L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Mr. Wilson said:

The ebb and flow of this conversation (and many others in this subforum) has brought to mind the nursery school rhyme, Humpty Dumpty. In this analogy, Humpty Dumpty equates to the DnD playerbase.

I'm starting to come to grips with the fact that despite WoTC's best efforts, they can't put us together again.

Click to expand...

I think they can, but I think they can only do it if the core system is vanilla enough not to offend either side, while at the same time providing all the options people need to play the game they want.

I get the feeling that this new edition is going to be to 3.5E what Player's Option: Skills & Powers was for AD&D.

With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.

A shame since I believe that some parts of 4E should be saved, like the concept of no "in-combat healing" that existed at the release of 4E (it later went down the drain with the new powers, feats, etc). IMHO I prefer combat with just healing surges and no healing from other sources while in combat. Clerics can heal everyone just fine outside of it, using resources to do it (think healing rituals). That should speed combat a bit.

So, let's hope Monte & company are able to surprise us with this D&DN, but I don't see how it could possibly be better than a recopilation of the best of 3.5E with some additional options (at least so far).

Jack Daniel said:

PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
DM: "Nope. The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."

^
(This is not irony or satire. This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e. But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)

Click to expand...

Customisation helps me manage my character and makes it feel more true to my vision. If a DM is interested in making sure that I play a mechanical cookie-cutter then I'm a lot less interested. This isn't saying that the DM can't or shouldn't impose restrictions for theme or balance. But you are point blank taking away tools to help me roleplay.

Otakkun said:

With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.

Click to expand...

4th Edition was an attempt to leave the old games behind and do something new and different. Which didn't turn out well for the company and now they want to give it another try. I expect 4th Edition to have the least influence on 5th Edition, with mostly a return a an updated variant of the older game.

Bedrockgames said:

The way I look at it, these are still useful statements because it give WOTC information. They should know that if x,y and z are not in the game that some people wont buy the new edition. They have to sift through the mass of statements like this from all sides and reach their own conclusion about what to heed and what to ignore. But suppose they see a pattern that suggests they could lose 70% of their current base if they go forward with a particular design decision? Definitely not a bad idea for folks to say what their personal deal breakers are.

Click to expand...

Well, if you were doing reliable market surveys, that would be true. OTOH, if you went through message boards and tried to sift out the truth from the posturing, not so much.

Neonchameleon said:

Customisation helps me manage my character and makes it feel more true to my vision. If a DM is interested in making sure that I play a mechanical cookie-cutter then I'm a lot less interested. This isn't saying that the DM can't or shouldn't impose restrictions for theme or balance. But you are point blank taking away tools to help me roleplay.

Click to expand...

It goes the other way too. Allowing or disallowing feats / vancian magic / non-vancian magic / psionics / druids / paladins / monks / critical hits and misses to exist in a game are part of what allows the DM to customize his world to enhance his roleplaying.

Remember, you're RPing a single character, he is RPing an entire universe.

He has the harder job, work with him. Ask him why he doesn't want you to do X, and what would be an appropriate replacement, or themantic equivilent. Maybe there are no Monks becuase there is no martial monastic tradition akin to Shao-lin temples in his world. So you discuss it with the GM and decide what you really wanted was a bare knuckled brawler and he helps you make a pugilist that fits the game. Or he says there is no way a fist is ever going to hurt more than a sword and what you really wanted was to portray that monastic self-discipline and he helps you make a monastic cleric.

Or maybe you really wanted to play an eastern style monk and it's not ever going to fit into his arthurian cycle campaign, at which point you two need to discuss campaign expectations and get it straightened out now before mismatched ideas derail the game.

Crazy Jerome said:

Well, if you were doing reliable market surveys, that would be true. OTOH, if you went through message boards and tried to sift out the truth from the posturing, not so much.

Click to expand...

It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition.

Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.

The "core" game will be no feats, no skills. Wizards use "Vancian" magic and look a lot like OD&D/BECMI Wizards (flexibility but fewer choices per level, maybe 6-7 spells tops/ lvl).
There will be a warlock/saucer-er as a spontaneous caster with an even tighter spell access.
Published adventures will follow core. There may be a breakout box on how to handle a particular rules mod, but it should all work as core.
The whole play as any edition all together only works if the rules mods only give the illusion of change. Take skills, the resolution mechanic will be an ability check at its core. The 3E skill rank rules option builds off that but still functions as an ability roll with the ability score replaced by a skill rank. It offers player control, but does not outstrip a core only player.

It should be about options not power. Now we all know there will be loopholes that will be exploited. The DM should be empowered to make those loopholes close and MonteMearls, the Demogorgon of Design, should try to minimize their existence.

Bedrockgames said:

It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition.

Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.

Click to expand...

More useful information is handy. The more you can get, the better. But there are two different kinds of data here, and the more they get mixed up, the less reliable both are. There are the recordings of preferences, perhaps with a bit of followup for how serious those preferences are held and other related bits. With those, you want a reliable market survey, or you might as well admit you are throwing darts.

Then there is involved discussion, which may tease out nuances--both for the participants in the discussion and the designers. These are potentially valuable as insights or areas to explore, not hard examples of what will sell or not sell.

Whether those posturing will "buckle" or refuse to buy is irrelevant. Loud posturing by some minority doesn't tell you squat about what will sell--except perhaps that if you see enough of it you probably do need to do a serious market survey to see how widespread that posture is. Other than that signal, the posturing is counter-productive, because it is the exact opposite of looking for any kind of nuance or insight in the design itself. Once the signal has been sent, all future posturing is harmful. So the real question for any useful posturing is whether the signal has been received or not.

This is, BTW, exactly the same kind of relation all the OGL hoopla has with doing a good design. Some people don't care. Some people care a lot. Some people care for the reasons they state. Others have unstated agenda(s). How licensing is handled can, of course, affect sales a little or a lot--and thus it matters. But it says nothing about the inherent quality of the new edition itself.

Bedrockgames said:

It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition.

Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.

Click to expand...

Since there have been several mentions of 'what WotC should do or you won't buy there product'; I'll start here.

Survey's of public opinion on products is a funny animal. For example, there were plenty of survey's for the introduction of 'Green' cleaner products and laundry choices.

A sure fire win-win to money and success.

The survey's even tested and found people saying they were willing to pay more for such products.

The products were made and put on the shelves and they failed because people, when it came to decisions like laundry soap, would often choose cheaper.

A proper survey with proper product research and a total failure.

Perception is an interesting creature. I've had people before doing 4e say they were going to stick with 3e and end up switching because they loved the new version. I have other people that were not going to switch from 2e but later embraced 3e (though they never went to 4e though they had fun when they tried it).

--------------------------

More importantly then wanting X or Y and why don't they just keep producing 1st ed player's handbooks; is thinking from the WotC (or any financial company's situation).

Rather than talk on games, let's talk on cars. If you bought a car ten years ago and it is running fine then what is going to make you want to buy a new car when it will likely take 4 to 5 years to pay off that debt?

Are you going to want to buy a car that hasn't changed in 10 years? Same engine which costs the same in fuel to operate but you had to spend twice the same amount in money to purchase as your last car? If you wanted the same car as you have then there are hundreds of people that have similar cars up for sale as used cars. You can likely pull together parts from a half dozen wrecks and build a car with decent parts or fix up your existing vehicle.

Does any of that get fresh money to Ford, Toyoto, or GM?

--------------------------------------

The game industry is unfortunately much like the car industry.

You choose a model and an engine and you run with it.

The difference is that the model and engine never stop functioning with a game book (though I've seen some books get pretty beat up and dog earred after a decade or two of usage ~ oh my poor 1ed books).

The only sales on the original game books occur when new players buy the books or when a person suffers some sort of 'accident' (like fire or gf separation that goes poorly).

Now, WotC does work actively to get new players (Conventions, encounters program, fiction books, and online play). The new is just a small percentage of the whole and it takes sponsoring GMs to make new players.

There is also a plethora of options that are free or nearly free that WotC competes against. There are dozens of DnD clones made by people with sites like Dragonsfoot that offer free support.

If you like the car that you have then there are dozens of people that will provide oil and service to keep it running at no charge or minimum charge.

----------------------------

So, your problems are you need to generate revenue (you need to eat and have a place to live) and people are willing to make competing products of reasonable value for little or no price (though some have more expensive products that are good value there are plenty that are made not with profit as part of the creation goal).

So what market advantage are you going to use to convince people to buy a new Lexxus instead of a KIA or a Yugo (though really, WotC is aiming for more of Toyota Camry or a vehicle that everyone can compromise on has all the bells and whistles they need at a price that feels like a good deal because it is sold by the tens of thousands)?

WotC has to do something as the latest market survey shows that Pathfinder is out selling DnD 4e at a rate of 2 to 1 (though I think much of that is do to the evolution of thought they show in their Advanced Player's guide, Ultimate books, and the monthly adventure path lines).

WotC has chosen to go with a vehicle that people understand how to drive but has features that many people want (or expect to find in their vehicle even if they don't use them).

Many European manufactures think it is odd that North Americians want cup holders and mini-fridges in our cars. Still if they want to sell cars in the North Americian market, they know that they have to produce some vehicles with this feature.

Brand name will take you only so far. I trust WotC to produce a finished product that is gorgeous to look at (though many smaller game companies are now producing books with similar art ~ still a gap but it is closing). That finished value comes at a price like I looked at the latest 'Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard' and noted there are 1 author, 2 editors, 3 producers, 2 art directors, 1 illustrator, and 1 graphic productions. Compare to any other indie or small press game release (or kickstarter project).

What will 5e be?

It can't be what has come before because there is no money for the company in what has already been done (or limited revenue). Marvel and DC can sell compilations of older comics but they don't have the worth or the market penetration that a new title line has. That is why Marvel and DC keep 're-launching' titles. Yet, if the story was exactly the same then people would simply say 'you should have kept the story going rather than re-launch'.

5e needs to feel like the previous stories. It has to have the comfort feel of previous DnD games (I hate getting in a car which doesn't have a place to rest my left elbow as I've gotten used to that on my current car).

5e has to show innovation. I want a better model vehicle to show my friends and to show off the new bells and whistles. A brand new car wthout GPS is not worth purchasing when others for the same price or less have that feature. The game needs to run better for less effort (better milage). It has to entertain my whole group or enough entertainment that they'll let me GM the game (it is like putting in tv's for the children to watch and providing a radio for the passenger to fiddle with).

5e has to look pretty. I want to be able to put the books out on a desk and attract attention instead of driving people away with looks of sympathy (if you bough a Yugo then don't expect to get many player's volunteering to help you fix the engine every time it breaks and don't park it where the neighbours can see it). Many cars could have a very terrible engine but would still sell becuase of appearance and the reverse is true (a good engine with a poor car body will kill sales).

I think WotC has the ability to do all these things and make a decent Toyota Camry vehicle. Something that won't drive off the neighbours when I show up with it and yet will function for the whole group keeping them entertained enough that I can tell a story with their participation.