D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Knight Otu]

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?

For 3rd Edition, many "sacred cows" were left unslaughtered that some people feel should not only slaughtered, but their remains disintegrated. Levels, classes, Vancian magic, Paladins as a base class, etc. Some of these sacred cows may be in danger for 4th Edition, and if they slaughter a sacred cow that is integral to D&D (as opposed to being perceived as integral), that shift may occur.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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.

3E actually brought a lot of the gamers that dropped off during 2E back to the game.

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...

As one of the people that skipped 2nd and went from 1st to third, and with the ideas being bounced around for 4th not to my liking, I have to say your thinking parallels my own, and I think of it this way (with personal value judgements of which Edition I like) - it's sort of like Star Trek movies in reverse - the Odd editions are good, and the Even ones suck.

But I won't say anything for ceratin about 4th until it actually hits shelves (mid 2008 is my guess).

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Heh ...

All this talk about minis is not surprising. But I have an honest confession to make:

I have never seen a miniature in real life.

Yep. I've often looked at the long rectangular box that said "miniatures" on it and wondered what strange and weird thing this miniature "thing" is. Personally, I prefer to game where the DM is in charge of description and I am in charge of imagination. Using minis hampers my imagination because the mini "pre-supposes" things that I'd rather not take for granted: color, heigth, eye shape, clothing style, weapon choice, etc. You can't possibly have a mini for each possibility!

Then again, I prefer games that are 90-95% RP outside of combat and only 5-10% combat. What does one need of miniatures if one prefers a combat-less RPG?



My only fear is that a push on minis may likewise imply a push on combat - a push that truly has been more and more increasingly active in the days of 3.X. With more and more emphasis on combat, RPing will take a greater back seat unless players/DMs make a conscious effort to keep RPing alive. If 4E is going to be a more combat centered game, then the greater question that I have is why would anyone play "mini-centered" RPG combat that is slow and clunky with dice when one can play something like HALO or any of the Tom Clancy style "cooperative" combat games that are more realistically paced? Why use a mini when a game can get you a better product?

I know the answer to that is ultimately in customizability (if that's even a word, but you get the idea). But to me any new product that centers around minis will immediately give me a cold shoulder. I'm rather happy with my 3.5+Complete+Psionics (although not Complete Psionics!).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Quite detailed explanations on cover, area effects, flanking, etc. that all require a combat grid to actualize.

How does cover require a grid? It's just as abstract to say "OK, that line right there? That's near-total cover" as it is to, well, just say it.

This is in perfect alignment with thier plans for 4th E which looks like it will be a MMORPG with minis.

What is an "MMORPG with minis?" Two thousand people around a single gaming table, playing 24/7? The game will need to ship with methamphetamine if DMs are supposed to be awake and refereeing at all times.

There's an awful lot of hyperbole here, especially since Ryan explicitly says that any big changes would alienate a huge number of customers. I think people are skipping that sentence and imagining a worst-case scenario as to how different 4E can be.

OGL means that the playerbase can fork if 4E is too different. I suspect Green Ronin, Necromancer Games and Malhavoc could all put out a set of corebooks essentially identical to 3.5 if WotC lost their mind and didn't make the game remain relatively consistent to the current rules. It might not be as popular as the current game, but such a thing could fatally wound 4E.

 

[Allandaros]

As one of the people that skipped 2nd and went from 1st to third, and with the ideas being bounced around for 4th not to my liking, I have to say your thinking parallels my own, and I think of it this way (with personal value judgements of which Edition I like) - it's sort of like Star Trek movies in reverse - the Odd editions are good, and the Even ones suck.

I had hoped that it's more like PARANOIA - 1st edition is awesome; 2nd is even more awesome. The 3rd (or "5th", if you prefer) never happened. And the fourth brings things back to awesome.

Unfortunately, I don't think it works that way...

 

[Lanefan]

For 3rd Edition, many "sacred cows" were left unslaughtered that some people feel should not only slaughtered, but their remains disintegrated. Levels, classes, Vancian magic, Paladins as a base class, etc. Some of these sacred cows may be in danger for 4th Edition, and if they slaughter a sacred cow that is integral to D&D (as opposed to being perceived as integral), that shift may occur.

But how many cows can you slaughter before the remaining herd no longer has any discernible identity? In other words, at what point is this cow-free game no longer D+D?

Lanefan

 

[Morrus]

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?

In my opinion, the main factor would be the timescale - 3E was a long time coming. D&D had gone through a phase of being almost "dead" prior to it. Thus 3E was greeted with enthusiasm.

The same environment doesn't exist for a new edition now.

 

[sullivan]

Preparation time, in this case, refers to knowing all of the rules, how they interact, and making judgment calls when they need to be applied to a circumstance not foreseen by the rules. To remove this level of complexity in the rules and have the "rules more as the judge than the DM and the DM as more akin to a player" seems to be what both of our posts are discussing.

You use of the word complex concerned me. 'Complex' meaning hard to read and adjudicate the rules even when you are reading straight from the text is the part to reduce. Complex as in hard to see the future when applying the rules is something else entirely, and typically seen as a 'good' thing. Then there is sheer girth of text, while sort of like 'Complex', is another prep time concern that is likely to get the axe. At least at first, until they once again begin to saturate the market with products for the new edition.

Now there are people that are exceptions that like their RPGs like their Revenue Service forms. But they are definately in the minority, and WotC is not in a position to aim at the minority.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But how many cows can you slaughter before the remaining herd no longer has any discernible identity? In other words, at what point is this cow-free game no longer D+D?

Lanefan

Good question. To be honest, if you listen to the suggestions of how some of the "sacred cows" of D&D should be replaced, you start wondering why there aren't more people playing HARP. Probably because it doesn't have the D&D logo on the front cover.

 

[Knight Otu]

But how many cows can you slaughter before the remaining herd no longer has any discernible identity? In other words, at what point is this cow-free game no longer D+D?

Lanefan

That is the question, isn't it? There's an individual threshold, I would assume, but of course, majority opinion is the important question. At what point would the majority of players no longer accept a game as D&D? Which are the untouchable cows? Anyone who wants to design 4th Edition must ask him- or herself that question. If I were to bet, I'd put my money on classes and levels, an at least faux-Vancian magic system, and the general types of classes.

Also, I'd argue that several of the 3E and 3.5 releases broadened the definition of D&D for the average player, whether they use those releases or not. Thus, what would have been an untouchable cow 6 or seven years back might just be a typical cow today.