The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Matt James]

Ryan Dancey has expanded on his views here in a bonus column.

I won't touch that with a 10' pole.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It sounds to me as if Mearls wants to apply the lesson "Stop trying to make the perfect Pepsi, start making the perfect Pepsis", .

Which is something that I'm kinda fine with as someone who doesn't play 4E. While I dont and wont play the RPG, the boardgames are things that I've actually spent money on and have enjoyed playing with my 9 year old.

And there's no danger of them really being obsolete in a way where people wont want to play them because of the ruleset. WOTC could keep producing these and as a matter of fact I'm flat out surprised that they havent been producing expansions for the different sets as opposed to trying to sell you a new set with slightly altered rules each time.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I'm just acknowledging that, yes, James Wyatt said those things, yes he worked on 4e, and no, his blanket statement does not summarize 4e by a long shot. Can it be played that way? Totally. Is that the only way it can be played? No.

I was looking through Worlds & Monsters a few months ago, and that phrase comes across as Wyatt summarizing the objections to including fairy folk in D&D--not necessarily endorsing the position himself.

 

[Shemeska]

Your beef is with James Wyatt, I think, and we all agree some initial PR for 4e was terrible. His quote seems like a really easy shot at 4e after 3+ years

I'm surprised that he hasn't come out to clarify his statement at any point in the past three years, given how polemic it can come across as.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm really not trying to war here, I'm just acknowledging that, yes, James Wyatt said those things, yes he worked on 4e, and no, his blanket statement does not summarize 4e by a long shot.

I totally agree. Those things aren't the end of the problem, though, they're just the beginning.

And it's entirely possible to play 4e in a way that doesn't resemble those statements (or the rules that support them). But that is because a good group is system agnostic. A good group can run any game and have fun with it. Mike Mearls probably runs a good game of FATAL.

It's a difficult argument to say "4e is a good game because it's possible to run good games with it," because it's possible to run good games without ANYTHING. It's faint praise at best. By the same token, of course, you can't really say "4e is a bad game because it's possible to run bad games with it." Bad games can come even from genius systems.

Honestly, if we're looking to shore up the industry as a whole, that's where the work needs to be done: to create good gaming groups. IMO, one of the best ways to create good gaming groups was ideas like the OGL, which enabled anyone to grab the basic rules for free, and allowed small publishers to aim for any conceivable niche, giving every group of every conceivable predilection something for them. The Book of Erotic Fantasy wasn't for me or my group, but it was probably for SOMEONE, for SOMEONE's group, and if it helped make their own game better, well, that's pretty awesome.

 

[Argyle King]

I won't touch that with a 10' pole.

I did, but that's because I had forgotten who Ryan Dancey was.

 

[Klaus]

I won't touch that with a 10' pole.

It is a good read.

And it mentions something that is far-too-often igonred: the "acquisition" of new gamers. Ryan mentions the kids MMORPG Club Penguin (which Disney acquired), which is aimed at kids younger than any existing RPG can cater to, and instills in them a favorite hobby that will likely follow them as they grow up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I won't touch that with a 10' pole.

I did, but that's because I had forgotten who Ryan Dancey was.

I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.

You might not agree with his conclusions, you might not like him personally, but it would be foolish to dismiss his thoughts out of hand IMO.

Cheers

 

[M.L. Martin]

I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.

OTOH, the OGL seems to be the only thing he's managed to make successful in this hobby--and whether it's 'successful' really does depend on your point of view. Additionally, I believe he's been doomsaying pretty much constantly since he parted ways with WotC, and his behavior when campaigning for GAMA treasurer has left a lot of folks skeptical when it comes to his honesty and integrity.

 

[DaveMage]

I think Ryan's predictions may not always come to pass, but his analysis is always a fascinating read - and I think he gets much more right about the industry than anyone else who posts on this topic.