GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D

[Quickleaf]

Robin Laws? Wow, I'm even more excited about the DMG2 than I was before.

Among the people in my gaming group, we do perceive this edition to be a very good miniatures game and a fairly average RPG.

Several folks in my group (the more story-oriented folks) also have this perception. We're just switching to 4e now, but they raise some really good points. Here are their perceptions:

* There's little flavor text for monsters, prestige classes (paragon paths), etc. This makes it harder to find inspiration when creating a character or depicting a monster.

* The game doesn't facilitate playing without miniatures (it's hard to do with all the forced movement powers). Perhaps a small section in DMG2 could address running short combats without breaking out miniatures?

* Feats are almost exclusively combat-focused - for example, there are no social feats. When I wrote Caliphate Nights this was one of the trends I was trying to break, by deliberately making the most powerful feats non-combat based, so players would be taking feats like True Faith and Virtuous to play to the genre.

* Published adventures focus on tactical wargaming aspects, not role-playing. Even if we don't use published adventures, it reveals a mindset of the design team. I always thought it was funny that physical spaces were the only ones that got mapped in D&D. It would be interesting to find in Dungeon an adventure map of relationships, events, and reactions.

 

[Piratecat]

A word of caution from me, if people are going to turn this into another edition war thread I will not participate.

I think I have to take the responsibility for starting a sidetrack. Sorry folks. Back on track, please.

 

[Hereticus]

A word of caution from me, if people are going to turn this into another edition war thread I will not participate.

I am more than happy to answer questions but I don't want to debate the merits of one system over another.

Scott,
I'm sure you remember Coca Cola's issue when they introduced fourth edition Coke back in 1985.

Some people did not like it, so Coke had the genius idea of selling both New Coke and Coke Classic, and sold more because of it.

I wonder if WotC would consider supporting third and fourth editions as two separate games?

They really are different enough to be two completely different systems that appeals to two different groups (with some overlap).

Thank you,

Hereticus

 

[Remathilis]

[sblock=I haven't removed your post, but it's in a sblock. Please see my caution about sidetracking the thread. ~ PCat]

Yes, but what I think both of you are missing is that... "It's always been like that." becomes less and less of an argument with any validity as people gain easier access to other rpg's. I mean honestly I remember when D&D was the only rpg I knew about... but that time has long since passed and I tend to compare D&D, at least when it comes to my money, with a much wider range of games now.

Heh, tell that to the people still complaining about removal of the Vancian casting system.

D&D has always had a strong tendency to "combat first, everything else second" Sure, plenty of us played D&D with less reliance on dungeons and more on other types of adventures (mysteries, social encounters) but the rules have always been flimsy on it. Clever DMs either didn't bother with rules for RP, or they created them on the spot.

Pop quiz: How many pages in the AD&D1e PHB are devoted to a non-combat skill system? How many are devoted to obscure pole-arms? Case. In. Point.

In other words doing the same thing over and over again, because we did it last time will probably, slowly but eventually, loose WotC a significant portion of their customers (especially as I have the last edition where you gave me the exact same gameplay experience as before.) as they discover other games that meet their needs better or just accommodate a wider variety of desires. One of the reasons, amongst many, I enjoy Reign more than D&D is esoteric disciplines. Not only does Reign give me special combat maneuvers... but it gives me ancient secrets (special maneuvers and knowledge) with skills as well. D&D 4e could have easily done this with the 4e power structure... but they didn't and thus Reign offers me tactical combat and an interesting system for skills, while 4e doesn't... all IMO of course.

See, I don't buy that. 3e promised a "return to the dungeon" feel. Necromancer games and Goodman's DCCs (two of the top sellers in 3PP) sold themselves on that 1e dungeon crawl feel. There are retro-clones all over the place promising that feel of late 70's game play. I don't foresee D&D's primary playstyle (dungeons) fading anytime soon.

In the end the game should evolve, not just in it's presentation and media (DDI) but also in what it offers in gameplay. I think a prime example of this is when you look at SWSE vs. D&D 3.5, the addition of talents evolved the game into a direction where character concepts outside of combat had interesting choices and advantages.

Are you talking about Saga edition? Where your non-combat related feats consist of skill focus, linguist, and skill training? Its nearly impossible to build a Saga PC that can't kick-ass in combat! (Then again, this is Star Wars were senators are crack-shots and the Imperial Chancellor is a Sith Lord, so...)

I just don't see D&D's emphasis on combat being a primary focus going away in any edition. Its too central to D&D's identity.[/sblock]

 

[GnomeWorks]

A word of caution from me, if people are going to turn this into another edition war thread I will not participate.

It's not an edition war. It's an attempt to engage what you are saying.

There is no silver bullet answer that will suddenly get people to drop hatthey are doing and start playing 4e so wee need to appraoch it from many angles.

I don't play 4e because I perceive it as only supporting a "kick in the door, kill things and take their stuff" approach to the game. From your perspective, whether or not 4e supports styles other than that at this moment is irrelevant - my perception is that it does not, and thus I will find something else on which to spend my money.

 

[Piratecat]

Do not sidetrack the thread into edition discussion, please.

 

[tuxgeo]

The Penny-Arcade podcast drove 700k to the D&D website

If this means that 700k people came to wizards' website via a link on Penny Arcade, this sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Or is it just me?

Do the numbers of people that came to the website from PvP and Will Wheaton's blog compare, or are they relatively insignificant?
(Photos might help the podcasts, as well; the only photo I found was one taken at PAX 2008 by Kiko, linked from Will's blog.)

 

[Imaro]

[sblock=I haven't removed your post, but it's in a sblock. Please see my caution about sidetracking the thread. ~ PCat]

Heh, tell that to the people still complaining about removal of the Vancian casting system.

D&D has always had a strong tendency to "combat first, everything else second" Sure, plenty of us played D&D with less reliance on dungeons and more on other types of adventures (mysteries, social encounters) but the rules have always been flimsy on it. Clever DMs either didn't bother with rules for RP, or they created them on the spot.

Pop quiz: How many pages in the AD&D1e PHB are devoted to a non-combat skill system? How many are devoted to obscure pole-arms? Case. In. Point.



See, I don't buy that. 3e promised a "return to the dungeon" feel. Necromancer games and Goodman's DCCs (two of the top sellers in 3PP) sold themselves on that 1e dungeon crawl feel. There are retro-clones all over the place promising that feel of late 70's game play. I don't foresee D&D's primary playstyle (dungeons) fading anytime soon.



Are you talking about Saga edition? Where your non-combat related feats consist of skill focus, linguist, and skill training? Its nearly impossible to build a Saga PC that can't kick-ass in combat! (Then again, this is Star Wars were senators are crack-shots and the Imperial Chancellor is a Sith Lord, so...)

I just don't see D&D's emphasis on combat being a primary focus going away in any edition. Its too central to D&D's identity.[/sblock]

Remathilis, I have addressed your post in a seperate thread, here...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...d-seminar-playstyle-evolution-discussion.html

 

[filthgrinder]

Do the numbers of people that came to the website from PvP and Will Wheaton's blog compare, or are they relatively insignificant?
(Photos might help the podcasts, as well; the only photo I found was one taken at PAX 2008 by Kiko, linked from Will's blog.)

They may have lumped them all together, since it technically was the Penny-Arcade podcast, with special guests Scott from PvP and Wil. I believe the first podcast was spawned when WotC wanted to advertise on the PA site. PA has a policy that they wont advertise a game without playing it first, so the podcast was born.

Also, PA is the 1000 pound gorilla in this case. PvP and Wil have awesome sites, but PA is the goliath.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Perception is reality and if people believe that they we need to manage to alter that perception.

Absolutely true.

How much of this responsibility, moving forward, falls to Marketing, and how much to R&D? It seems to me you're saying that everything the game needs (from the R&D side) is there already, and folks' perception is wrong?

Or do you anticipate that there will have to be some design/development changes to alter the perception?

I need 4e rules that preserve the old school feel. (Blame Clark. I simply don't know a better way to put it.)

4e has enticements, but it also has obstacles. None of those obstacles are non-negotiable but, because you're competing against your prior editions, the enticements need to be stronger to force a switch.