D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

Mark CMG · Aug 10, 2006

From the EN News page said:
Ryan Dancey has given an opinion on 4E, marketing and the OGL over on the Open Gaming Foundation listservers:

3.5 will die, no question. Just as 3.0 died. Those labels are 95% marketing, 4% presentation, and 1% actual design differences. In other words, the king is dead, long live the king. The failure of the D20 publishing community to benefit (as WotC did) from the 3.5 transition was a MARKETING failure, not a DESIGN failure.

I think that having gone through this process once with the "3.5" release of D&D, publishers who want to hew close to the core elements of sword & sorcery fantasy represented by D&D will have a much better chance to navigate the transition to a new system than they did previously. They'll know to wind down new releases about 3 months prior to the new game's release, avoid the appearance that they produced products that can't be used post-transition and to pay close attention to the information coming out of WotC as to how the game system will be changing, to anticipate and incorporate that material into their products in advance of the release of the new material. They'll also know that they're being given a platform to go back and to "core" material again - the easiest, most popular content. That's just easy money. (Which WotC knew: witness the swift and successful release of the new "Complete" books right on the heels of 3.5.)

Based on little more than the sneak preview WotC provided at Winter Fantasy prior to the 3.5 release, it should have been possible for the D20 publishing community to do this the first time 'round, but so many publishers were caught up in the focus on getting products edited and published that they missed the larger picture - the danger that consumers really would draw a sharp distinction between 3.0 and 3.5, and apply that distinction even to 3rd party products. I think that happened BECAUSE 3.0 and 3.5 are functionally so similar from a deep-level design perspective. I doubt anyone will make that mistake again.

The kinds of changes we've talked about on this list - the move to a more miniatures centric packaging and design focus, smaller, cross-category integrated releases, changes to alter the need for an impartial DM - don't change the validity of the SRD. Imagine using the SRD to make D&D Miniatures supplements. It would be very easy to do so today, if anyone thought that doing so was worthwhile. The limitation of being able to put the D20 System Trademark on a miniature has apparently scared anyone capable of producing figures and support materials for the system out of the market - but if the whole franchise moves into that space, I cannot imagine that continuing.

With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.

How much of this rings true to you?

lior_shapira · Aug 10, 2006

changes to alter the need for an impartial DM

I hope I didn't draw that quote too much out of context but it scares me! as a long time DM, speculations that the next edition will turn d&d into more of a miniatures combat game or CCG or anything that isn't real roleplaying scares the living s@*$ out of me.

I guess the near future will tell us more about where this is going, but for the sake of my all-time favorite roleplaying game I really hope it stays true.

lior

DaveMage · Aug 10, 2006

I honestly don't see myself going 4.0, but if I should, I would probably NOT buy 3rd party rules add-ons. Campaign setting & adventures absolutely, but not books that are presented as rules add-ons. (Rules add-ons meaning books of spells, monsters, classes/prestige classes, feats, etc.)

ngenius · Aug 10, 2006

4e DnD may come now that Dreamblade minitatures are out

Mark CMG said:
How much of this rings true to you?

If the 4e DnD will focus more on miniatures, then it is kind of sad for RPG players.

However, even with the rules from the 3.5e DnD core books, we can see a greater focus on using miniatures in combat situations. Quite detailed explanations on cover, area effects, flanking, etc. that all require a combat grid to actualize.

Finally, with Dreamblade miniatures game launched this August 9th, the signs for miniatures overload are all there.

I think?

Scribble · Aug 10, 2006

the danger that consumers really would draw a sharp distinction between 3.0 and 3.5, and apply that distinction even to 3rd party products. I think that happened BECAUSE 3.0 and 3.5 are functionally so similar from a deep-level design perspective. I doubt anyone will make that mistake again.

Yeah... that's what got me. The differences between the two systems were "little changes."

Nothing huge, but 3e is sort of based on the idea that it's a delicate balance. Change one thing and you alter said balance.

Munin · Aug 10, 2006

miniatures overload

I have over 4 hundred miniatures. I don't think I have an obscene amount when compared to most GMs, but that's enough for me. Sure, it's WoTC's cash cow, but how many do I really need? 1,000? 4,000? I don't think so. I might pick up a few more, if I see something really cool. Otherwise, I'm done.

Just like I'm done with supplemental rules, campaign settings, monster manuals, PRCs and all the other crap. If WoTC, or anyone else, is betting on my purchasing lurid amounts of miniatures just to line their pockets, they're in for quite a surprise.

Delta · Aug 10, 2006

Those labels are 95% marketing, 4% presentation, and 1% actual design differences... they missed the larger picture - the danger that consumers really would draw a sharp distinction between 3.0 and 3.5, and apply that distinction even to 3rd party products. I think that happened BECAUSE 3.0 and 3.5 are functionally so similar from a deep-level design perspective. I doubt anyone will make that mistake again.

This, I'm not so sure about (that there is only 1% real design difference between editions of D&D). I think I see the rate of changes increasing as time goes on; as more changes are accepted, the designers are given more freedom to change larger swaths of the game. (As one example, more spells were changed in the 3.0 -> 3.5 revision than any previous edition of the game.)

I wonder how familiar Dancey really is with D&D 3.5? (It seems like marketers wanted to assert full compatibility, but actual designers/players saw very distinct differences in the update.) I also wonder what percent real design difference he would see in different editions of Magic the Gathering? Or different editions of Warhammer?

eyebeams · Aug 10, 2006

3.5 will die, no question. Just as 3.0 died. Those labels are 95% marketing, 4% presentation, and 1% actual design differences. In other words, the king is dead, long live the king. The failure of the D20 publishing community to benefit (as WotC did) from the 3.5 transition was a MARKETING failure, not a DESIGN failure.

It also marked the definitive transition from Dancey's model to the "treadmill" model he derided. Since 3.5 obviously came about to boost flagging sales under the prior model, one wonders who, exactly, he's indicting.

Henry · Aug 10, 2006

Delta said:
I also wonder what percent real design difference he would see in different editions of Magic the Gathering? Or different editions of Warhammer?

While I think 1% is low-balling it a bit for the purpose of making a point, it's not really more than 5 or 10% in my opinion. The change between 2E and 3E I'd put as high as 60 or 70% - it's still possible to get a good sense of power levels of characters. In 3 to 3.5, all changes except one or two were almost cosmetic.

Kormydigar · Aug 10, 2006

lior_shapira said:
I hope I didn't draw that quote too much out of context but it scares me! as a long time DM, speculations that the next edition will turn d&d into more of a miniatures combat game or CCG or anything that isn't real roleplaying scares the living s@*$ out of me.

I guess the near future will tell us more about where this is going, but for the sake of my all-time favorite roleplaying game I really hope it stays true.

lior

Yeah that statement is a little bizzarre. It just reinforces what WOTC has been working toward since 3.0, which is to effectively morph the DM into a "server" to run the game. This is in perfect alignment with thier plans for 4th E which looks like it will be a MMORPG with minis. I have no huge problems with this as long as that is what the majority of the market wants- I still have all of my old game books.