D&D Designers answer Slashdot crowds questions

[sunmaster]

Okay,

Here it begins
http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/02/18/1459259.shtml

Have fun

 

[Shemeska]

Or didn't answer as the case might be. :\

 

[Lackhand]

Or didn't answer as the case might be. :\

Hey, they answered everything...
... we just already knew all the answers.

It's because we're psychic, I tells you!

 

[Delta]

The first answer really jumped out at me. Once again, one of their first inclinations is to directly say that the need for online subscription capabilities is directly driving changes to the tabletop game design:

Why 4th Edition? by DrMrLordX:...

Wizards of the Coast:
The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications. There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.

I think usually when you press WOTC on this point, they try to back off from it, but it's always the first foot forward in their marketing campaigns for 4E.

 

[tomBitonti]

I was amused by this part:

...
I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.
...

Since I though, "well, I dunno", and thought a good follow-up would be "what percent of your current customers are you willing to write-off as a part of transitioning to new customers?". Also (somewhat of a beef with me): "Why aren't you creating a migration path for the customers still on 3.5; why don't you have a backwards compatibility guide to adapt 4.0 features in 3.5 campaigns that aren't quite ready to migrate yet?".)

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I think that you read too much there... They want to allow more easily online rping as the real world make things often really hard to make a group.

But this is and will remains a tabletop rpg. It's strawman to say otherwise, really - lot of luddism around the web.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I was amused by this part:



Since I though, "well, I dunno", and thought a good follow-up would be "what percent of your current customers are you willing to write-off as a part of transitioning to new customers?". Also (somewhat of a beef with me): "Why aren't you creating a migration path for the customers still on 3.5; why don't you have a backwards compatibility guide to adapt 4.0 features in 3.5 campaigns that aren't quite ready to migrate yet?".)

As in videogame, most peoples actually prefer new stuff than backward compactibility (arguably at the stake of power, in videogames's case).

New editions..... more of the old or new stuff?

 

[MaelStorm]

Good point Delta. This is the one answer that if I was a 3/3.5E fan, would have sent off the roof. The disregard concerning the job they did with 3.5 and all the money they made from it: "3.5 could have been just an errata". I can say now that I understand a little bit more the 3.5 crowd.

 

[smetzger]

Our DRM philosophy is to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Well we know its "printer friendly" and &authentic=true works

 

[Xethreau]

I am disappointed that they did not answer the Bad Publicity question. This was a question the the Astrid's Parlor section of the Gleemax forums, and I know that many other people want an answer too.