D&D 4E 4E tidbits from WotC blogs (Updated:David Noonan on Social Interactions)

stripes said:
Windows does have a pretty large market share (but not 98%, I think is still in the 90's though), but it is going down.
We have no exact numbers, especially with free things like Linux and because not every PC with a pre-installed Windows will actually run Windows.

But if you look at the absolute numbers, even a mere 2% market share *means millions of people. That are a lot of people to exclude from D&D's digital future. Something I have no understanding for, seeing how powerful the tools are today to develop cross-platform software (including their very yesterday looking 3d graphics).

(According to sales statistics Mac has in Q1 2007 around 5% market share in the US and about 3% world wide, Linux probably in the same range.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

stonegod said:
Or, as before, they're still under an NDA and prefer having their job to not having it.
And that makes a difference how? They're still baiting us. They could just tell us up front, "we're not going to talk about things that haven't yet appeared on D&D insider." I never said that they were doing it because they like to. It's obvious that it's a marketing strategy handed down from management. A trickle of information over the next 9 months is much more compelling than a big chunk of it now that we might be less excited about in 9 months. But regardless of the utility of the strategy to WotC, they're still messing with us.
 

RFisher said:
Apple is on the rise again. I'm not sure what the current number is, but I won't be surprised if they top their old high (of around 15%?) in the not-too-distant future. & these days you have Linux actually claiming more & more of a decent share too.

Although, market share doesn't really mean much when you're a software developer. Installed base means more. Less competition in the Mac & Linux markets means more. The premium price that Mac users are willing to pay means more.
So, you're suggesting that they'd be smart to charge Mac users extra for access to the DI?

That you may be able to claim a larger piece of the Mac pie than you can of the Windows pie. (How many of those corporate Windows computers are Wizards going to claim?) The higher loyalty of Mac users can mean a lot.

Higher loyalty compared to what? Perhaps Mac users are loyal to Apple because they feel set upon by the Windows-dominated marketplace, but implying that Windows users are "disloyal," and that this is somehow a bad thing, and that Mac users possess some kind of general trait of loyalty that goes beyond their attachment to Apple, is kind of odd. You seem to be suggesting that if WotC adds Mac support to DI, it'll mean that the Mac users become loyal to WotC, whatever that might mean.

Your particular niche can mean a lot too. Since I've gotten back into music software, I'm amazed by how popular the Mac is in that space. (& I had pretty high expectations to begin with.) I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac's biggest niches don't line up nicely with the types who would prefer TRPGs. Likewise with Linux on the more technical than creative end of the spectrum. (Not to mention how those two overlap. As odd as it seems at first blush, I know a lot of people who are--like myself--Mac+Linux types.)

Then there's the fact that--despite the claims you'll hear from naive developers--cross-platform development isn't significantly more expensive than single-platform development. When you consider the benefits from cross-platform development, it's almost always a win. I know this from experience.
So, you're saying that you think that WotC hasn't done any market research relating to the installed base of Macs among gamers and potential gamers, and hasn't done a cost/benefit analysis concerning the potential gains to be made on starting the DI with cross-platform support instead of adding minority operating systems later on? I think that's a funny thing to assume, given how much they've got riding on the success of the DI.

Glyfair said:
What really matters is the market share in WotC's market. Since they have done surveys to determine this, I believe they would be the ones to have the best estimate of that market.
Right. Exactly.
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot said:
That is SO WoW-like. In Wow you have tanks, healers, dps, and crowd control. You need one of each in every party.
With all this focus on being pigeonholed into a particular role, are we going to see a return to the phenomenon, which 3.x tried to get away from (with some degree of success), that you need to have all the roles covered in a party or else be hamstringed by the missing piece? Will we see more players stuck having to play the cleric--or any role they're not interested in--than we do with 3.x?
 

Dr. Awkward said:
and hasn't done a cost/benefit analysis concerning the potential gains to be made on starting the DI with cross-platform support instead of adding minority operating systems later on?
I think exactly that. They didn't pay for such an analysis and just hired some Windows shop without experience in cross platform development.

The money such an analysis would cost would be better spent on a search function for their forums anyway - they are useless for me as a knowledge base without search. :(
 

James Wyatt's blog

See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.

It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!

So you get up at 8:00 AM, you have that fun encounter, and you rest "for the night" at 8:15 AM. Repeat as needed.

It was like I was preaching again. I was on a roll. Andy said the people in the front might have been a little scared of me.

Mike Mearls

The important thing to keep in mind is that we're not necessarily interested in changing things into completely new things. The core lies in making D&D an even better version of D&D, not some other, new game. I've said this a few times at the con, but we have no interest in turning D&D into a miniatures game, a computer game, a game that requires a laptop at the table, or a boardgame. We want D&D to be D&D.

For me, the best moment of this entire process, the real pay off of working on 4e and playtesting, was getting the chance to play D&D for the first time again. For my playtest dungeon, I used the sample map from the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide. As the characters crept down the dungeon stairs and fought the first group of goblin guards, it felt like 1983 all over again. No one was exactly sure what lurked down in the dungeon depths. Goblins were still runty little evil humanoids, but they pulling off little tricks that players had never seen before. Throughout the playtest, I kept thinking back to the first time I rolled dice behind a DM's screen, leading players through the Keep on the Borderlands and (the admittedly forgettable) Blizzard Pass.
 


F4NBOY said:
It would be most unfortunate.
Mooks dealing critical hits on 100% of their hits is not very nice.

I will use this rule in my Saga game: Mooks don't crit. Only characters relevant to the excitement/drama/plot of the adventure at hand can crit (not necessarily the toughest guys, mind you). Problem solved.
 

thedungeondelver said:

Then I wonder why they did just that.

Explain.

How is D&D a computer game?

How does it require a laptop at the table?

Dave Noonan has stated that he runs his Eberron playtest group with nothing more technological at the table than a 3 ring binder.
 

Odhanan said:
I will use this rule in my Saga game: Mooks don't crit. Only characters relevant to the excitement/drama/plot of the adventure at hand can crit (not necessarily the toughest guys, mind you). Problem solved.

Argh!

This attitude is seriously beginning to bug me.

High fantasy is crap. Give me realism. You know what, yeah, that 1st-level commoner over there doesn't know how to use that pitchfork - but if he stabs you in the eye with it (a lucky shot), it is going to hurt. I don't care if he's not "relevant to the drama" - so far as the characters are concerned, the commoner is a real dude, and he really did just stab one of the characters in the eye. Does the proximity of imminent danger make the event any less important, to the point where the stabbing becomes less harmful?

The answer should be "no," and I refuse to play any game whose designer who answers "yes."

On another note, the whole "abilities per encounter" thing really irks the crap out of me, as well. How does that make any sense at all? When did you, as a character, learn those things? Why do they suddenly "refresh" when you run into another group of baddies? Sure, game balance is nice, and all... but it needs to make sense and be logical in the sense of the world.
 

Remove ads

Top