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

[Kaiyanwang]

But going back to the OP, WoTC would win back some of the disenfranchised if more conscious effort was made to reduce or at least smooth over the "metagame-ness".

I share this sentiment.

 

[Mallus]

He can.

See rules on Dual Classing if he is Human.

Oh you...

The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's smart, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!

(fortunately, it's still a fun game).

 

[Scribble]

I think, at some point, it is better to have an actual Core, and a series of additions that can be added to the Core. If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game. As the game evolves, the amount of Core material becomes staggering, and people who don't have the time to read thousands of pages of material are going to find something else to play.

I think that goes back to add something only if you NEED to.

It's kind of the nature of the beast with RPGs it seems... People like having rules for stuff, so more and more get added.

"Everything is Core" seems, to me, to exist only to ensure that most players will either get a DDI subscription, or will buy (almost) everything. Options are things you don't necessarily need to buy. This might be a good business decision (if players buy into it, it is a good business decision), but it is a poor game design decision IMHO.

Eh... I guess I have less of a pessimistic suspicious view of it.

For my own part, it makes me really happy... I don't have to buy all the FR Realms books for instance because I like a certain mechanic.

I can get the mechanics and use the settings as a place to park them.

I like that.

Shrug.

 

[NoWayJose]

To me it sounds like your issue really isn't with the warlord, but with class based games in general.

As others have asked, why can't a fighter cast a spell?

Well, not really. I don't mind classes per se. A figher can't cast a spell, in-game, for the same reason that most plumbers don't do rocket science.

I guess we disagree on this... I find it to be a great framework.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't resent or dispute your love for 4E's framework. But that's not what the OP is about...

You were pointing out a random corner case to argue against a mechanic as a whole. It only seems to be arbitrary when you base the whole thing on that corner case. (Or so it feels from your posts...)

I just jumped into this thread rolling with the example that someone else brought up. I can bring up more examples to illustrate my point. Should I? I already one that's half baked in my word processor.

 

[Mallus]

But that's not what the OP is about...

Hasn't the thread moved on to RPG design, with an interesting late diversion into branding?

 

[Umbran]

I'm not really advocating one thing comes first here though.

I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.

I might modify that slightly to: rules shouldn't be added to the game merely to make the setting feel unique.

If you have a setting, and it doesn't need rules to back its uniqueness (say, the uniqueness is in your socio-political structures, cultures, and history), then don't add rules just for the purpose of making it feel like it has different rules.

Go ahead, and choose your flavor/setting first. If that doesn't need rules changes, then don't make rules changes! If it requires whole boatloads of rules changes, consider using another system entirely that doesn't need so many changes to support your flavor.

It seems to me that this is the philosophy that WotC is currently following - it isn't that they don't support setting uniqueness with rules changes, so much as the current 4e settings don't call for rules changes. Now, you're perfectly welcome to critique their settings based on the idea that you find their flavor bland....

 

[NoWayJose]

Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single 1st level spell?

Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single Perl\CGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.

No reason. They surely can. But the last time I checked, the real world didn't operate under D&D rules (any edition). I though we we're talking about imagery worlds, constructed wholly or in part, using various D&D rule sets.

Oh c'mon, don't pretend to be so obtuse -- you know exactly what I meant, and if you didn't, I don't have the time to spell it out. I don't meant to be rude, I just don't have the patience for this. Sorry, it's not you, it's me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Eh... I guess I have less of a pessimistic suspicious view of it.

Probably......Although I would generally classify myself as optomistic. My partner claims that I am very optomistic. Perhaps she is wrong?

In any event:

* Better modules.
* Less meta-gamey.
* Flavour determines mechanics, rather than mechanics-first.
* Core + Options.

That's what I'd like in 5e.

EDIT: Oh, and faster, less minicentric combat. That's a big one, for me!



RC

.

 

[Scribble]

Well, not really. I don't mind classes per se. A figher can't cast a spell, in-game, for the same reason that most plumbers don't do rocket science.

I guess we see the warlord thing the same way?

Please don't get me wrong, I don't resent or dispute your love for 4E's framework. But that's not what the OP is about...

True, I was probably veering too far off topic on that case- I get excited talking about stuff I like.

Wasn't intending to present my excitement as trying to invalidate your own opinions either though.

I just jumped into this thread rolling with the example that someone else brought up. I can bring up more examples to illustrate my point. Should I? I already one that's half baked in my word processor.

If you want... I was just responding to the one you were talking about.

 

[Imaro]

The number of settings tends to increase as the edition gets older. In general, you don't come out of the gate with a dozen of the things - they build up over time.

When it was two years old (1980) 1e had just Greyhawk in print, iirc. At the analogous time in its history (1991) I think 2e had Greyhawk, FR, and Dragonlance (all carried over from the previous editions, none of which call for notable mechanical changes outside of classes and races), and Dark Sun had just come out. Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al Qadim - all were later in 2e's history.

And now, two years out, 4e has? A couple of settings close to the core rule set that were carried over from the previous edition... and now Dark Sun? Interesting, and I expect the analogy may well be intentional on their part.

There seems to me to be a whole lot of sense to allowing a game to run along with its core rules for a while before offering up lots of variations.



Okay. Is this more about how WotC doesn't produce mechanical changes to back up setting flavor, or is it just that the settings they've produced so far are bland in flavor?



You were clear about era (2e and 3e). You were not clear about the characteristics - you didn't mention any specific ones at all! So I chose some characteristics to start with, as they'd gotten mentioned elsewhere in the thread, and seemed relevant.

You know what Umbran, you can defend the way WotC has proceeded with alternate rules for settings and I can keep telling you how dissapointed I am in the approach they took but really this discussion has gotten a little pointless...

Let me tie it back into the OP... after coming from the land of milk and honey in alternate mechanics for settings in 2e and 3e (especially with the OGL), providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again