Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Zustiur]

The recruiting of new players is the biggest issue of course, and not one that really seems to be going all that well for the industry as a whole.

The market is limited. There are only so many nerds.

Is there value in looking at what worked previously? Should we have (A)D&D which is all in books, and various starter sets to get new players in? Once the new players have enjoyed their red box, they may buy the full sized books.

In a lot of ways I think all WotC needs to do is slow down. Create an edition, get the core stuff out. Sit on it for a while. Produce new books at a more relaxed pace. I'm not aware of a rule that says they have to make all the profit from an edition within the first year.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is there value in looking at what worked previously? Should we have (A)D&D which is all in books, and various starter sets to get new players in? Once the new players have enjoyed their red box, they may buy the full sized books.

There always is, but, not, in this case, so much as there might seem on the surface. D&D in the 80s was a fad, every kid had heard of it, it was swept up in the satanist hysteria of the day which made it that much more intriguing. Those days are gone, but D&D remains the most recognizable RPG and the obvious point of entry for those who might be interested in the hobby. The question isn't attracting new players, little can be done on that front, but retaining them rather than driving them away from the hobby or on to other games. When the game gets bloated, complex, broken, and dominated by system mastery concerns, it becomes a less pleasant first experience and confronts new players with an intimidating learning curve. 4e, and particularly the Encounters program, did a good job of keeping system mastery in check and providing a good initial experience and easier learning curve.


It'd've been better had the pace of publication been slower....

In a lot of ways I think all WotC needs to do is slow down. Create an edition, get the core stuff out. Sit on it for a while. Produce new books at a more relaxed pace.

I agree that that would almost certainly make for a better, less complex/bloated product that is more welcoming to new players. But, sadly...

I'm not aware of a rule that says they have to make all the profit from an edition within the first year.

First quarter. You live and die by quarterly results. A slow place isn't an option for a unit of a publicly-traded corporation.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree that that would almost certainly make for a better, less complex/bloated product that is more welcoming to new players. But, sadly...

This is the real problem with Hasbro ownership. The universe of "great roleplaying games" that it is reasonably possible to do, is probably fairly large. There is a much smaller set of such possibilities that happen to need product on a rapid, regular schedule, year after year.

 

[pemerton]

In addition to the need for product churn, there is also the problem that WotC have proven themselves very bad at producing rulebooks. The 4e rulebooks have had 3 goes at explaining skill challenges - a key element of action resolution - and still haven't got it right (not in DMG/PHB, not in DMG2, not in RC). And that despite the fact that there are plenty of good rules texts out there, with similar mechanics, from which they could borrow/steal.

And then there is Essentials - a bloated product, with far too much text for each class, power and feat, not to mention needless duplication between the Heroes of the FL/FK books, the DM book and the RC. As a so-called "on-ramp" it's extremely non-user-friendly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In addition to the need for product churn, there is also the problem that WotC have proven themselves very bad at producing rulebooks.

Well, I suppose CCGs could still be their 'core competency.'

The 4e rulebooks have had 3 goes at explaining skill challenges - a key element of action resolution - and still haven't got it right (not in DMG/PHB, not in DMG2, not in RC).

It was a new-to-D&D mechanic, and at least they did /try/. While I agree that the DMG version was about the worst thing I'd seen since early Storyteller (you were actually more likely to succeed the more 'complex' the challenge!), the DMG2 version was an improvement, and the RC version is both functional and reasonably well-presented. Personally, I've had a lot of success with it (the RC SC, that is).

I suppose, if circumstances were different, 5e could be further improving upon Skill Challenges, perhaps even making them a solid basis for the two no-combat pillars.

And then there is Essentials - a bloated product, with far too much text for each class, power and feat, not to mention needless duplication between the Heroes of the FL/FK books, the DM book and the RC. As a so-called "on-ramp" it's extremely non-user-friendly.

Yeah, can't say much good about Essentials: Like MM3, the MV was an improvement. The RC was a handy consolidation of errata to basic mechanics. The post-Essentials material did get better with Heroes of the Feywild. That's about it, really. ;(

 

[pemerton]

It was a new-to-D&D mechanic, and at least they did /try/.

It's because I like skill-challenge style mechanics that I'm so disappointed with the way WotC handled the presentation of them. When I compare it to the quality of rules text in games like HeroWars (2000?), Maelstrom Storytelling (1997?) and Burning Wheel revised (2005), not to mention the many essays and threads on this sort of mechanic at The Forge, I think the rulebooks were inexcusably lacking - they said the right sort of stuff, but at a level of abstraction that I think no one who didn't already know what s/he was looking for could interpret, and without practical advice on how to narrate consequences of successful or failed checks.

The best proof of this is that it is so common to hear objections along the lines of "But what if the PCs do something that logically should bring the challenge to an end before achieving the requisite number of successes?" If the mechanics and techniques were properly explained, this question wouldn't arise (just as no one asks "But what if a PC does something that logically should kill an NPC even though the NPC hasn't been dropped to zero hp?").

Yeah, can't say much good about Essentials(

As you say, the MV is very good. And I'm not as sceptical as you about the character class mechanics either. But I think the packaging and presentation is just terrible, with needless and over-the-top text bloat and dupiclation. It's like someone said "We need more fluff text!!" and so the fog machine was turned on and allowed to write whatever it felt like onto the pages of the books.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's because I like skill-challenge style mechanics that I'm so disappointed with the way WotC handled the presentation of them. When I compare it to the quality of rules text in games like HeroWars (2000?), Maelstrom Storytelling (1997?) and Burning Wheel revised (2005), not to mention the many essays and threads on this sort of mechanic at The Forge, I think the rulebooks were inexcusably lacking

Oddly, none of those are familiar. Must be why I don't see the problem - SCs seemed new to me.

But I think the packaging and presentation is just terrible, with needless and over-the-top text bloat and dupiclation. It's like someone said "We need more fluff text!!" and so the fog machine was turned on and allowed to write whatever it felt like onto the pages of the books.

There were a lot of "4e doesn't have enough fluff" complaints flying around prior to Essentials, so that makes sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it's good and important to point out you want in a game. It's even more important to reflect, and actually know what you want. I'm glad you've done that.

I would point out, however, that we're working on the first real attempt at the game right now. With that in mind, saying "there seems to be precisely one ability made explicitely to assist your allies" is premature, in my opinion. The "Clear Design and Purpose" section is going to remain murky for a while, and even then, since the edition is meant to support multiple play styles, I doubt it'll be as straightforward as 4e.

Knowing what you want is good, as is voicing it. Keep it up, they want the feedback (like facing and called shots not being what you want out of a tactical mod). However, keep in mind how early it is. It's still in the first playtest. That means it's a great time to give your feedback on stuff you find profoundly lacking (like what you've listed). It means it's too early to damn the game, too. As always, play what you like

Unfortunately though it IS the straightforwardness that is the attraction Jameson. That is exactly the whole beautiful point at the core of what 4e is, that everything is laid right there on the table in full view of everyone to be seen. Without trying to be negative in any way about DDN the issue is if it can't DO that, if it has to be somehow an obfuscated mess then it doesn't please me. There are plenty of things that can be done to make a game that is BETTER in the ways that 4e is better than previous editions, but if you have to sacrifice the things that actually make it a better game at the very basic core level, then no amount of tacking on modules afterwards short of effectively rewriting the whole game, is going to make up for that.

I don't know what to tell WotC. My honest reaction to a lot of the complaints people have had is it feels like they're overly rigid and nitpicky. I'm not at all convinced that Mike's vision is at all tenable. It may indeed be too early to condemn DDN, but the OP's points are well made and it is HARD to see how a game can cater to all and provide those things in a transparent and clean package. Yet that IS what 4e offered and frankly DDN needs to offer it as well. IMHO in the long run it will serve the ends of both WotC and players better because I think over time you're going to find that a game with the rules transparency of something like 4e will stand up better to being hacked on and it will simply be far easier to mold it in different directions. Plus it will inherently be more acceptable to a whole group of customers who may not be able to carry the brand on their own, but have certainly proven to be loyal active customers that want more WotC product if they can deliver stuff like HotFW and etc consistently.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have heard this said a lot and just do not believe it. Could it possibly be they are downplaying their innovations from 4E so as not to offend the large anti-4E customers they are trying to get back?

I think trying to downplay 4E is a lot more likely than saying 2 The designers do not know 4E"

Sure, but at the same time I find that my visceral reaction to this is "cut the ****". Maybe that's harsh, but there it is... If they're going to build on 4e concepts then they can darn well have the nuts to just call them what they are. lol. If all D&D is at this point is a precious snowflake of strict tradition in which nothing new has any room to exist then just stop wasting our time and sell reprints of 2e or Basic or something and be done with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's because I like skill-challenge style mechanics that I'm so disappointed with the way WotC handled the presentation of them. When I compare it to the quality of rules text in games like HeroWars (2000?), Maelstrom Storytelling (1997?) and Burning Wheel revised (2005), not to mention the many essays and threads on this sort of mechanic at The Forge, I think the rulebooks were inexcusably lacking - they said the right sort of stuff, but at a level of abstraction that I think no one who didn't already know what s/he was looking for could interpret, and without practical advice on how to narrate consequences of successful or failed checks.

Not to actually want to pick any kind of fight or anything at all, but out of pure curiousity... I hear this a lot, yet year after year I wait for someone to actually present one of these brilliant alternatives in a form that would be usable in 4e and I'm still waiting! I found the Forge discussions to be far too thick with theoretical mumbo-jumbo and short on practical translation to concrete practice to be really illuminating to me. While I've had some limited exposure to various BW incarnations I find it hard to think in terms of translating that to D&D in a way that doesn't undermine some of what I consider core principles that the game has consistently stuck with, namely avoiding any serious attempt to codify PC personality, goals, and behavior (unless you count alignment, which IMHO never worked well and in any case does little for you in practical story telling terms).

The best proof of this is that it is so common to hear objections along the lines of "But what if the PCs do something that logically should bring the challenge to an end before achieving the requisite number of successes?" If the mechanics and techniques were properly explained, this question wouldn't arise (just as no one asks "But what if a PC does something that logically should kill an NPC even though the NPC hasn't been dropped to zero hp?").

Again though, what are the actual alternatives? The problem I see is that you have combat, which is a pretty narrowly defined activity in general (though you can pull in things like loyalty, morale, etc). Then you have this whole 'other universe', which IMHO is so vast in scope that any suggestions I've seen for overarching mechanical abstractions that would fill the role of hit points etc seem hopelessly abstract or awkwardly shoehorned in. IMHO what the SC mechanics were intended to do was walk a sort of fine line where instead of trying to codify some sort of abstractions they tried to create a framework that would both not interfere with the simple logical cause/effect flow of action and reaction to a given situation, but still give you some definable quantitative measure to use as a framework. I am not suggesting it succeeded brilliantly, but again I'd love to see someone propose something that sits in that space and does it in a measurably better way. Obsidian was the closest thing I've seen and that isn't even clearly an advance over what is in RC now (though it did fix some problems with the original SC rules in DMG).

As you say, the MV is very good. And I'm not as sceptical as you about the character class mechanics either. But I think the packaging and presentation is just terrible, with needless and over-the-top text bloat and dupiclation. It's like someone said "We need more fluff text!!" and so the fog machine was turned on and allowed to write whatever it felt like onto the pages of the books.

Yeah, the Essentials presentation was mud. I hated both the way it was organized and the vastly bloated word count. I found that odd too because if they were really trying to get at the feel of older material the big thing they missed was just how SPARE the writing in say 1e was. I mean it had numerous sections of safely ignorable text, but when you go to your 1e PHB and read the section on 'Fighter' it is right down to nuts and bolts and very sparely written and formatted. There's no nonsense there. Even the PHB1 4e class writeups are fairly dense and to the point. The Essentials ones go on and on about stuff that most players simply don't care about but have to wade through to get to the good stuff (and the page flipping was horrible). A 'fog machine' indeed!