Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5372807" data-attributes="member: 94022">Good post.&nbsp; I agree with the basic sentiment you present.&nbsp; If WotC wants D&amp;D to be a success long-term (i.e. for decades on out), it has to bring in new customers and cannot simply rely upon the grognards.&nbsp; Certainly, the grognards should not be forgotten, but they cannot be WotC's only concern.&nbsp; From a business standpoint, it does make sense to take a look at models like WoW and try to determine what it is about those products that have made them succesful.&nbsp; Making D&amp;D at least feel somewhat familiar to the WoW veteran is not an entirely bad thing.&nbsp;I agree that many things in 4th Ed don't seem to make sense on the surface (such as recharge timers), but when you are talking about a game with magic, dragons, elves and primordials, there has to be a certain amount of faith leaping on the part of the participants.&nbsp; One nice thing about the recharge timers of daily and encounter powers is that they (in my opinion) make the game more interesting as it gives the players more options in combat.&nbsp; If everything were at-will, players would simply spam their most powerful attack (perhaps only switcing between ranged, melee, and area/burst/blast) powers.&nbsp; &nbsp;The key though, is to still make certain that the P&amp;P game maintains its own unique character.&nbsp; A straight copy of WoW will not work either as if I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW, not a P&amp;P version of it.&nbsp; I think a lot of people looked at the MMO elements of 4th Ed. and simply stopped there.&nbsp; The books (at least the early ones) don't provide a whole lot of emphasis or encouragement of roleplaying for instance and when that was added to the added complexity of 4th Ed combats, it lead many to the conclusion that 4th Ed is a rollplaying game instead of a roleplaying game.&nbsp; Ironically, earlier editions didn't do a whole lot to promote/encourage/foster roleplaying either, but their combats were sufficiently less complex that many felt as though they did when compared to 4th Ed.&nbsp; In a way, less was more.&nbsp;The big thing to take out of any edition of a P&amp;P game is that while the RAW may draw from (even heavily) video games, P&amp;P will always provide an element that video games cant -- the ability to make it up as you go (or put another way, the ability to adapt the rules to the tastes of your group).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5372807, member: 94022"] Good post. I agree with the basic sentiment you present. If WotC wants D&D to be a success long-term (i.e. for decades on out), it has to bring in new customers and cannot simply rely upon the grognards. Certainly, the grognards should not be forgotten, but they cannot be WotC's only concern. From a business standpoint, it does make sense to take a look at models like WoW and try to determine what it is about those products that have made them succesful. Making D&D at least feel somewhat familiar to the WoW veteran is not an entirely bad thing. I agree that many things in 4th Ed don't seem to make sense on the surface (such as recharge timers), but when you are talking about a game with magic, dragons, elves and primordials, there has to be a certain amount of faith leaping on the part of the participants. One nice thing about the recharge timers of daily and encounter powers is that they (in my opinion) make the game more interesting as it gives the players more options in combat. If everything were at-will, players would simply spam their most powerful attack (perhaps only switcing between ranged, melee, and area/burst/blast) powers. The key though, is to still make certain that the P&P game maintains its own unique character. A straight copy of WoW will not work either as if I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW, not a P&P version of it. I think a lot of people looked at the MMO elements of 4th Ed. and simply stopped there. The books (at least the early ones) don't provide a whole lot of emphasis or encouragement of [I]role[/I]playing for instance and when that was added to the added complexity of 4th Ed combats, it lead many to the conclusion that 4th Ed is a [I]roll[/I]playing game instead of a [I]role[/I]playing game. Ironically, earlier editions didn't do a whole lot to promote/encourage/foster roleplaying either, but their combats were sufficiently less complex that many felt as though they did when compared to 4th Ed. In a way, less was more. The big thing to take out of any edition of a P&P game is that while the RAW may draw from (even heavily) video games, P&P will always provide an element that video games cant -- the ability to make it up as you go (or put another way, the ability to adapt the rules to the tastes of your group). [/QUOTE]

Verification