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

[Imaro]

It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."

Yeah, but then they went... Hey, mechanically we need someone besides the Cleric who can heal... uh, the Warlord's a leader so... let's make him heal with the power of shouting at people or slaps to the face or whatever, the player can justify it somehow, the important thing is that he can heal so that there's a healer besides the Cleric... and messed it up for some people.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."

Really?

To me it seemed more like the process for that went "We don't want the cleric to be the only healer anymore, and we define healing as a 'leader' role ability, and 'leaders' also include general character enhancements. Also, we like playing with minis, and we're making this in-depth tactical combat system, and we need a class to show it off. Lets make our new healer a tactical buffer!"

I don't think I'm alone in that perception, and, unless you've got some evidence to the contrary, that perception could certainly mesh up with reality.

And if it does, this represents a slight shift, at least here, in how the design is driven.

You position could mesh up with reality, too, but given how a warlord screaming at you doesn't give you the power to ignore wounds, but actually heals HP, erasing the damage done, I don't find it quite as tenable, personally.

I mean, these designers are clever. If I wanted a warlord's scream to represent added endurance, I would, say, allow their "inspiring word" to increase the threshold for unconsciousness by healing surge+1d6 (or whatever). So, normally, you go unconscious at 0, but when the warlord screams at you (and maybe have a healing surge value of 10 and roll a 3), you go unconscious at -13 instead, giving you a few extra rounds to fight. And once the combat is over, and the adrenaline stops flowing, the buff wears off and you fall unconscious, showing how great of a toll the wounds still took on your body.

That's a little sloppy, but it at least actually mirrors the story justification for how the ability works. Right now, the ability doesn't.

Edit: Another possibilty would be to give temporary HP, or some sort of Resist 5 Everything, and it maybe could be keyed to the Bloodied status, because I am not sure how much more resolve I'll find in myself if I'm not feeling like I'm in much danger. Point being, there's a lot of ways to reflect that story, and the current method isn't reflective of it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You know what would be awesome? If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.


That would win me over pretty much in total. Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games. And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace. The 3.x guys have it and a publisher in Paizo. Why not the older editions?

• Are those rules really so threatening to the company to not have under copyright?
• Is this move not worth the cost to relieve such tension in the community?

It may no longer be in their philosophical game design ballpark, but older games still do have adherents. If Wizards is unwilling to publish older games for money, I think it would be a very classy move on their part.

We already have that. The actual mechanics are not under copyright. That is why we can have S&W, LL, OSRIC, and others. What we can't have is the cool unique flavor that is the essence of D&D to go along with it- Mordenkainen, Tenser, Greyhawk, you know, the good stuff.
All those trappings are tied into the brand name and belong to whoever owns D&D.

With respect, I don't think it does. To say that it speaks is actually to say that you're divining an intent of the author from the result, and that is not nearly the same as having the authors explicitly say so.

I am not at all sure it is that the RAW needs updates. I think it is that large sections of the player base wants updates. Folks have been screaming about how slow they are with errata since 3e came out. And it sure wasn't like 2e and 1e didn't need them - we just didn't expect them, because TSR had no good way to deliver them.

I agree that a large section of the player base wants updates. As a WOW player we sit around waiting for the devs to "fix" our problems while hoping that the next round of patching won't create too many more. Meanwhile another group is hoping beyond hope that the "fixes" we want to see never happen. It is all part of a gaming culture that accepts the way their game plays from outsiders.

It is a state of affairs that is fairly recent as far as tabletop play is concerned. The reliance on software and cool innovations like regular delivered updates have turned the D&D populace into starving goldfish just waiting to see what WOTC taps out of it's shaker for them each month. It is a brutal cycle of dependence and a contributing factor to why DM's who are worth a damn are in high demand and in such short supply.

As long as I'm playing 4E then my little fish lips are puckering too.
I don't really enjoy the presentation of most published adventures so I convert older material and write my own stuff. I can honestly say that I am heavily dependent on the monster builder to DM a 4E campaign. Take away the ability to quickly generate custom NPC's and monsters and I will step down from running the game. The statblocks are so ponderous that I simply wouldn't be willing to devote the prep time in generating them by hand.

Face to face gaming is all about the people. The exact ruleset doesn't have the importance that it seems to have these days. If more people would stop and think about that instead of impatiently waiting for an outside agency to fix an issue that might not even be an issue when examined with a dose of common sense the community would be better off.

 

[MerricB]

I can honestly say that I am heavily dependent on the monster builder to DM a 4E campaign. Take away the ability to quickly generate custom NPC's and monsters and I will step down from running the game. The statblocks are so ponderous that I simply wouldn't be willing to devote the prep time in generating them by hand.

I take it the same applies to 3E?

Indeed, it is the drawback of a format that wants to inject more variety into battles.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

If the contemporary RPG scene truly held the view that rpg's are games then there wouldn't be so much focus on storytelling going on.

I don't see the contrast you're trying to draw. One measure of the success of an RPG like Burning Wheel, as a game, is that playing it by the rules produces an awesome fantasy adventure story. The BW rulebooks stress this over and over. One point that Ron Edwards makes, which I tend to agree with and think is very interesting, is that games aimed at "gamist" (ie competitive play) experiences, and games aimed at "narrativist" (ie playing by the rules will produce an awesome story) experiences, are likely to resemble one another quite closely in the shape of their mechanics, and in their common departures from simulationist design. This is because both need to give the players appropriate opportunities to use the rules to drive play in a certain direction (towards winning, for gamist play, and towards thematic climaxes, for narrativist play).

Traditional rpg design does indeed have the rules of the game model the ingame world. Where you are making the huge assumption is in your assertion of some universal 'desired play experience'. In traditional rpg gameplay the rules are used and for those playing a game, the desired play experience will come from using the rules, playing, and seeing what outcome happens to be the result.

Sure, that's a fair description of a certain sort of purist-for-system play (I think Classic Traveller exemplifies this especially well). But WotC are betting that the number of people who want the RPG play experience to be "Let's model a fantasy world and see what happens" is fewer than those who want the experience to be either "Let's play fantasy tactical combats with continuity of characters and world background!" or "Let's play a game where we find out what it means to be a fantasy hero with an epic destiny awaiting him/her!".

designing mechanics to achieve that specific outcome throws out the game part of rpg.

I don't understand this at all. If the desired outcome is "gripping tactical battles", how does designing mechanics to produce gripping tactical battles throw out the game part of an RPG? Or if the desired outcome is "finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero", how does designing mechanics that create opportunities for players to make choices in the course of play, and encouragiong those choices to be structured in a way that makes them hard choices for heroes to make, throw out the game part of an RPG? In either case, it would seem that those mechanics are the game part of the RPG.

For what it's worth, I think that 4e clearly aims at the "gripping tactical battles" goal - I'm one who thinks it succeeds, but I know a lot of posters disagree (my group has not encountered the "grind" problem). I also think it can support the "fantasy hero" goal, although that is probably a secondary goal from the point of view of design. For example, epic destinies and paragon paths are tactical options first, hard thematic choices second. But the thematic choices are still there, and it doesn't take much to foreground them a bit more. Also, this is not the same as saying that it's mechanics first, flavour second - quite a bit of the thematic choices is built into the mechanics. For example, choosing a necrotic over a radiant power isn't just a tactical choice - it also has thematic consequences, for example in the relationship between the PC and undead as enemies.

 

[pemerton]

We all love D&D or we wouldn't be here

<snip>

before, there was D&D and Everything Else, and now, due to the OGL, there are many D&D's.

I love fantasy role playing. I like 4e D&D. I like Rolemaster too. And Runequest. And I don't feel this D&D/Everything Else divide.

In any event, there were always many D&Ds - do any two tables really play OD&D the same way? Or 1st ed AD&D? Not to mention that, when I got into D&D, there was the difference between AD&D and Moldvay/Cook D&D. At the time I drifted from the latter to the former in pursuit of a certain sort of simulationism which the latter didn't deliver. So even then the different versions of D&D were better or worse suited to different playstyles.

From my (untrained) perspective, the whole point of a brand is to foster an emotional connection in the customer, a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think of D&D or the Gap or whatever. So the whole point is to bring emotion into the business relationship. When the brand then changes, or ceases to support one segment of the market, those positive emotions will naturally be replaced by negative ones. I am quite sure that every brand wants to minimize those negative reactions in order to retain as many customers as possible. I don't see anything wrong with disenchantment, and I don't see anything wrong with vocal complaints by those who feel the brand has left them behind. If, in good times, the brand exists to develop this mutual relationship, then the customer has a right to express his/her opinion later on as well.

People just want to remember and share their D&D.

This right here is the bit I don't get - the "brand" thing, "their" D&D. Maybe it's because I left D&D for a long time to focus on Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG of choice. I've never felt any need or desire to play a brand or a particular company's games). I've just looked for a ruleset that does what I want it to.

I understand that marketers want to build brand loyalty. I guess I'm a little surprised by just how successful they seem to have been among RPGers.

I doubt that WotC brought in focus groups of hard-core gamers and asked them how they would react to pulling the old edition pdfs. I'd guess they were surprised at the fury that greeted them, in fact. And now they are hearing, in this thread, that people still feel strongly about it.

Personally, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't anticipate the reaction - to the extent that the reaction is driven by brand identification, I would assume their marketing team - who have fostered that identification - to be at least reasonably on top of it's extent.

The inference I would draw is that severing the links between the brand and the customers in question doesn't matter much to WotC.

Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool.

I would assume that any hobby publisher would be budgeting for customer churn much more frequently than once per decade. I assume that keeping a customer for a couple of years would be regarded as a success.

Several people have posted on this thread that they bought the core 4e books, but have bought nothing since. And they are presenting themselves as lost customers, as failures from WotC's point of view. But I would imagine that from WotC's point of view they're successes. Not the best possible successes - those would be people like me, who own 20 4e hardbacks and hope to pick up a couple more when they become available in Melbourne. But I must be a pretty unrepresentative instance of the overall WotC customer base. And I imagine the same is true of those who are really missing the older edition PDFs.

You know what would be awesome? If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.

That would win me over pretty much in total. Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games. And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace.

Those older mechanics already exist in OGL form. See OSRIC and the other retro-clones. What's missing? (And if someone really wants the Players Option point-buy rules to be OGLed, I'll ask How could anyone want that!?)

Also, this is a bit like saying, what would be really awesome would be for WotC to give away all it's property for free. While true - that would be awesome - I think it's a bit unrealistic to actually hope for.

 

[pemerton]

That is the beauty of RPGs, and of the base idea that the system serves the setting, not the other way around.

I wouldn't describe 4e (or other "contemporary" games) as ones where the setting serves the system. I would describe them as ones where the system serves the players. That is, the metagame is more overt than in a "traditional" RPG.

I can possibly see martial leaders inspiring others to push on when they are hurt, but what about when a character is dying (in game terms) and shouldn't even be able to hear the encouraging shouts of the warlord?

Ok, so you can't hear the warlord physically, maybe the spirit of the warrior has yet to enter death's door, the light is inviting and so warm, but suddenly there's a pull from somewhere else, a familiar voice cuts through the darkness and reminds the fallen hero that there's unfinished business. Somehow, this hero pulls away from the light and returns to his body, ready to continue his quest.

Even more radically - the unconscious PC is slipping further and further into the inviting light - but then remembers the Warlord PC, and how s/he stressed the importance of never giving up until the mission is completed - and then the unconscious PC's eyes flicker open.

Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the player of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done. For a lot of martial powers, I think it's often the case that the PC herself has not "used a power". Rather, the player has spent a "plot point"/"fate point" to directly change the state of the ingame world. Besides warlord healing, this is the only way to make sense of Come and Get It that I'm aware of. (It also explains why CAGI does not involve a Will attack - it's as if the player had spent an "unluck" point against the enemies who are targetted by the attack.)

This fits with the notion of the system serving the players - 4e has a lot of mechanics (like the martial powers discussed in the previous paragraph) that are implicitly metagame mechanics. I say "implicitly" because the rules text is often a bit ambiguous about this (eg it uses the second person to refer indifferently to the player and the PC).

A common remark from those who like 4e, and who want to establish its continuity with earlier versions of D&D, is to point out that (for example) hit points were always abstract and encompassed morale as well as physical endurance. This is true as far as it goes, but I think it tends to understate the contrast between 4e and earlier versions. A player's interaction with hit points is essentially passive - as actions are taken hit points are added to the pool or subtracted from them, and the player does not necessarily have to engage with the hit point mechanic beyond this. On the other hand, playing 4e requires a player to frequently engage with these mechanics like Inspiring Word, Second Wind, encounter powers and martial dailies more generally, etc etc. And to engage in an active fashion. I wouldn't expect a player who dislikes the game/metagame separation to especially like this sort of play.

When fudging was brought up first (low level), I was thinking of the fudging to keep PCs alive. Slight DM intervention to change results of the sort you need when wizards have d4 hp and weapons do d6 damage. Explicitely and secretly changing the rules as things go on. Rather than responding and playing fairly but creatively.

<snip>

And the existance of page 42 reduces the amount of fudging required - I'm not making it all up, instead I've got guidelines and a framework.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned fudging, and more broadly the contrast between "traditional" and "contemporary" RPG design.

Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.

Well, I did call WotC's strategy a bet. On the other hand, I assume a company like WotC doesn't change the fundamental orientation of its game just because a few designers (Heinsoo, Mearls, Laws) think it's an aesthetically desirable thing to do, or find Ron Edwards' arguments persuasive. I assume they did some research too.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I take it the same applies to 3E?

You would be correct.

Sure, that's a fair description of a certain sort of purist-for-system play (I think Classic Traveller exemplifies this especially well). But WotC are betting that the number of people who want the RPG play experience to be "Let's model a fantasy world and see what happens" is fewer than those who want the experience to be either "Let's play fantasy tactical combats with continuity of characters and world background!" or "Let's play a game where we find out what it means to be a fantasy hero with an epic destiny awaiting him/her!".

I would say with little doubt that your bet is a solid one.

I don't understand this at all. If the desired outcome is "gripping tactical battles", how does designing mechanics to produce gripping tactical battles throw out the game part of an RPG?

Gripping tactical battles is not an outcome. It is one means of achieving an outcome. The outcome in this case would be to win or lose that gripping tactical battle. In this case the play of the game involves the gripping tactical battles.

Or if the desired outcome is "finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero", how does designing mechanics that create opportunities for players to make choices in the course of play, and encouragiong those choices to be structured in a way that makes them hard choices for heroes to make, throw out the game part of an RPG? In either case, it would seem that those mechanics are the game part of the RPG.

If those mechanics facilitate a path toward a destination known from the start then you don't really have a game. Lets say I sit down to play and the stated goal of the game is becoming a fantasy hero. If that goal is a known fact than anything taking place in the game that would appear to invalidate that goal couldn't be taken very seriously. Obviously my character is going to become a freaking legend and go off to demigodhood so some loudmouth BBEG threatening to end my life isn't even worthy of my consideration much less fear.

If you lined up to play a game of football and knew at the kickoff that you would win by a fieldgoal in the final 10 seconds of play would being down by 2 touchdowns in the 3rd quarter really impact your choices? No matter what plays you call, the win is in the bag before the final whistle.

Hard choices come when the actual outcome of the game is riding on them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This right here is the bit I don't get - the "brand" thing, "their" D&D. Maybe it's because I left D&D for a long time to focus on Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG of choice. I've never felt any need or desire to play a brand or a particular company's games). I've just looked for a ruleset that does what I want it to.

I understand that marketers want to build brand loyalty. I guess I'm a little surprised by just how successful they seem to have been among RPGers.

Why?

People get attached to brands all the friggin' time. We are a consumer culture. We identify ourselves with our purchases.

Perhaps more key, there seems to be a period in about the teens when people form very emotional attachments to things. Be it Justin Beiber, Twilight, Fantasy novels, the Beatles, Iron Maiden, Nirvana, Farah Fawcett, or your first real romantic relationship.

For a lot of D&D players, the friendships and experiences playing the game were some of the best experiences of those rocky (especially rocky for a lot of D&D players, who are usually amongst the more nerdy kids) years.

Having that attachment to D&D is not very different from having that attachment to a particular cute boy, sexy girl, rockin' band, kickass novel, inspiring movie, or whatever other piece of culture you pick up and stick to yourself like an identity in a period of life where people seek out identity like they are starving in the desert.

This post brought to you by Developmental Psychology! Developmental Psychology: explaining why it sucks to be a teen since 1925!

 

[Umbran]

Sure did, and now that you've had your chance to be snarky I'll try to reply without adding my own.

Just to be clear, that wasn't an attempt to be snarky, just humorous. If it came across as disrespectful, my apologies. That wasn't the intent.

Oh, you mean like the rules in planescape for how magic worked differently on different planes... or Eberron 3e introducing action points... or 2e Dark Sun with rules for different weapon materials or maybe something like Ravenloft's fear, terror and madness rules... and so on.

4e has Eberron and FR, and that's it. FR never needed different rules, as it is supposed to be generic. And Eberron's specialness has been incorporated either as race/class stuff, or as core mechanics (like the action points).

There as a time when D&D had just three settings - Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and FR. Dragonlance's mechanical uniqueness was limited to races and classes. The other two pretty much used just the core rules.

So, is the problem that the rules don't change for the settings... or that there aren't half a dozen other settings for the system that require different rules?

No, it sounds more like you aren't addressing my post.

With respect, I thought I was addressing your post. You just weren't very specific about what you meant.