10-18-2011 Legends and Lore - Preserving the Past

[Mistwell]

I've been thinking about the "support all editions at once" idea some more.

I think that plan would take the form of five different product types.

Type 1: All past editions (OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e) would receive full support in DDI. So you can make and look up characters, npcs, monsters, rules and house-rules, traps and set pieces and other challenges, treasure and equipment, and use the DDI to create dungeons, adventures, maps, player handouts, and play all of it online;

Type 2: All editions would see republication of their old books in some digital format, updated with errata eventually;

Type 3: All editions would see new products specifically for their edition, mostly in Dungeon and Dragon magazine. These would mostly be similar to the content found in "players options" books in 2e, "splat" books in 3e, and "Power" books for 4e. You also use these products to introduce common elements into all versions of the game, or to add in elements from one version to be usable in another version. So for example, you can publish "ritual magic" optional rules articles for every version of the game, so you can make Type 4 products (below) with rituals that will be usable by all versions of the game.

Type 4: Some new products will be intended for all editions at once, with story content applicable to all and crunch for each individual game version. These could be hard-copy or digital. Things you could do this with include adventures, books like deities and demigods, setting books, books about the planes (though it would be complex to represent the Wheel along with the 4e version, I think it could be done in the same book as almost all the Wheel planes are already in the 4e version, just with different visual representations), etc..

Type 5: RPG support products, which includes things like miniatures, over-sized maps, set pieces, monster cards, treasure/equipment cards, dice, dungeon tiles, initiative trackers, etc.. You can even tailor these to sets designed specifically for Type 4 adventures. So, you can buy the "Return to the Slave Lords" ("RSL") adventure, and then optionally buy the RSL miniatures set, the RSL treasure/equipment card set, the RSL monster cards set, the RSL over-sized glossy markable maps set, the Slave Lords Dungeon tiles, etc..

Now lets compare it to what Monte wrote. You'd acknowledge all old content with Type 1 and Type 2 products - because he says you don't eliminate things entirely from the game and pretend they never existed. Then you would want to know what you want to continue to support from those old editions, and what you would not want to support, to do Type 3 products. And finally you'd need to know the big picture of what common elements are in all versions, or what elements could be easily added to old versions as optional rules, so you could write those Type 4 books.

 

[MoxieFu]

In general I agree. But let me throw out one more possibility that I think isn't getting much consideration among the speculators:

Assume for a moment that the plan is not to come out with a new edition, but it's instead to revive all old editions, and support them all.

So for example all past editions (OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e) would receive full support in DDI. All editions would see republication of their old books (perhaps in PDF or similar digital format), and all editions would see new products for their edition. Perhaps there will even be products intended for all editions at once, with story content applicable to all and crunch for each individual game version.

Now reconsider what Monte wrote in that context. It would fit, wouldn't it?

If you are going to dream, dream something beautiful.

Right now I can hear John Lennon singing "Imagine".

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Mistwell, I think you are reading subtext that is not there. No mention is made about reprinting or restoring old works, but he does talk about reevaluating and remembering things from the past in order to progress forward.

It's important, I think, to acknowledge and preserve the game's roots. Even as we create new material for the latest product, we should be looking backward to see if there are lessons to be remembered or bits of the past to bring forward, because just about any monster is someone's favorite creature or figured into someone's favorite adventure, and that player or DM is going to want to keep using that thing he or she loved. Like the peryton or leucrotta in 3E. Or the dire corby, a somewhat lackluster monster that was given new life in R.A. Salvatore's novels. If preserving someone's favorite means having to do a little work to give a creature a niche or a slightly different appearance or mechanical take, well, that's a creative challenge.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have to admit, this is the first one that kinda leaves me cold.

Oh, good. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Frankly, unlike Mr. Cook, I had no trouble reading through Monster Manuals in previous editions (and current editions!) and going, "Cool, cool, meh, neat, lame, stupid, extremely stupid, awesome" as appropriate.

I don't get the general approbation being given to this article. It's ... It's pablum. It's pandering. While reading this article, the image that sprang to mind is Dolore Umbridge's speech upon joining the staff at Hogwarts:

"Although each headmaster has brought something new to this... historic school, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be... prohibited!"

He basically goes to great lengths to say almost nothing of substance.

EDIT:

And, to be clear, I am not saying that old editions are terrible and that there's nothing we can learn from them and that the new hotness is t3h best. I'm saying that this article, in particular, didn't tell us anything about what we should learn, or how we should apply it, other than, "I guess it's sad that duckbunnies aren't in the MM any more, 'cause maybe somebody liked them a whole lot?"

Which, prima facie, is a stupid complaint to me, since they weren't there to begin with, either, and requiring that any new MM be filled with each and every monster ever created, ever, is a bit of a nonstarter.

Consider when someone switched from 2E to 3E before modrons were statted out (and assuming that modrons were an important part of their campaign). Given that we're playing D&D, the game wherein DMs make up monster stats nigh-all-the-time, why couldn't that DM gin up some modron stats? I needed sloth men for a campaign I was running, so I grabbed some orc stats, switched a few things around, and voila!

 

[avin]

But should WotC be clogging modern D&D with updates of crappy old monsters to appeal to a minority of a minority of older fans? No, of course not.

While I love 4E fomorians, I find 4E troglodytes crappy. MM art and new style miniatures didn't help. There were people complaining in a lot of boards.

That didn't prevent somebody at Wotc to design them.
And I believe some people (minority?) must like them...

"Wotc should polute 5E with some 4E versions of monster (hello new green dragon) most of fanbase didn't like? No, of course not "

In my opinion there's always room for more monsters and versions of the same monster (why a green dragon should look the same in every world?).

In my opinion a good writer can take a simple story and make it a fantastic book, as a good designer can get a Gorbel and make it fantastic.

 

[Mistwell]

As for the "one product, multiple edition stat blocks"

That all sounds great. The problem is the play style of OD&D vs. say, 4E is SOOOOOOOOOOOO different, you cannot write an adventure that would work for every version of the game as is and just provide some statblocks for each edition.

a 1st level 4E character is FAR FAR FAR more powerful than a 1st level AD&D or OD&D character. Now throw some 3.5 1st level characters in there and 2E 1st level characters. and the assumptions of what is "balanced" or appropriate for each game system for a 1st level character.

The story elements don't have to have power assumptions for the most part (except for room size, which increases in 4e, but I don't think players of other editions would mind if some rooms happened to be larger than they were used to, and 4e players can cope with some smaller rooms as well). It's the challenges that must have power assumptions, and it's the challenges that have different stats depending on edition played. Each challenge remains balanced for each version of the game.

Just the fact that in earlier versions of the game "running away" was an assumed part of play, whereas today it is out of vogue, in favor of a "make the fight tough, but winnable" is enough to make a huge difference in adventure design. You'd have 4 very different adventures for very different character levels in that one product.

I disagree. First, running away isn't necessarily more or less in vogue now than before in my opinion (that's a DM and player style, not a version choice), and the 4e intro modules all assumed you had to run away for some encounters (the designers even mentioned that initially). This is not a story element that needs to be different depending on the rules you're using. I do not think 4e players will get all upset about a well written module that assumes the party will run away from a tough encounter.

Second, you can still make those assumptions in the stats of the monsters. For example, if you want a 4e version to be tough but winnable, the monster stats for the 4e monsters in that encounter will reflect that. If you want the same encounter for 1e to be flee or die, those stats will reflect that. All of that can be controlled in the monster stats.

Each encounter would have to be so re-worked and balanced for each edition the cost of such a product would be enormous due to the increased page count. Not to mention its an enormous amount of work for a relatively small staff of writers.

You don't write modules for all editions. You write one module, with stat blocks for all editions. Once you have all the data in DDI, it's not that big a leap to have a back-end designers system that relates data between editions, and roughly adjusts stats for all editions when you enter a set of master stats. Then you do some minor tweaking. Most of the work is done up front with the designers system relating data and balance issues. The module writer is just doing some minor tweaking based on a set of version guidelines of things to adjust that the computer cannot handle, which is mostly going to be outlier abilities and such.

I cannot see such products ever being well balanced and successful for each and every edition from a gameplay standpoint, even if somehow it was made to be affordable.

The stats portion doesn't need to be hard-copy, and thus the cost to the customer is not an issue. You buy the story version hard-copy (nice maps, NPC descriptions, aids for the DM to flow the adventure and tailor it to a particular party, encounter lay-out, overviews, etc.), and then download the stats for the encounters depending on the version you want. That even allows monster cards to be downloaded for a module.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, I think you are reading subtext that is not there. No mention is made about reprinting or restoring old works, but he does talk about reevaluating and remembering things from the past in order to progress forward.

I am not saying "I am sure this is what he is talking about". I am saying what I outlined also fits what he is talking about.

I do not think it's likely, but I do think it's possible. And since I like the idea, I am hoping against the odds that it's correct.

But yes, 5e would fit it as well, and is the more likely possibility.

 

[Dire Bare]

You think a really good adventure, with solid story elements and different stat blocks for each of the different versions of the game, would be a total waste of their time and money?

Yup.

I do think that WotC creating new products for past editions, either specific to an edition or with stat blocks for all editions would be a huge waste of time and money.

I mean, it'd be cool to see. But a recipe for financial disaster . . . and then no more D&D at all.

 

[Dice4Hire]

You'd acknowledge all old content with Type 1 and Type 2 products - because he says you don't eliminate things entirely from the game and pretend they never existed. Then you would want to know what you want to continue to support from those old editions, and what you would not want to support, to do Type 3 products. And finally you'd need to know the big picture of what common elements are in all versions, or what elements could be easily added to old versions as optional rules, so you could write those Type 4 books.

Can you say market fragmentation?

Can you say mass confusion over what products to buy?

I knew you could.

Seriously, where is WOTC gonna get the time to do this even if they wanted to? It would take a dozen designers in addition to who they have now to do all of this.

And this 'common elements in all editions' stuff if great for fluff, and people can (AND DO) already do this. I'm sure out there there is are groups running 4E in mystara, dragonlance, birthright, planescape or whatnot. Nothing to stop them.

And also, putting all previous editions on DDI. WOTC seems to be having enough trouble keeping the 4E stuff working there. How are they gonna do the other 35+ years of D&D gaming?

 

[Mistwell]

Yup.

I do think that WotC creating new products for past editions, either specific to an edition or with stat blocks for all editions would be a huge waste of time and money.

I mean, it'd be cool to see. But a recipe for financial disaster . . . and then no more D&D at all.

Like I explained, most of the time and resources are up front in programming the Designers system to convert things to different versions of the game. I don't see that as a financial disaster as the R&D will pay off long-term with a system that can continue to support multiple versions for many many years.