and PHB3 I am sure people will have questions, including myself So do you have any info on if/when there would be the next one?
Eh....seems to work for a lot of people. To each his own, right?
No. The focus has gone from broad to narrow. Why should a significant section of the former audience be excluded for the gratification of another section of it? At least release such a product under another name, and keep the broader one going (yes, I know, impractical, so don't go down the narrow path at all then).
Quote:
Robin Laws is a rather interesting writer. Did you pick up the DMG2 for 3.5? He worked on that book and I found his insights very helpful. If you haven't seen it, it might worth finding a used copy for that material alone.
I've read articles from him. I know he sounds plausible and logical, but so do many generalisations, quotes, ideologies and extreme stances that fail when they meet the real world, if implemented without moderation. That's why they're referred to as "academic".
There was a link to a famous article about "what D&D can learn from spaghetti sauces" that seems plausible and logical too. It also doesn't jibe with a narrowly focused game design theory.
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
Last edited by rounser; 25th April 2009 at 02:07 AM..
No. The focus has gone from broad to narrow. Why should a significant section of the former audience be excluded for the gratification of another section of it? At least release such a product under another name.
I've read articles from him. I know he sounds plausible and logical, but so do many generalisations, quotes, ideologies and extreme stances that fail when they meet the real world, if implemented without moderation. That's why they're referred to as "academic".
Can you guys fork this or move on? The 4e DMG2 isn't even out yet so the discussion isn't needed in this thread
No. The focus has gone from broad to narrow. Why should a significant section of the former audience be excluded for the gratification of another section of it? At least release such a product under another name.
I've read articles from him. I know he sounds plausible and logical, but so do many generalisations, quotes, ideologies and extreme stances that fail when they meet the real world, if implemented without moderation. That's why they're referred to as "academic".
Erhm. Okay. Saying that a podcast of a D&D session is PA content makes little sense to me though. But your mileage obviously varies.
I've been playing D&D a lot longer than I've been reading webcomics but I considered it Penny Arcade and PvP content. I wasn't listening to it to hear a random bunch of guys playing D&D, I was listening to it to hear the Penny Arcade and PvP guys crack jokes and play D&D. Having said that, it obviously brought traffic to the D&D site and that was largely the point of the exercise for WotC. I thought it was a good initiative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avin
Hooray! Obsidian? Bioware? In house? pretty please?
Obsidian, perhaps, although I believe it would still be published by Infogrames - when they bought Hasbro Interactive they also got the rights to make D&D computer games until at least 2015. Bioware, very unlikely, even if they hadn't become a subsidiary of Electronic Arts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse
A while ago we talked about how we were going to focus on one swing at a time and then move onto the next thing. The first swing was the Character Builder and the next is the Campaign Tools. That means we are not actively (as we also posted here today) working on a game table but doesn't mean we won't work on it in the future.
Considering that the electronic game table was a major feature of the announcement presentation - an early version was demonstrated in the presentation, albeit described as a prototype - if it's now the case that it's not being worked on then I'm having my doubts that it will be completed. That would be a shame; it clearly needed some work but looked to be on the right track, and that was nearly two years ago.
If any general questions are being answered, I have two.
1. Will we see something similiar to the Dungeon Delve but for other areas? For example, the old Book of Lairs, Book of Encounters, Tales From The Outer Planes, etc... provided the GM with little encounters that he could slot into his own campaign with little preperation. I know that the sourcebooks have these pre-made lairs but I'd like some themed ones of short duration, like Dungeon Delve, as well.
2. Will we see independent adventurers again? As neat an idea as the Adventure Path is, Paizo still does independent adventurers. As many people who have played through Savage Tide or Shackled City, I can't imagine that those numbers compare favoably with say, White Plume Mountain or other single adventurers. They have the same benefit as #1 above but are meatier. A good place to put more new monsters, magic items, rituals, etc... (as has been done with current adventurers by WoTC 4e.)
If any general questions are being answered, I have two.
1. Will we see something similiar to the Dungeon Delve but for other areas? For example, the old Book of Lairs, Book of Encounters, Tales From The Outer Planes, etc... provided the GM with little encounters that he could slot into his own campaign with little preperation. I know that the sourcebooks have these pre-made lairs but I'd like some themed ones of short duration, like Dungeon Delve, as well.
In short yes. I don't have any details to talk about but there will be some of this content. Plane Below should have some of this and there is a title in early 2010 that will have more. I don't know if it will be as concentrated as Dungeon Delve, but there will be more of this type of content
Quote:
2. Will we see independent adventurers again? As neat an idea as the Adventure Path is, Paizo still does independent adventurers. As many people who have played through Savage Tide or Shackled City, I can't imagine that those numbers compare favoably with say, White Plume Mountain or other single adventurers. They have the same benefit as #1 above but are meatier. A good place to put more new monsters, magic items, rituals, etc... (as has been done with current adventurers by WoTC 4e.)
Yes, there are more of these types of adventures coming out in 2010.
Between now and then there will be these types of adventures in Dungeon and there is Revenge of the Giants and Seekers of the Ashen Crown this summer.
Just like to thank Scott for coming by and answering questions, I sure hope this is going on your hours sheet.
Any direct contact is great, things like forums and even twitter give a great sense of community with the 'stake holders'.
Just like to thank Scott for coming by and answering questions, I sure hope this is going on your hours sheet.
Any direct contact is great, things like forums and even twitter give a great sense of community with the 'stake holders'.
I am a salary man so I don't get no stinkin' time sheet but when I post at home there is beer in the fridge
Admin here. Please fork this discussion to a different thread if you want to continue it; I think it's interesting for folks, but this thread shouldn't get derailed.
I've put your original post inside spoiler blocks.
~ Piratecat
Post inside here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rounser
Well, either "what makes people play your game" got misidentified and/or oversimplified, or Robyn Laws' theories on narrow focus deserve to stay academic, IMO.
The problem here can be boiled down pretty simply. If you asked the question:
"What makes you play D&D?"
Then there were many answers to that question. You can try to pick the most popular answer, but even if you pick the right answer you're still excluding all those other answers... and the people who prefer those answers.
In the case of 4th Edition, they picked the answer "combat". And it's not really surprising that the people in this thread saying "my games were always about the combat and you're nuts for suggesting that people played any other way" are... well, they're the exact same people who have adopted 4th Edition.
Nor is it surprising that the people saying "hey, there were other ways and reasons for playing the game" are the people who haven't adopted 4th Edition.
I think there can be a lot of value in Laws' focused design principles. I'm just not convinced that it was appropriate for D&D. D&D isn't Feng Shui or Burning Wheel. It has a larger, broader audience and I think it's a mistake to try to narrow that audience. (And a mistake to think that you can narrow the game and yet somehow keep that audience.)
It would be like Disney saying, "Pirates of the Caribbean is the most popular ride at our Disney themeparks. So we're going to add pirates to all of our rides and get rid of all the non-ride activities."
PIRATE WORLD might be a great idea for a themepark. But that doesn't mean it's a good strategy for the broadly-appealing Disneyworld.
I agree with Mr. Rouse that trying to move away from the Pirate World strategy is a good move for Disneyworld.
Yes we would very much like a host of 4e video games including CRPGs, Action/Adventure games, Turn Based Games etc (with or with out a VTT) and we are working with our partner to make that happen
(emphasis mine)
Please. Pretty please. Give me a tactical 4E game!
Please. Pretty please. Give me a tactical 4E game!
Give me a game where the combat mechanics are exactly identical to 4E. (So, I suppose that would be a tactical game?) Also, please don't only include the original Player's Handbook. An expandable game that received content updates with PH3, etc. would make me drool and . . . well . . . other stuff.
~
__________________
Click above to see S7S's FREE Rune Soldier Heroic Tier Playtest
also check out Silent7Seven.com for information on The Lunar Scrolls,
and the Advanced Class line including "Druid — Favored Forms"
and "Sorcerer — Aberrant Blood"
The problem here can be boiled down pretty simply. If you asked the question:
"What makes you play D&D?"
Then there were many answers to that question. You can try to pick the most popular answer, but even if you pick the right answer you're still excluding all those other answers... and the people who prefer those answers.
In the case of 4th Edition, they picked the answer "combat". And it's not really surprising that the people in this thread saying "my games were always about the combat and you're nuts for suggesting that people played any other way" are... well, they're the exact same people who have adopted 4th Edition.
Nor is it surprising that the people saying "hey, there were other ways and reasons for playing the game" are the people who haven't adopted 4th Edition.
Very true.
You don't have to look long at the debate on non-combat rules to see that there are two camps, one claiming (to paraphrase "Treasure of Sierra Madre") "Rulez? We dooont need no steeenking rulez!", the other wanting rules and abilities that encourages, enables and empowers activities done outside of combat.
Putting the question of "who's right" aside for now - it has enough threads already - you can however note this fact:
Those that belong to the first camp have most likely already bought the 4E books.
Those that belong to the second camp have most likely not.
So, if WOTC wants to sell more books; that is, also sell to those in the second camp, and not only to those in the first, what should they do?
And I don't think browbeating them in internet fora with your stunning rhetoric until they submit and sobbing on their knees recant is a very realistic plan, however satisfying it might seem to those in the first camp...
No, if you want to broaden your audience, you have to broaden your appeal.
Last edited by Tuft; 25th April 2009 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: minor spelling correction
Post removed by Admin. You know, there are lots of people I don't agree with, too, but that doesn't give me free rein to give an inflammatory, insulting answer. There are lots of ways to differ without insulting someone and trying to start a fight.
If you have any questions at all as to why your post was inappropriate, please drop me an email.
So do you have any info on if/when there would be the next one?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
