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

[Scribble]

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.



RC

.

Actually Raven, forgive me... I wasn't clear. I have no idea how you are as a whole, so calling you pessimistic/suspicious as a whole was, I realize, kind of rude.

But you DO seem to me to have more of a pessimistic suspicious attitude towards corporations at least.

 

[Mallus]

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.

I'm not trying to be obtuse... (I'm trying to cut through unstated assumptions, my own included, that muck up this particular subject). Let me try this again.

Why are class-based (and strictly restricted) abilities problematic in 4e (ie Inspiring Word) and not in 1e (ie casting a 1st level spell)?

If you're advocating D&D move toward HERO or even Runequest, cool. If you're making an essentially aesthetic argument, and not a logical one, equally cool. I'm not trying to argue taste.

 

[NoWayJose]

I'm not trying to be obtuse... (I'm trying to cut through unstated assumptions, my own included, that muck up this particular subject). Let me try this again.

Why are class-based (and strictly restricted) abilities problematic in 4e (ie Inspiring Word) and not in 1e (ie casting a 1st level spell)?

If you're advocating D&D move toward HERO or even Runequest, cool. If you're making an essentially aesthetic argument, and not a logical one, equally cool. I'm not trying to argue taste.

Let's make the basic assumptions (for example, including but not limited to, that even if I don't define a word like 'in-game' or 'versimilitude' exactly, assume the generally understood definition as has been discussed ad nauseum by RPG geeks for years) and cut through the wrong assumptions -- I am not saying that 1e trumps 4e in the case you described or even in general. I have never played HERO or Runequest, and have not advocated any specific alternative ruleset. I was contributing one possible response to the title of this thread which is "What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?". After removing all your wrong assumptions about me, please feel free to re-read my previous posts

 

[Umbran]

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

That's fair.

It looks like you're saying, in essence, "I want to see what I've seen before from WotC in this aspect of the game".

All I'm saying is that WotC is doing the same things they've done before - the process simply takes time. You should expect similar results... eventually.

Which really brings me to a thought I'd not had before in this particular form (and I thank you for the inspiration), that I want to go mull on, about how games have a pattern of growth to maturity, and how we gamers often neglect that....

 

[Stormonu]

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.

The philosophy I am describing -- that which was foundational to previous editions -- is that flavour defines setting, and the mechanics are intended to support the flavour. I.e., setting-first design.

In the case of Runecasting, I did use that in non-Norse settings. I also used several other setting-specific rules in order to craft my own setting. And I would agree that it would be useful to have compendiums of options, which a prospective GM can use to craft a setting....or to inspire his/her own house rules to craft a setting.

"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.

Frankly, not every setting needs rules for casting spells through djinn, for three moons of magic, or for Gothic horror.


RC

Another reason to make so many things Core is that many of the future books will incorporate items from other books into future supplements. 2E (and some of 3E) often got slammed by players and GMs for printing new feats, classes and whatnot, but never incorporating them into adventures, monster stat blocks or other supplements. Or perhaps worst of all, future material never accounted for their existence - which could dramatically shift the power level of the game if additional, "non-core" material were being used.

 

[renau1g]

ignore...

 

[NoWayJose]

I guess we see the warlord thing the same way?

I guess not so much. I personally dislike the warlord as is. For me, a warlord would ideally be a theme or template or whatever -- much like where someone argued on this thread (or maybe another thread) that a gladiator should not be a class but a theme, because anyone (fighter, knight, rogue, etc.) who is thrown into a pit and survives for weeks/months can be a gladiator.

The warlord doesn't make sense to me as a class, if you exclude metagame motivations of creating classes for the predefined roles (rather than vice versa) as the primary goal -- which clearly I don't personally agree with. Whenever possible, I would make some attempt to create class powers that would be based primarily on the results of professional training or unique natural abilities vs creating powers that anyone with raw talent can potentially do. I would not create powers which feel limited arbitrarily to a certain class, and I feel that the warlord fails in that regard more than most other class powers (as I attempted to illustrated in my previous post about a warlord having a nonsensical monopoly on bringing back EVERYONE from the dead ALL THE TIME)

Whereas it makes sense to me that a fighter can swing a two handed sword better than a wizard almost ALL THE TIME (except in the most extreme lopsided circumstances) and that this ability is based on real in-game logic (that he's trained to do it, and most wizards don't).

For me, a fighter class as a concept strikes the right balance between the metagame vs in-game logic, whereas the warlord -- not so much, for me. That's why I agree with a fighter class but not a warlord, and that's why all of my posts are NOT about classes or whatnot, but about "metagame-ness"

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not sure how to get a mod involved in this, but it sure seems like this conversation has gotten off the beaten track. I'd like to suggest some of the conversations going here should be forked off to their own threads so the original question - "What would WotC need to do to win you back" can be addressed. I'm not saying the other conversations going on here don't have merit, but I personally feel they shouldn't be continuing in this thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually Raven, forgive me... I wasn't clear. I have no idea how you are as a whole, so calling you pessimistic/suspicious as a whole was, I realize, kind of rude.

Not at all. You made a judgement based on observation, which is limited in this context. That's hardly rude. It would also be difficult (as well as counter-productive) to avoid doing so.

But you DO seem to me to have more of a pessimistic suspicious attitude towards corporations at least.

I wouldn't say either "pessimistic" or "suspicious" per se.

I assume that corps are out to make money, to increase the bottom line. I am well aware that corps who place ethics before the bottom line can face legal action from their shareholders. I therefore assume that, whatever it is we are presented with, it has to do with the bottom line. And then I try to figure out how.

I make a judgement based on observation, which is limited in this context. It would be difficult (as well as counter-productive) to avoid doing so.

My guesses are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and often a little of each, because my information is limited, and because people do not all think alike, so that my guesses as to how something ties into that bottom line are just that.....guesses.

However, I do know that the bottom line doesn't always produce the best product, and as a consumer it is the product, not the bottom line, that interests me. It is therefore in my interests to attempt to use the bottom line (corp goal) to adjust the product (my goal) to the best of my (extremely) limited ability.

That I think this is even possible speaks to my unreasonably boundless optimism!

Another reason to make so many things Core is that many of the future books will incorporate items from other books into future supplements. 2E (and some of 3E) often got slammed by players and GMs for printing new feats, classes and whatnot, but never incorporating them into adventures, monster stat blocks or other supplements. Or perhaps worst of all, future material never accounted for their existence - which could dramatically shift the power level of the game if additional, "non-core" material were being used.

Good point.

I suppose the needs of people who can design/adjust on their own are very different than the needs of people who want everything (rules + setting + adventures) pre-packaged (or mostly so).


RC

.

 

[NoWayJose]

I guess not so much. I personally dislike the warlord as is. For me, a warlord would ideally be a theme or template or whatever -- much like where someone argued on this thread (or maybe another thread) that a gladiator should not be a class but a theme, because anyone (fighter, knight, rogue, etc.) who is thrown into a pit and survives for weeks/months can be a gladiator.

The warlord doesn't make sense to me as a class, if you exclude metagame motivations of creating classes for the predefined roles (rather than vice versa) as the primary goal -- which clearly I don't personally agree with. Whenever possible, I would make some attempt to create class powers that would be based primarily on the results of professional training or unique natural abilities vs creating powers that anyone with raw talent can potentially do. I would not create powers which feel limited arbitrarily to a certain class, and I feel that the warlord fails in that regard more than most other class powers (as I attempted to illustrated in my previous post about a warlord having a nonsensical monopoly on bringing back EVERYONE from the dead ALL THE TIME)

Whereas it makes sense to me that a fighter can swing a two handed sword better than a wizard almost ALL THE TIME (except in the most extreme lopsided circumstances) and that this ability is based on real in-game logic (that he's trained to do it, and most wizards don't).

For me, a fighter class as a concept strikes the right balance between the metagame vs in-game logic, whereas the warlord -- not so much, for me. That's why I agree with a fighter class but not a warlord, and that's why all of my posts are NOT about classes or whatnot, but about "metagame-ness"

...also, to follow up on a discussion with Scribble, I don't meant to appear fixated on one warlord power. I would like WoTC to reduce metagame-ness in general in order to win back people like me.

For example, with the Essential Wizards preview, the crunch to fluff simulation for Beguiling Strands is horrible and lazy thinking IMO. I don't get why a bunch of lights push you back *all the time* (whereas Arc Lightning *never* pushes or stuns or makes you prone). If you look at it exclusively from an in-game, fantasy logic, versimilitude point of view, then why doesn't Beguiling Strands sometimes stun you with confusing colors, or temporarily blind you with bright lights, or sometimes shift you in any direction as you try to evade it? What does 'Beguilling' have to do with colored lights anyway? Why isn't it called 'Beguiling Hypnotic Suggestion: Go away' or 'Force push' or just 'Magic Push' and let the player decide the spell's manifestation based on a theme chosen for the PC? I just don't understand why 4E doesn't seem to care about these kinds of questions.

Disclaimer: Whatever you are assuming about me right now (that I want to increase the quantity and/or complexity of 4E rules, that I prefer 1e or 2e or 3e over 4e, that I advocate a move to [insert RPG here], that I want a gritty realistic game instead of a fun game, etc) Please dispel all of those notions. Please only understand is that I just want WoTC to pay more attention to how the fluff fits the crunch (or vice versa or whatever direction), including but not limited to some attention to consistency and fantasy logic (despite the oxymoron, I hope you know what I mean) and this can be done in greater measure without sacrificing fun, you know, just so that it balances a bit more away from "metagame-ness", because for me, a certain level of versimilitude (nothing I have predefined, just something more than what currently exists in 4E) = more immersion = fun too. This is my personal opinion and my response to the question in the title of this thread, and therefore is valid to this thread.