D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[el-remmen]

With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.

I don't know if this would be true, but I'd like to think it would be true - and would kinda be interested in seeing it happen.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know if this would be true, but I'd like to think it would be true - and would kinda be interested in seeing it happen.

Especially if the more competent d20 publishers -- Green Ronin, Mongoose, Malhavoc(sp?) etc... -- were able to have a summit and agree on a "Dragons and Dungeons" Core Set they could all have a hand in creating and reap the benefits from.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah that statement is a little bizzarre. It just reinforces what WOTC has been working toward since 3.0, which is to effectively morph the DM into a "server" to run the game. This is in perfect alignment with thier plans for 4th E which looks like it will be a MMORPG with minis. I have no huge problems with this as long as that is what the majority of the market wants- I still have all of my old game books.

You know, between the minis, the "fantastic locations", and DMing for Dummies, I'd wager to think they are trying to set the bar lower for DMs to a.) not make it so daunting a task, b.) to encourage new players do DM rather than find established groups, and c.) remove the DM IS GAWD complex alot of DMs get with absolute power...

Might be a positive trend, not a negative one (unless you LIKE GAWD-DMs ;-) )

 

[BluSponge]

3.5 will die, no question. Just as 3.0 died. Those labels are 95% marketing, 4% presentation, and 1% actual design differences.

SNIP

A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.

These two statements are completely inconsistent. If its the marketing that makes the difference, than it doesn't really matter what kind of game WotC decides to call DnD. The masses will follow. Furthermore, how many companies would release their own versions of the SDR in print (ala the Pocket Players Handbook)? Now, one would probably rise to the top, but I suspect there would be a ton of brand confusion and the whole machine could easily collapse under its own weight. In short, it would be a mess. And that company would still have to compete with WotC's marketing department for their audience. Not that it couldn't work (or wouldn't be a good thing), but I still believe the majority of DnD players will migrate to 4e for the exact reason Ryan has suggested: it's 95% marketing. Having the "Dungeons and Dragons" logo on the cover will be the big draw, regardless of how close 4e is to 3.5 mechanically.

Tom

EDIT: Attribution fixed.

 

[sullivan]

Might be a positive trend, not a negative one (unless you LIKE GAWD-DMs ;-) )

Just as I mentioned back in the Noah thread. Not only is it a very healthy improvement to the game, it is nearly certain to evoke the biggest negative reaction from customers. At least relative to whatever change is made. Especially from DMs. Because all those years of not trusting the rules or the players.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

Careful to whom you attribute the quote. Those are Ryan's words, according to the EN News front page. I don't want to get credit for one of Ryan's many insights.

 

[Kormydigar]

You know, between the minis, the "fantastic locations", and DMing for Dummies, I'd wager to think they are trying to set the bar lower for DMs to a.) not make it so daunting a task, b.) to encourage new players do DM rather than find established groups, and c.) remove the DM IS GAWD complex alot of DMs get with absolute power...

Might be a positive trend, not a negative one (unless you LIKE GAWD-DMs ;-) )

Well............first of all I AM a GAWD DM . What I failed to mention is that if this the direction that WOTC wants to go with then they should go all the way. Remove the whole NEED for a DM so everyone can just play. If the DM is constrained to being used as a server function then design the rules lock-down tight and eliminate the position entirely. Nothing is as un-fun for the DM as a half done attempt at this.

 

[Mark CMG]

Just as I mentioned back in the Noah thread. Not only is it a very healthy improvement to the game, it is nearly certain to evoke the biggest negative reaction from customers. At least relative to whatever change is made. Especially from DMs. Because all those years of not trusting the rules or the players.

I think you might be tying together a couple of issues that aren't necessarily related. On the one hand, let us say, there is a game that is complex and requires some fair amount of preparation to run (as DM). On the other hand, we'll also say, is a game that just about anyone can pick up and run (as DM) with no preparation. The latter is no where near as complex a game, and many would say not as interesting or challenging. Changing the former into the latter might be a healthy move provided one feels the complexity of the game is largely despensible but let's not tie that in with personal issues regarding how one perceives individual DMs.

 

[Lanefan]

Not impressed.

If, as speculation has it, the DM is to be reduced to the role of a "server", then by extension the players are reduced to "terminals", and other than the need for physical mini's the game might as well be played online. Pathetic!

However, there could be a silver lining...people who come in new with 4e might start wanting to do more with their mini's after a while than combats on a battlemat, leading to a new RPG system being cobbled together by the players; it'll be called Mini's and Monsters (M+M, you heard it here first ) and in scope and complexity it'll look a lot like OD+D...

And so the wheel goes round.

Lane-"but all this speculation could still be wrong"-fan

 

[sullivan]

I think you might be tying together a couple of issues that aren't necessarily related. On the one hand, let us say, there is a game that is complex and requires some fair amount of preparation to run (as DM). On the other hand, we'll also say, is a game that just about anyone can pick up and run (as DM) with no preparation. The latter is no where near as complex a game, and many would say not as interesting or challenging. Changing the former into the latter might be a healthy move provided one feels the complexity of the game is largely despensible but let's not tie that in with personal issues regarding how one perceives individual DMs.

That is not what I'm talking about at all. This isn't about preparation time, or even nessasarily complexity of the senario. This is about the rules more as the judge than the DM and the DM as more akin to a player. That is not automatically tied to raising/lowering complexity, even if there are some relationships there.