A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[pemerton]

Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive.

If you look at the history of 3E and the OGL, you'll find a number of d20/OGL-based products that were very well received that basically took their design precepts straight from D&D

<snip>

I have little doubt that people like Ryan Dancey see this as a great success on the part of the OGL. For other people, it's a failure: the OGL is there to allow other companies to make less successful products (i.e. Adventures) and not compete with Wizards directly!

Adding to what MerricB said - I'm not at all surprised that WotC tried to move away from the OGL.

Ryan Dancey's original conception, as I remember it, was that the OGL, operating in combination with network externalities, would generate momentum towards d20 as a common ruleset. That idea seems to have worked out to an extent, although perhaps not to the extent the Dancey anticipated. I think that Dancey may have underestimated the interest that RPGers have in the different play experiences that different mechanics produce, which aren't always easily obtained using d20 (a more-or-less simulationist mechanic by default).

But from the point of view of WotC as a business, Dancy must also have imagined that increased momentum for d20 would support if not increase sales of D&D core rulebooks. I can only assume that this didn't work out, because if it did then the business case for 4e would not have been made out (assuming that WotC has even somewhat rational internal processes).

So when 4e was released, one has to assume that the business prospects, for WotC, of sticking with 3.5 weren't that rosy. So from WotC's point of view 4e may well have been rational, even if not as successful as they anticipated.

What Paizo's rise does tend to suggest is that, if WotC had abandoned the whole 3.5/4e model of rulebooks and the odd setting book and instead gone into adventure publishing in a wholesale way, they might have found an alternative way to move forward. But I can think of at least two reasons why WotC didn't take this route: (i) they seem to lack the capacity to produce compelling adventures (not that I know Paizo's adventures, but a lot of people seem to like them); (ii) they would still have been stuck with the OGL - and thus the potential for being crowded out of the d20 market - hanging over their head like Damocles' sword.

 

[pemerton]

I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that. If, however, a company like WotC were to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.

My experience has been the same. When I switched from D&D to Rolemaster because I didn't like 2nd ed AD&D, it wasn't a big deal. I just switched. When ICE ceased to exist for a while (and then returned in an utterly anaemic form) I just made do with what I had, plus continued to adapt material from other game systems to my RM game. When I decided to switch from RM to 4e I just switched. If WotC continues in its current direction it's likely I'll not be buying so much stuff from them anymore. But I'll still keep running 4e while I and my players are enjoying in (at the moment I'm adapting The Demon of the Red Grove from the original HeroWars Narrator's Book to use in my 4e game).

 

[pawsplay]

Second, what if a new 3E player says "I want to use my kit shield to push away the one on my left, while stabbing the one on my right!". Within the framework of 3E's PHB, this is a two-weapon attack which has almost no chance of success for a standard 1st level Fighter, and is pretty sub-optimal even for well-designed Rangers.

Which is at it should be. It took about four weeks of combat sports to convince me you never want to expose your middle, even against two opponents. It's a maneuver that so rarely pays off it shouldn't even be practiced, on the off chance you might be tempted to try it.

 

[pemerton]

Pawsplay, I think what you say tends to reinforce my point - or, at least, it seems to me quite consistent with it.

The only way in which that sort of simulationism makes a game newbie-friendly is if the newbie has an excellent grasp of real world probabilities, and the GM gives a rich enough description of the ingame situation for the newbie to be able to apply his/her knowledge.

I don't think this is likely to be a very common state of affairs.

I think the typical newbie to a fantasy RPG is more likely to declare actions based on a sense of fictional/cinematic appropriateness. (We're assuming here that the newbie in question hasn't already mastered the mechanics, and so isn't guided by considerations of mechanical optimality.) And a system that processes those declarations by rendering them as mechanically sub-optimal isn't one that I see as especially newbie-friendly.

 

[Lanefan]

Pawsplay, I think what you say tends to reinforce my point - or, at least, it seems to me quite consistent with it.

The only way in which that sort of simulationism makes a game newbie-friendly is if the newbie has an excellent grasp of real world probabilities, and the GM gives a rich enough description of the ingame situation for the newbie to be able to apply his/her knowledge.

I don't think this is likely to be a very common state of affairs.

I think the typical newbie to a fantasy RPG is more likely to declare actions based on a sense of fictional/cinematic appropriateness. (We're assuming here that the newbie in question hasn't already mastered the mechanics, and so isn't guided by considerations of mechanical optimality.) And a system that processes those declarations by rendering them as mechanically sub-optimal isn't one that I see as especially newbie-friendly.

The answer, of course, is to not try to have all possibilities hard-coded into the rules, but to instead simply give the DMs some decent guidelines and let 'em wing it from there.

Player: "I want to try <cinematic move x not found in any rulebook>."
DM: "OK, describe what you want to do then roll a d20 - probably with some minuses - and we'll figure out what comes of it."

This worked just fine in 1983. It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e. By accident or intention, the philosophy of game design seems to have gone from "encourage players to think outside the box; force them to if necessary" to "here's the limit, play within it". Very sad.

Lan-"chaos is your friend"-efan

 

[BryonD]

The answer, of course, is to not try to have all possibilities hard-coded into the rules, but to instead simply give the DMs some decent guidelines and let 'em wing it from there.

Player: "I want to try <cinematic move x not found in any rulebook>."
DM: "OK, describe what you want to do then roll a d20 - probably with some minuses - and we'll figure out what comes of it."

This worked just fine in 1983. It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e.

No comment on 4E, but obviously I would strongly disagree with this in regard to 3X.

But there are two points that are quite real and enhance the perception that this is true. (Maybe more, two seem immediately clear to me)

First, that conversation was happening long before anyone every heard of D20/OGL. Under 3E there are more mechanics for "whatever" activities. And it becomes easier for a DM to fall into the trap that the mechanics should follow the game and forget to simply use good sense. It makes it easier for a DM to make a mistake. But it is still not a new hazard of 3E and if you assume the game works best with a good DM, as I presume, it absolutely is not a problem of the game experience itself.

Second, there is so much designed material out there. And a lot of it IS crap. And again, this really pre-dates 3E. One day the character can do something. The next day a new NWP is published and the character DOESN'T have it. Suddenly by a poorly thought through plan to "give characters a new option" the players are forced to choose which things they can do, at the expense of other things. That has always been a bad thing and the OGL allowed the amount of bad design to grow even faster than the good. But, the solution is to recognize bad rules and not use them. Since I don't see this problem in Core 3X, it is only a result of optional elements. Just as it was a result of optional elements in prior editions.

 

[BryonD]

I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that.

I gotta say, don't you make a big deal out of how much effort you put into converting PF APs over to 4e? (rhetorical question there)

If it doesn't make any difference to you, then clearly the FAR wiser course of action would be to save all that effort and just play the, well crafted, Pathfinder game.

But, clearly, your ability to enjoy some well crafted games is not equal to your ability to enjoy other well crafted games.

And neither is mine. 4E is a well crafted game. But I don't really enjoy it because it is not crafted to my taste. Nothing wrong with that. But your statement is significantly biased in favor of your own view and gives you credit for being above us simple opinionated folk.

It is clear that a change on that scale already HAS affected you.

If, however, a company like WotC were to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.

It's called people.
Is it easy to throw stones for being emotionally invested in a game based hobby? Absolutely.

But, these days the hottest and most numerous threads of contention are in the 4E forums. Every change WotC has made lately has had the various pro-4e factions at each other's throats. Which isn't to call them any better or worse or anything. It is just to note that people are people.

4E fans didn't accept 4E because they were the open-minded accepting fans who didn't care. They embraced 4E because it fit their tastes. It is easy to draw a line between 4E fans and non-4E-fans and label that line, "people who do/don't accept change". But the label is wrong. The correct label is simply, "people for whom 4E fits or doesn't fit their tastes".

But neither group is particularly accepting of change for change's sake. Look in the 4E forums and look in the Pazio playtest forums. You will see the same stuff.

 

[pemerton]

It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e.

Well, as a bit of a 4e partisan, I would say that 4e doesn't render your conversation a non-starter. The (in?)famous page 42 gives some fairly detailed mechanical advice for how to handle it - at least, detailed by the standards of D&D.

That said, page 42 could be better - in particular, it could give more guidance on how threats of damage (or similar loss) to the PC can be used as a balancing factor. (The skill challenge rules could also benefit from a bit more guidance in this respect - but they're not quite as underdeveloped in this respect as is page 42.)

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[BryonD]

So when 4e was released, one has to assume that the business prospects, for WotC, of sticking with 3.5 weren't that rosy. So from WotC's point of view 4e may well have been rational, even if not as successful as they anticipated.

I posted a longer discussion about this recently, but in short, there is a fundamental mistake in comparing 3E to 4E here.

3E was done. (Obviously Paizo have demonstrated that new life could be put into it, but it was done.) But that reality of needing to leave 3E does not mean that the 4E path taken was a good choice. There could have been other 4Es that in no way resembled the 4E we know.

And that is unrelated to the whole OGL argument.

3E was a huge success and the OGL was part of that. IMO saying that WotC could have had a larger slice of the pie without the OGL is poorly considered becuase it ignores that a larger slice of a much smaller pie is still less pie.

Moving on to the 4E/OGL part of the discussion, yes, WotC needs to compete with the OGL. What WotC needed to do was make a game that a vast portion of the gaming community wanted to play. If WotC released a non-OGL game, but everyone wanted to play it, the OGL would be nearly meaningless to the popularity. If wotC released an OGL game that everyone wanted to play, the old OGL game would die and the new game would get to repeat the OGL benefits.

But either way you slice it, it is the overall desire of the market at large to play the game that matters.

We can talk about settings or lack there of. We can talk about OGL. We can talk about all kinds of tangents. But those are just refinements around the core issue and the core issue is, no pun intended, the core rules.