For those that aren't acquainted with him, Mark Rosewater is the lead designer of Magic: the Gathering and the de-facto spokesman for the game. Every week, he writes an article on the design of Magic, but this week's article, "Maro on Maro" has some very interesting insights which I believe also apply to D&D.
In particular, you have this comment:
I feel that a lot of what Mark says there also applies to 4th edition... but there are drastic differences between the two situations.
Monte Cook raised the point when 3.5e was released that, because of the revision, DMs would lose system mastery. I wasn't concerned at the time, for I thought the loss due to 3.5e fairly insignificant, but the point does have relevance: A far more significant loss of system mastery has come from the changes from 2e->3e and 3e->4e. When the mathematics that underpins the system changes to that extent, you end up with a different game, and one that strips away any legacy of system mastery.
Does this mean that R&D should not have changed the underlying mathematics? My feeling is that it was justified - for both 3e and 4e. 3e because the old foundation needed to be relaid given how the expectations for the game had changed since the 1970s, and 4e because the major structural flaws in 3e had become apparent. (When those flaws begin to turn away potential DMs, then you have a problem).
However, any further changes? Each major significant change is going to have severe consequences on the player base. 4e has shown that. 3e could get away with it because the base of the game was over two decades old. 4e didn't have that luxury, and paid for it.
When 5e comes along, it will really be the crunch time for the D&D team. I believe that we'll see that stability will be far more important than complete renovation.
Cheers!
In particular, you have this comment:
Mark Rosewater said:Aren't you essentially trading away old players to acquire new ones?
No, we're not. Some people seem to think that complexity is the thing older players want. It isn't. What do older players want? Interestingly, the same thing newer players want: a fun game. Magic, as is any game, is a diversion, a source of entertainment, a reason to interact with friends. The second that Magic isn't fulfilling those needs, that's when someone walks away.
R&D's goals of the last few years have been to cut to the essence of what makes Magic fun, not just for new players but for everyone. One of the things we've learned is that complexity for the sake of complexity is not it. Having more things to think about than a human being is capable of processing does not make the game any more fun.
What does make it fun? Having cards that do things players want to do. Having flavor that resonates. Having environments that are fun to explore. Having the game be about playing the game rather than figuring out how to play the game. Magic is cresting right now because I believe R&D has done an excellent job of making it fun.
I think I did a disservice many years back by framing the conversation about acquiring new players. Our real goal has always been to enhance the game for all players of which new players are merely a subset. Build a better game and everyone benefits.
I feel that a lot of what Mark says there also applies to 4th edition... but there are drastic differences between the two situations.
Monte Cook raised the point when 3.5e was released that, because of the revision, DMs would lose system mastery. I wasn't concerned at the time, for I thought the loss due to 3.5e fairly insignificant, but the point does have relevance: A far more significant loss of system mastery has come from the changes from 2e->3e and 3e->4e. When the mathematics that underpins the system changes to that extent, you end up with a different game, and one that strips away any legacy of system mastery.
Does this mean that R&D should not have changed the underlying mathematics? My feeling is that it was justified - for both 3e and 4e. 3e because the old foundation needed to be relaid given how the expectations for the game had changed since the 1970s, and 4e because the major structural flaws in 3e had become apparent. (When those flaws begin to turn away potential DMs, then you have a problem).
However, any further changes? Each major significant change is going to have severe consequences on the player base. 4e has shown that. 3e could get away with it because the base of the game was over two decades old. 4e didn't have that luxury, and paid for it.
When 5e comes along, it will really be the crunch time for the D&D team. I believe that we'll see that stability will be far more important than complete renovation.
Cheers!