Dear Mike & Monte

OnlineDM said:

Could you explain these terms? I don't think I've heard them before, and I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... but it sounds interesting!

Click to expand...

It's just an analogy that I used here to explain what I thought was a transition to a common/average 4e playstyle. (otherwise known as actor/author/director stance, immersive/narrativist, etc.)

Edit: Post link here .. but context is important too.

LurkAway said:

It's just an analogy that I used here to explain what I thought was a transition to a common/average 4e playstyle. (otherwise known as actor/author/director stance, immersive/narrativist, etc.)

Click to expand...

Got it, thanks. I'm not much of a video gamer, so I didn't get the 3/4 perspective reference at all.

Also, it's so annoying that permalinks on EN World don't work properly if your number of threads per page is set differently than the person who shared the link! Sigh. I was still able to find the post you mentioned, though.

OnlineDM said:

Also, it's so annoying that permalinks on EN World don't work properly if your number of threads per page is set differently than the person who shared the link! Sigh. I was still able to find the post you mentioned, though.

Click to expand...

There are two forms of permalink.

1) References the page, and gives you the post in the context of the thread. This can get messed up if you have a different number of posts per page than the person who gave the link. This is the actual "permalink" link.

2) References the post only, but it takes you to the post only. This is the link next to "permalink", listed as the post number in the thread.

Could someone XP Umbran for me? He's apparently been awesome too recently for me to re-XP him.

I had no idea I could link to a specific post via the number. Yes, it's annoying to lose the context, but there've been times that I've wanted to link to a particular post on my blog or other places but have refrained from doing so because of the page number issue (I like 40 threads per page). This isn't a perfect solution, but it looks like it will work.

Thanks!

Dear Mike & Monte,

As you work on the next iteration of the game, please do the same thing that all the previous game creators did on their specific edition:

Make a game you think is fun.

If it is, then many other people will end up agreeing with you and buying the thing. But don't worry about any of the specifics you see here, on your own boards, on RPG.net or wherever else you might look. Because there is not a single thing you will put in your new book that someone, somewhere will not bitch about. We're going to complain about everything. So just do what you feel is right, and know that some people will appreciate it.

prosfilaes said:

Why are you looking at WotC for that? That type of system is pretty easy for any small publisher to write up, and I think WotC is pretty big on the idea of selling a $35 (retail) book to each and every player, or the equivalent in online reference material.

Click to expand...

Because I'd also like to see all kinds of extensions, advanced rules, not to mention campaign settings and adventure paths to support the system. Those we don't really get from indies, on the same scale anyway.

I think my primary wish would be the following:

Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional

Even to the point of having 3 separate classes per character.

Examples:

Cleric - Diplomat - Religion
Barbarian - Bully - Wood
Fighter - Charmer - Metal
Mage - Manipulator - Alchemy
Rogue - Blackmailer - Crime

The idea is that every single character does not have to sacrifice one area of ability to be any good in another. ALL characters are useful in combat and ALL characters have their own style and use in social encounters. Then shove all the non-combat/social into a separate professional class area. That way all the secondary type skills are there without interfering with the other 2. All 3 will not interfer with each other and cause design problems.

Will they please do something like this like many have been asking (usually called Siloing) for donkeys years.

Please Santa.

DEFCON 1 said:

Dear Mike & Monte,

As you work on the next iteration of the game, please do the same thing that all the previous game creators did on their specific edition:

Make a game you think is fun.

If it is, then many other people will end up agreeing with you and buying the thing. But don't worry about any of the specifics you see here, on your own boards, on RPG.net or wherever else you might look. Because there is not a single thing you will put in your new book that someone, somewhere will not bitch about. We're going to complain about everything. So just do what you feel is right, and know that some people will appreciate it.

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment here but think the last paragraph is an over-simplification. First of all, it isn't either you try to every single demand please everyone or you ignore any input and just make a game that's fun to you. You can do both (in fact, I'm sure that they are doing both).

Secondly, reading over this thread I'm pleasantly surprised--well, not all that surprised--to see just how similar the wish lists are. There isn't a lot of disagreement; sure, there is some, but there are some pretty strong generally held hopes for 5E. It is sort of like DNA - we share 60% of our DNA with bananas, 70% with slugs (which makes me wonder how much DNA slugs and bananas share, but that's majorly off-topic), 80% with mice,

My point being, there are some core similarities between what everyone gets out of the RPG experience; the "shared ethos" starts diverging the more detailed we get, and the greater number of folks, but I think there is a sweetspot where you please as many people as possible and still create the game that you (the designers) want to play, that is innovative, etc. Considering how finicky gamers are, I think it would be possible to start at the banana level (proverbially speaking) and create a game that pleases 60% of D&D players, if the core is simple enough and focuses on archetypal fantasy tropes.

That sweetspot can be extended, though, through the simple core/modular options approach. Create a simple core game that can easily be learned within the cozy confines of a lovely box set, and then expand that game with the Basic core at the heart of every product, but with easily exchangeable (modular) rules options for pretty much anything you want. This, I think, could please 70-80% of D&D players and bring us up somewhere into the slug-to-mouse range.

Is it possible to get to 90%? Probably not, both because of what you say--the unavoidable disgruntledness--but also because of basic human psychology, that most/many of us make decisions first and foremost through gut feeling and affective response, and then secondarily through logic and reason. That isn't a bad thing; I personally try to combine gut/intuition and logic/reason in my decision making, but I admit to frequently following the former over the latter, and I don't think it is "wrong."

So I think WotC needs to think about how their presentation and PR impacts people, how people respond to art, and what the "feel" of the community is. The Paizo community is much more tight-knit, harmonious, and "homey." Even though they've become a pretty large RPG company (my guess is the fourth biggest ever after TSR, WotC, and White Wolf?), they've managed to retain that "mom-and-pop" feel. Can WotC recapture that? I'm not sure. They need the right people, and they need to differentiate those folks that are good at game design and those that are good at PR and community building; the two aren't inherently mutually exclusive, but they are very different skill sets.

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], that Thor drawing is just a great picture--I forgot about it (Deities & Demigods, if I remember correctly?). Is that Roslof or Jeff Dee? Can't remember (I'm not home so I can't check).

Anyhow, I remember conversations about the 3E art over a decade ago and there was a common complaint that the soul had gone out of the art, that Todd Lockwood's art was a bit stiff and lifeless. It seems that 4E has similar complaints, although they are more to do with what Morrus was talking about: spike-a-palooza, ninja-kewlness, and "dungeon-punk." Basically what I think is a rather unholy and excessive WoW and anime influence.

What seems to be lacking from WotC for 10+ years is art direction, and I mean art. Someone who can see the difference between the dynamic liveliness of Frank Frazetta and the technically brilliant but rather lifeless Boris Vallejo approach.

It may not even be the fault of the arts, really, as they may have been commissioned for a certain type of art--still figures, snippets here and there, rather than action scenes. This, again, has to do at least as much with art direction than the actual artists that are employed.

Mercurius said:

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], that Thor drawing is just a great picture--I forgot about it (Deities & Demigods, if I remember correctly?). Is that Roslof or Jeff Dee? Can't remember (I'm not home so I can't check).

Click to expand...

Its by Roslof, and I believe it's in the Fiend Folio, I believe.