D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Mallus]

I'd like to see a DM-less D&D myself.

Could someone help me out and explain what this kind of D&D would look like? Wouldn't it just be a traditional wargame?

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I have no desire for anything 4e! Except for whatever Forgotten Realms products are produced.
The idea of a miniature centric game is appualing to me. and i would think would turn a few people off. My group has already decided to not go 4e or to miniatures and i know of two other groups in my area that have already made the same decision (about 30-40 people give or take).
But the one thing i dont get and maybe im missing something, but could a 3rd party publisher still make 3.5e compatible stuff? cause if they could i would just buy 3rd party and screw WOTC.

 

[Knight Otu]

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.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that's impossible. There has to some instance that abjudicates what happens. Computers can do this a bit. But computers are stupid and unimaginative, and will stay so for quite some time. The only thing that can match the mad hijinks of a human mind is another human mind. You can't bring down D&D to chess level interaction and have it still being D&D. Perhaps choose-your-adventure-books, but they have problems of their own ("Go to 15 if you have the Black Goblin Key? Err, yes, of course I have the Black Goblin Key."*)

Yes, some of the roles of the DM are being passed to the rules. But not everything can, and those bits are where the DM has the chance to shine. World Building. Adventure Crafting. NPC Design. And a lot more. Passing some stuff into rules makes it easier for the DM to concentrate on the fun DMing parts.

* Of course, the Black Goblin Key doesn't exist, and 15 is a horrible death scene for the cheater.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Could someone help me out and explain what this kind of D&D would look like? Wouldn't it just be a traditional wargame?

It would be that or a boardgame. I don't see how that would work unless there was a set list of actions in the monster descriptions. Balor always does A on round 1, B on round 2, etc. May be an interesting game but I don't see it as D&D.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, looks like this is the next cycle being halfway around. With 1E, the OD&D rules were collected, cleared up and marketed much better. 2E lost a lot of the old-timers, who preferred their rules and their adventures to the newer stuff. On the other hand, 2E drew in a lot of new fans with the flashy, interesting and deep campaign settings it produced, even though the rules grew more convoluted with every supplement. 3E actually brought a lot of the gamers that dropped off during 2E back to the game.

Now 3E was a collection, compaction and much-needed reformation of the D&D ruleset, along with a much broader marketing strategy, the SRD and the OGL. 3.5E kinda marked the apex, and now, with the rumors of 4E becoming more than silly rumors, I'd say the current edition is starting it's climb down the hill. 4E will, from how it looks like right now, most likely lose a lot of "old-timers" who prefer the rules and kind of adventures they got from 3E, while attracting lots of new fans with a more focussed approach on tangible games (minis) and easier out-of-the-box playability.

I wonder if 5E will bring a lot of the gamers who drop out with 4E back into the game and make them have plenty of fun again.

And the wheels in the sky keep on turning...

 

[Delta]

(Duplicate post.)

 

[Lanefan]

Doesn't this come close to slamming someone else's style of play? Online play, in this instance?

Oh, very possibly.

I'm not impressed with criticism about "server DMs". If making it so that the core rules are more predictable and clear from table to table makes DMs as servers... plug me in!

I'm not looking for game-to-game predictability, but then I don't jump from game to game very often...as in, almost never. I want to have (and to be) a DM with character, not a robot, and that character often if not always extends to changing the game to suit.

I'm not talking about the ability to house rule the system, I'm talking about different DMs who say they each use only Core Rules As Written, well, then players should be able to have certain expectations met for how the rules with work at each DMs table. Remove ambiguities, as you will. Surely you can make it more predictable without taking away a DMs powertrip.

Even just using core RAW things can be different from game to game unless these DM's are also using the same canned setting as written; a RAW FR game is going to be different from a RAW Eberron game, for example.

Easier to just treat each different game as its own entity.

Lanefan

 

[dwetzel]

The only part of Ryan's message that sounds good to me is the part where a 3rd party takes over producing D&D. Oh, wait, is he saying that he doesn't want that?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

could a 3rd party publisher still make 3.5e compatible stuff?

Yes. There are a couple of potential complications, though. For one, WotC could change the d20 license to something much more restrictive than it is now, which could force publishers off of it (in which case they couldn't call their product "d20.")

However, WotC can't prevent publishers from using current versions of the OGL. They could change the OGL, but unlike the d20 license, no one is forced to move to the updated version. Publishers couldn't market their product as being d20 compatible, couldn't use product identity or trademarks (D&D, d20, etc), but could still use all the open game content from the SRD.

The OGL and SRD could be used to create an entirely separate game with the same rules as 3.5, just like the OGL and SRD have been used to create things like Mutants & Masterminds, True20, Castles & Crusades or OSRIC. OSRIC is especially appropriate as an example, since it emulates an older rule-set; the same thing could be done to create a rule-set that emulates 3.5.

 

[Allandaros]

I was a bit surprised at Mr. Dancey's assertion that a departure from the SRD rules would cause a huge, absolute split. I guess I'm confused because the 2E to 3E change was huuuuge (as compared from 1E to 2E). The two systems weren't compatible, and yet most of the AD&D market transferred over. Why would this not be the case if there was a new, "totally awesome*" system for 4E?

*What I mean by "totally awesome" in this context is the concept that they make a new edition with lots and lots of changes, like from 2E to 3E, but changes which people like and appreciate (as it seems most people did from 2E to 3E).