Eric Noah's Info

tylerthehobo said:

Fwiw, I just saw the following posted on Gary Gygax's thread (and yes, I know, he is in now way associated with WotC as a designer/editor, but his insight seems consistently wise...):

Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.

Cheers,
Gary​

Click to expand...

This might be an interesting time to review a thread from 2002
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=9766

and its continuation

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=10348

Cheers

So I sent my friend the info on the main site here, and he asked some people he knows at Wizards if it is true or not, and this is the reply he got back (which he sent to me).

From my friends at Wizards, this is the light I can shed:

4E already in the works?

4th Ed has been "in the works" since 3rd ed went to press without development being finished. This unfortunately is standard operating procedure and why so many games seem to have not been properly playtested.

Even more miniatures-centric?

Combat is not only the most popular part of the game, it's also the most marketable.

Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately?

They'd be keeping the core setup roughly the same, they'd just be offering more specialized and fluff material. The class books, feat books, creature type books, etc, always sell really well. On top of that a huge chunk of the player base are completionists and collectors.

A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?

This one I've heard absolutely nothing about. I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG. It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels. Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off? Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?

Well there you go! Based on your description of where the info comes from I'd say your source is a step above mine in terms of potential accuracy.

EricNoah said:

Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind! Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.

Click to expand...

JustaPlayer said:

I myself use AoOs and don't have a problem with them. As for minis, IMO once battle comes up and the minis go down people step out of character and look at it as a general on a battle field trying to get the best moves out of the pieces. That is not necessarily what someone would do in the first person as they wouldn't have the POV. In that since it does indeed change from "role play" to "roll play."

Click to expand...

Ok

But are you actually claiming this is inherent to the game?

If you choose to stop roleplaying and treat combat as a skirmish mini-game then that is a choice you have made. Heck, you could toss out the role-playing completely and use the D&D combat system as a mini wargame and nothing more if you so selected.

But, that would be a choice. And individual selection, as I said, is purely a function of what goes on between the ears of the person making that selection.
You CAN choose to NOT roleplay D&D combat. That does not make it not a roleplaying game. You can choose TO roleplay Descent (or even Monopoly) and that does not make these games BE roleplaying games.

In my experience there is nothing to inhibit roleplaying during D&D combat. The players each have characters who, unlike, say Desecnt characters, have larger motivations and goals. Sometimes it doesn't matter. But frequently the players make much different choices during RP combat contained within a larger roleplaying campaign than they would in one where it is simply a matter of "winning" such as Descent or Warhammer. So their tactical actions are readily influenced by their roleplaying in ways that a non-roleplaying game lacks. Further, even non-tactical role play often continues throughout combat. Interparty relationships and exchanges persist. If these things are cast aside in your game, then I would suggest you are missing out.

Bottom line remains that nothing in a piece of plastic or between the covers of any D&D book has the slightest ability to prevent a dedicated player from roleplaying their experiences both in and out of combat. And that is not an IME comment. That is purely a rational observation. I'm not disputing that other people have different experience. I am disputing that it is rational to claim these alternate experiences result from the game itself, as opposed to the people playing it.

The circle is now complete.

EricNoah said:

Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind! Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.

Click to expand...

It'd suck to have to collect 1000 rats for a swarm!

Rodrigo Istalindir said:

It'd suck to have to collect 1000 rats for a swarm!

Click to expand...

Now you're thinkin' with gas! :thumbsup:

EricNoah said:

Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind! Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.

Click to expand...

Nyah, you just get the big gummi bears, bite off the right arm and leg from one, and the left arm and leg from the other, and you've got an Ettin mini.

Forget mini's, Gummi Bears come in all sizes!

And shapes. Fish, worms...

What we really need is a regenerating gummi troll.