What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Joshua Randall]

What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

Become a quint and crap Dark Matter.

Somewhat obscure Mass Effect 2 joke, but it seemed appropriate.

 

[Kobold Boots]

4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?

IMO, anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.

Certainly a fine opinion, but could you give me an example of what exactly you're referring to that strains reality in a fantasy setting?

Next, how do you propose that game designers develop generic mechanics and powers to fit your specific story?

Honest questions, I'm not intending to be a troll.

Best,
KB

 

[Saint&Sinner]

Mutants & Masterminds never was d20-licensed. That decision was made before the first edition ever saw print.

What do you mean about the OGL dissolving, and what do you mean about it running its course, if you like DCA and Pathfinder?

And FATE, and ICONS, and probably others.

 

[Wicht]

It is incredibly depressing to me to walk into a bookstore, look at the RPG section and have no compulsion to make an "impulse" DnD buy. Paizo gets most of my money but they aren't yet as well represented in the bookstores, or at least, when I see their stuff I already have it. I would dearly love WotC to try and win me back as a customer but I'm afraid its not going to happen with 4e or the current management. Nothing they produce sparks my interest. To win me back as a customer they would have to produce material I want again, but, as others have stated, their current approach to the game just leaves me cold.

Still, after thinking about it and reading the whole thread, here is what I think they could do to get my money again:

1) Return to the OGL. This is the big one for me. I've heard all the naysayers about the death of the OGL and how its a lousy business model and yet Paizo is well positioned at the moment exactly because they have whole-heartedly embraced the OGL and foster a creative community that exceeds the borders of their lone company. I am still waiting for a number of people, who, a couple of years back, were patiently explaining why Paizo was making a dumb move and destined to get smaller and smaller, to admit they were wrong.

2) Return to the creative roots of the game. Renaming high elves, Eladrin and stressing dragonborn, and downplaying alignment and getting rid of Vancian magic, and nerfing magic missiles and changing the meaning of dragon colors and altering a host of other stuff, (and doing it all at the same time) was a bridge too far for me. Incremental changes or changes in a specific campaign world are fine but making so many changes as to completely alter the fabric of the game world, requiring nixing old worlds (or blowing them up) is not, in my opinion, a move that fosters continuing brand loyalty (cf. New Coke).

3) After creating a game world I like, and a rules set that is not off putting, I would dearly love to by really good, solid modules from WotC that support their game and which I enjoy reading. Even before 4e, WotC had more or less lost me as a customer because their modules were not fun to read. Paizo had the good sense to realize early on that many DMs never run a module after buying it but will buy them anyway if they are intriguing enough. WotC needs to ditch the Delve format and return to a better module style.

4) Barring all that, rerelease their old 3e books under the OGL and sell them as PDFs and I will buy them. Currently, as someone breaking into the OGL freelance market, I realize I have absolutely no use for books that are not OGL, but I will, even now, when I can, buy old OGL 3e and 3.5e books to mine for OGL material I can reuse in new ways.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e is unabashedly gamist first

D&D has always been gamist. 2e is probably the least so, in terms of its DMing advice if not its mechanics. 3e's most gamist mechanics - CR/EL, wealth-by-level guidelines, better class balance, the ability to win the game with your build and general system mastery - were often criticised back in the day. 1e and OD&D are very gamist by intention - the game's about overcoming challenges both tactical and strategic and thus gaining treasure and going up levels. It's quite balanced over long term play, skilled players are supposed to prosper and poor players will lose their characters, once their luck runs out.

D&D's mechanics have always strained verisimilitude. Hit points, classes, levels. A 90 year old with str, dex and con of 3 has the same movement rate as a 25 year old with all 18s. Etc.

I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels. But that kind of thing has always gone on, and to a pretty major extent. More powerful monsters are always on lower dungeon levels??! C'mon, why can't there be a dragon on level 1?

 

[Saint&Sinner]

If WotC were smart, the next iteration of D&D would be modular enough to allow for rules-lite D&D. The core books would present classic races, monsters and classes, and the fundamental rules needed to run the game, as was the case with 3.X.

The fundamental rules could easily be pared down from what they were in 3.X, with sidebars for adding complexity.

Later volumes could add funky class and race options, as well as more complicated rules for expert players.

This would get my attention. I haven't run D&D since the Blue Box but I would like to. I just can't stomach the level of complexity and rules mastery needed to jump into a game.

 

[Imaro]

Certainly a fine opinion, but could you give me an example of what exactly you're referring to that strains reality in a fantasy setting?

Next, how do you propose that game designers develop generic mechanics and powers to fit your specific story?

Honest questions, I'm not intending to be a troll.

Best,
KB

First... I didn't say "reality" and I did this on purpose. See I've seen this discussion get mired down in the "There is no reality in a fantasy world... because it's not real" argument before and I want to avoid that particular tactic of discrediting this complaint against 4e. So again versimilitude is the word I am using. The illusion of realism in the game world through believable actions and consequences within the accepted norm of said world... barring magical intervention of course.

Now, for my example...I'll trot out the ever popular... Come and Get It. This power, by RAW, forces a DM's characters to act a certain way... regardless of everything else that is going on, regardless of what makes the most sense for this character... regardless of the story. Then says... hey you figure out why your iron-willed and genius level tactician Big Bad has decicded to, against all common sense, rush up to the Fighter and leave his tactically advantageous position to get whacked... Why, again is this happening... why is my NPC acting totally against his nature, that I've built up in my game world and in the narrative session after session? Because it's a mechanic that doesn't consider narrative first.

My solution for this particular power (which is just one example of a larger issue)... would be for the designers to keep stuff like this similar to the Fighter's mark... there are consequences if ignored... but it doesn't force a character in the story to do something that may make no sense for that character to do (unless it's compulsatory magic). See this is where a mechanic is trumping story and you are left to decide how and why this happened in the terms of the narrative... even if it really shouldn't be happening.

I think Come and Get It is further complicated by the fact that it is an encounter power and has to give more bang for your buck than a fighter's mark... but again that's a mechanical concern that took precedence over narrative concerns.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I am still waiting for a number of people, who, a couple of years back, were patiently explaining why Paizo was making a dumb move and destined to get smaller and smaller, to admit they were wrong.

This will never happen. Especially here.

Besides success is it's own reward.

 

[Imaro]

D&D has always been gamist. 2e is probably the least so, in terms of its DMing advice if not its mechanics. 3e's most gamist mechanics - CR/EL, wealth-by-level guidelines, better class balance, the ability to win the game with your build and general system mastery - were often criticised back in the day. 1e and OD&D are very gamist by intention - the game's about overcoming challenges both tactical and strategic and thus gaining treasure and going up levels. It's quite balanced over long term play, skilled players are supposed to prosper and poor players will lose their characters, once their luck runs out.

D&D's mechanics have always strained verisimilitude. Hit points, classes, levels. A 90 year old with str, dex and con of 3 has the same movement rate as a 25 year old with all 18s. Etc.

I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels. But that kind of thing has always gone on, and to a pretty major extent. More powerful monsters are always on lower dungeon levels??! C'mon, why can't there be a dragon on level 1?

Emphasis mine. If you admit this... what was the point of everything before?

I mean we can continue down this road until D&D's versimilitude (which really has nothing to do with hit points, classes, or levels unless they are brought up in game as if the characters were aware of these things.) becomes a game that represents TOON like sensibilities... It's like saying... "Well if you ate one rotten egg you might as well eat a dozen... since anyway you look at it, you're eating rotten eggs. Just not how I think, sorry.

 

[coyote6]

what would they need to do to bring you back into the fold?

If WotC came to Salinas and stood outside my house, wearing trenchcoats and holding boom boxes over their heads, while they play Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes", I would immediately go buy stuff from them.

After the video was uploaded to YouTube, that is.

Sure, they could do other things - PDFs or other DRM-free eBook formats, pay David Pulver & Sean Punch an enormous amount of money to make a version of GURPS perfect for me, give away coupons (see earlier post), etc -- and those would probably work, but the "In Your Eyes" thing would be most amusing.

Except maybe to my neighbors.