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

[Mistwell]

Can you say market fragmentation?

Already there. Indeed, this addresses the fragmentation by bringing in people who are not currently WOTC customers, but who are D&D players playing other versions of the game. It allows for a return to shared experiences between D&D players, something that cannot be done with simply adding new editions.

Can you say mass confusion over what products to buy?

Already there. This solves much of that - almost all the products are in DDI. It's one large product. Dungeon and Dragon magazines would annouce what is new and compatible with the version of the game you like. What more confusion would there be?

I knew you could.

Unnecessary, and unwarranted, snark.

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.

The core of it is a programmed system to convert things between versions of the game, and a set of guidelines to deal with outlier rules in individual game versions which are not dealt with well by the program. The rest of it is essentially run by the same size group as always. I think you're assuming dozens of individual products for each game version without reading the details I outlined as to why that is not the case.

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.

It takes time, as you just outlined, and it's not being done in a consistent manner like a single set of professional game designers could do. I mean, if "I could do that too" were the answer, no RPG products would come out as everyone, with unlimited time, could design their own RPG system eventually. I think you're missing the point though.

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?

They don't have much problem entering data on game elements, and on time. They have trouble introducing new systems on time, and it's an issue that needs fixing regardless of this idea. They are still going to have to program most of those systems, whether it is for five versions of the game or one. You still need a visual online game playing system programmed in, regardless of the number of monsters and spells and such that will be added to that system. That version stuff is mostly the easy stuff that any data-entry monkey can enter.

 

[Hussar]

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. 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'm sorry, but this is just not true. I don't know about OD&D, I can't speak to that, but an AD&D character is FAR more powerful relative to the challenges he's facing than a 4e character. Look at encounters in modules - it's not uncommon for a 1st level AD&D party to face a dozen or more 1/2 - 1 HD monsters in a single encounter and reasonably expect to win.

A 4e party would not. Well, unless the majority were minions. But, that's the point. In AD&D, most 1HD creatures or less were minions. The fighters killed them in a single hit.

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.

I agree with this.

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.

Didn't we just have a really long thread about this? Yeah, I agree with this as well. The play assumptions are very different between editions. Party size, relative power, etc. etc. What makes a great 1e module does not make a great 4e module and vice versa.

 

[Hussar]

Mistwell- your presumption about market fragmentation is that the segment that WOTC has is not profitable. That it is actually economically viable to spend the resources going after people who are not buying your product instead of concentrating on your own audience.

I wonder why no one ever talks about Paizo doing this. No one ever bemoans the idea that Paizo should be the one to unify everyone under one banner. That they should start producing Pathfinder for OSRIC and D20 at the same time. After all, if it's such a valuable market, shouldn't they be doing it?

 

[howandwhy99]

No one ever bemoans the idea that Paizo should be the one to unify everyone under one banner. That they should start producing Pathfinder for OSRIC and D20 at the same time. After all, if it's such a valuable market, shouldn't they be doing it?

I wonder if Mr. Mona still reads this boards.

EDIT: Pathfinder already does have some mention of backward compatibility to the d20 SRD, don't they? I know people who routinely use their stuff for 3.x

 

[Hussar]

But, that's not quite the point is it Howandwhy99? People are saying that WOTC should produce material that is actually written in the format of every edition. So, the 1e module will have 1e statblocks and 1e encounters, the 3e version will have 3e, so on and so forth.

Yes, Pathfinder is compatible with 3e. Fair enough. But, that's not quite the same thing. If producing material for other editions was profitable, why should only WOTC do it?

 

[Agamon]

I wonder if Mr. Mona still reads this boards.

EDIT: Pathfinder already does have some mention of backward compatibility to the d20 SRD, don't they? I know people who routinely use their stuff for 3.x

3.5 has 3.x backward compatibility, too.

 

[JeffB]

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I don't know about OD&D, I can't speak to that, but an AD&D character is FAR more powerful relative to the challenges he's facing than a 4e character. Look at encounters in modules - it's not uncommon for a 1st level AD&D party to face a dozen or more 1/2 - 1 HD monsters in a single encounter and reasonably expect to win.

A 4e party would not. Well, unless the majority were minions. But, that's the point. In AD&D, most 1HD creatures or less were minions. The fighters killed them in a single hit.
.

Your typical O/B/A D&D party was also assumed to have anywhere from 6-8, maybe as many as 10 PCs, and henchmen/retainers. Compare that to 4E's "5 PC" average or 3.x's 4 PC average, and no such additional support.

4E characters are far more robust than a O/A D&D character especially when considering healing surges/second winds/extended rests, and Spellcasters/Rogues have far more damage capability than their low level O/A D&D counterparts (MUs/Thieves)

 

[howandwhy99]

But, that's not quite the point is it Howandwhy99? People are saying that WOTC should produce material that is actually written in the format of every edition. So, the 1e module will have 1e statblocks and 1e encounters, the 3e version will have 3e, so on and so forth.

I don't think either 3e or 4e are backward compatible really. Either to each other or earlier versions. Could it be done? I suppose it could be done for WoD too, but it's more difficult than creating within the other game's rules in the end. That's what most 3.x updates from past years have been.

Yes, Pathfinder is compatible with 3e. Fair enough. But, that's not quite the same thing. If producing material for other editions was profitable, why should only WOTC do it?

I was hoping Paizo might try and do just that, what with OSRIC and all.

And there are a group of outside publishers who do support it. If Wizards wanted to too, that's all well and good. But I don't see them doing so either. I don't think it's simply swapping out statblocks. The entirety of a module really was meant to be designed under the older rulesets IMO. The text, the maps, everything. Not just the numbers. So I'm not really part of that conversation. I was just hoping some of the awesomesauce of Paizo might be mixed in with my OD&D smorgasbord a little more easily. (can't blame a guy for trying, right?)

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think it is important to remember and utilize the history of the game to your advantage. But I also think it is important to not be so slavishly devoted that it is to the disadvantage of the new system. History, in other words, is a good source of flavour, but not of mechanics. For instance, if you can make a better game without +X weapons, then do it. D&D will survive, just like it survived the death of THAC0.

I think the sacred cows are what make the game D&D and not just another generic fantasy game. I'd like the designers to be more careful about making changes. I'd prefer things not to change unless the change isn't too drastic and it actually improves the game.

Updating mechanics a bit like, for example, attack tables (1e) to THAC0 (2e) to ascending AC (3e) is fine with me since it's still just "roll a d20, try to roll high" in order to hit. If that got changed to "roll a d6 for each level of your character and add them up" in order to make an attack roll, that would be going too far in my opinion.

I think removing the +X weapons from the game is kinda pointless. Not every magic sword is going to be Excalibur or Stormbringer. Sometimes a magic sword is just a sword with a small enchantment on it to make it hit a bit harder and more often. The +X weapons have been around since the beginning. Is there really a good case for taking them out of the game? What problem are they causing?

 

[Hussar]

Well, as far as the +x weapons go, if it was just "sometimes" then it probably wouldn't be an issue. The thing is, +X is the base standard. The "sometimes" is all the actually interesting magical weapons. Personally, I do think that's a bit backwards. A magical item should be interesting. It should not be something that you need to hit entire classes of monsters with.