[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[mattcolville]

I think it's on purpose that 4E has the mentality that it does. From my understanding and from reading articles on how the game was designed, D&D 4E does exactly what it is designed to do, and it does it fairly well.

You make my point for me, sir. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?

 

[Argyle King]

You make my point for me, sir. Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?

I think your point ties into mine from earlier. I think it would do the hobby some good for people to be more aware that other games are out there.

In your case; if you were just starting, you might hit D&D, blow through it, and feel as though you enjoyed it, but wanted something else. But what else is there? Unknown to many among the masses, there is indeed plenty out there. Some of the games out there handle things in a manner much different from D&D. Without knowing that, you might leave the hobby. Worse, you might drudge through it spending years playing something which doesn't satisfy you the way you want satisfied.

My point? D&D (from what I can tell) does what it is supposed to, and does it very well. Other games have things that they do well. As games of imagination, any of these systems *can* be modded to do other things, but -generally speaking- you tend to have a better experience if you use a game which highlights aspects of gaming which are more in line with what appeals to you.

 

[Cyronax]

I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.

I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.

What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. That's the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have ambition regardless of what that ambition is.

D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it. Never raises the question, and I think I know why. But I disagree with WotC's reasoning. I think D&D4 is fun, more fun than any other edition of the game.

But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.

Welll, there is a small amount of long-term planning that a DM could inject into a game with 'long skill challenges.' The DMG2, and other places, discuss the possibilities for making each character's turn or the round during a skill challenge represent days or months of game time.

This could simulate ruling a kingdom, ala Dominion-rules or Birthright.

Not an exact fix, but hey.

 

[Dice4Hire]

In a lot of ways, I am glad 4E has left behind many rules for non-combat stuff. If you can get the divide going, then the players can more freeform the fluff side of the game.

Maybe someone knows a game that does non-combat well, but I do not. In 3.x, few people wanted to spend precious skill point or feats on non-combat uses, unless it was a very few points. It was jsut too much of a cost.

I find with 4E that a few quick questions at background or character generation stage can give the DM a good grasp of who a character is and what they are good at, without rules getting in the way.

BTW, BLB can do a lot to simulate non-combat skills

I really do ntot think 4E not having non-combat is all that bad.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I like this post. I really did feel like WotC threw me out the door when they changed D&D. I was a "D&D for life" player. I've been buying D&D books since Basic. And as I grew older and earned more income, I spent more money on D&D books. I bought boxed sets for 2nd edition, all the books, and enjoyed the heck out of that game. I did the same for 3rd edition. I'm not one of their highest spending customers, but I definitely spent over a $1000 on books for 3rd edition over the life of the game.

Now they lost me with 4E and all the money I would have spent. I bought the main rule book and nothing else. My entire gaming group has spent quite a bit of money on D&D over the years. We bought some 4E books and only one player liked it. Now my entire group is giving their money to Pathfinder. An entire group that followed every version of D&D since the red Basic Set that would have spend at least a few thousand dollars in our disposable income on D&D product are sending that money elsewhere.

I doubt we're alone as a group.

4E splintered D&D like it has never been done before near as I can tell. And though the splinter that broke off of the D&D tree may not be large, I would bet money it was felt by WotC. When a gaming group that followed every edition of D&D and spent thousands of dollars decides to take their money elsewhere, that's quite a bit of lost revenue on a per customer basis.

I doubt they'll be able to win me back given the base game system doesn't appeal to me. And Pathfinder seems heads and tails above anything I've seen from WotC for a long, long time. The Kingmaker adventure path is one of the best adventures I've seen produced by a company ever. Right up there for me with such classics as Against the Giants, Slave Lords, and Temple of Elemental Evil. It's classic game design at its best.

Great story. Great execution of story in adventure form. Great rule system.

I haven't been a dedicated DM for years. I dedicated myself to running Kingmaker. Love the Pathfinder rule system and the adventures.

You can feel a real passion for the game from the designers at Paizo. A real love of story telling and fantasy. A real desire to make the rules fit the archetype rather than the archetype fit the rules.

That's going to be hard for WotC to beat even with all the money they have.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.

The "next" is the same thing it's always been:

Whatever the DM has planned - or is ready to improvise up - next. 4e didn't change this.

I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.

Yet another book nobody bought. I'm seeing some similarities here.

What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. That's the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have ambition regardless of what that ambition is.

This exists outside of mechanics, however. It's a part of every game naturally by right of purely existing.

D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it. Never raises the question, and I think I know why. But I disagree with WotC's reasoning. I think D&D4 is fun, more fun than any other edition of the game.

But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.

I don't get your logic.

The "temporal world" is not a mechanical construct. It's a narrative one. It exists not inside mechanics, but purely outside it. Literally, the purpose of the "temporal world" is "what happens in the setting outside of the pure mechanics."

You can feel a real passion for the game from the designers at Paizo. A real love of story telling and fantasy. A real desire to make the rules fit the archetype rather than the archetype fit the rules.

That's going to be hard for WotC to beat even with all the money they have.

WotC has that too.

Hate to break it to you! I know you dislike WotC and really have a thing against 4e. But here's the magical secret - the guys that made 4e? They really like it. The guys making Essentials? They think it's an awesome game that's a perfect mix of mechanics and fluff. When TSR made second edition, it's developers saw it as a labor of love. When Gygax first wrote down the vague ideas for D&D, he did it because he thought it would be something really amazing. And when 5e comes out, the men and women that create it will think "We've done something really amazing here."

Not to break any hearts, but you go into the gaming industry because you love it. Nobody makes a tabletop game for the money.

 

[DragonLancer]

Now they lost me with 4E and all the money I would have spent. I bought the main rule book and nothing else. My entire gaming group has spent quite a bit of money on D&D over the years. We bought some 4E books and only one player liked it. Now my entire group is giving their money to Pathfinder. An entire group that followed every version of D&D since the red Basic Set that would have spend at least a few thousand dollars in our disposable income on D&D product are sending that money elsewhere.

I doubt we're alone as a group.

You certainly arn't. I'm in the same boat and I hear this a lot from many former D&D players who disliked what they saw and jumped to Pathfinder.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Whaddaya mean "next"? There is no "next".

The fact is that outside of combat, you scarcely need any rules for anything at all. So what is there to actually write?

Inspiration.

Seriously, that's what we buy when we buy the next game book, whether it's crunch or fluff or whatever. As gamers, we have a hunger for new ideas, a new spark to set off new ideas and experiences--interesting character concepts and twists for our adventures and compelling aspects of our campaign worlds.

You can get that from rules, from background fluff, and even from gaming advice. You even (or perhaps especially) get it from the artwork in the books.

Matt's point is pretty specific: We don't need more rules for combat. But more broadly, it's that additional combat rules are no longer providing inspiration, because we have enough on that topic. We need some attention paid to the other aspects of the game (particularly the aspects that set RPGs apart from MMOs and other activities competing in the same brainspace).

Maybe that attention needs to be in the form of rules--rituals, out-of-combat powers, skill challenges, whatever. Or maybe it needs a different form. The key thing is that D&D needs to continue to engage and inspire, and more combat probably isn't going to do it.

Done properly, there's always more to write when you're writing to inspire. And as long as you're inspiring, people will keep buying your stuff.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I want to go back and make a quick point about Matt's first post.

[WotC] realize that the only way D&D can stay relevant--which is to say, played by mostly young people, instead of an aging and increasingly smaller demo of old people hooked in the 70s and 80s--is to make a game [12-year-old] kids find fun.

Matt, as always, your thoughts are insightful and well stated. But in this case, you've missed one important factor which is relevant to the OP's position.

D&D is a lifestyle brand. Most people connect to it by joining the social groups that embrace it, rather than through buying a product off a shelf. When managing that sort of brand, it's business suicide for a company to ignore the thought leaders within the social groups. They may be a small subset of the market--and even a subset that doesn't spend a lot of money--but they are incredibly influential among the rest of the marketplace.

As one example, think about D&D Encounters. No matter how much fun you make a program like that, you won't have a single 12-year-old playing if you don't also have a small cadre of invested 20-something (or 40-something) players to GM the games and pull people in with their enthusiasm. That's an overt example, but there are dozens of more subtle examples.

GW can get away with pushing out the 17-year-olds because they have a physical network of stores. In effect, they rely on paid employees as the thought leaders. That's a unique formula, and WotC can't emulate it.

To the OP, it may look like WotC isn't supporting their old-timers because the focus for the past six months or so has been on Essentials, as they've tried to correct for a very old-timer bias that's existed for decades. I think the Essentials push is just about over (because I think Essentials isn't supposed to be a revolving product line; they've now made just about all the Essentials books they need and will simply keep them in print) and you'll start to see attention shift back toward the invested player.

We aren't hated; we are, in fact, loved and cherished. They just haven't been showing that love quite as directly for a few months. They'll come back to us!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This exists outside of mechanics, however. It's a part of every game naturally by right of purely existing.

The problem with this logic is that without mechanics, you have no game.

Clearly, you can do these things without mechanics. You ask the DM, and the DM, based on their whims and vagaries, says "yes" or "no." You can do that in combat, too.

But it's certainly not satisfying. It doesn't encourage use. It doesn't enable play. It depends wildly on a particular DM's quality, ability, and comfort level.

And, let's put it this way: No one ever wanted to be a Dragonborn Warden without the mechanics to do it. No one ever wanted a particular power before that power existed.

D&D should be a game about heroism, IMO, and partially because older editions have neglected much of these areas, 4e has a vast expansion possibility, to change the story and the world with actual mechanics. Various mechanics already tie into this to a small degree: Epic Destinies and Paragon Paths and Campaign Arcs. Skill Challenges try, but Skill Challenges have a plethora of problems that make them kind of inadequate.

Plenty of people -- and I am certainly among them -- seek more and better game rules for this part of the game.

That's not a ludicrous request, I think.

Back to the main topic...

To the OP, it may look like WotC isn't supporting their old-timers because the focus for the past six months or so has been on Essentials, as they've tried to correct for a very old-timer bias that's existed for decades.

This concept mystifies me. Essentials is Old School targeted. Magic Missiles that never miss! Fighters and Rogues using enhanced basic attacks! Noncombat utility powers! It's quick and simple! BOXED SETS! These are all pretty great grist for the old-timer playbook. It's part of the reasons I think Essentials is awesome.

I don't think WotC has fired the old-timers at all. I mean, maybe they did a little when 4e first launched (Here's a word that now means something completely different! Here's a brand new mythology that we're all using now! Here's a portmanau or a billion!), but that probably wasn't their intent.

I do think WotC probably didn't prepare adequately for all the ramifications of their actions. I do think higher-up management screwed the pooch pretty royally in the first few years of the edition, when choosing the direction of the game, and their echo effects continue to to be felt. I do think that WotC didn't anticipate that a second Great Depression would happen and thus cut into peoples' gaming budgets so deeply. I do think they're scrambling to squeeze some blood out of this rock, in panic mode, and not at all sure what's going to happen in 6 months about anything.

It's a complex amalgam of effects. It's not as simple as "Screw those crybaby Grognards."

It does seem like they're a little bipolar paranoid schizophrenic though. MANIC EPISODES like Essentials, depressed episodes like this Winter Lull, paranoid like with the DDI anti-piracy insanity, and schizophrenic because they keep hallucinating products that don't really exist. Which, admittedly, doesn't encourage me to trust them.