D&D 4E 4E's aggressive pace: Too much, too fast?

AGFlynn said:
Yeah, but don't forget that even the small changes can take a disproportionate amount of resources. When I worked on the Monsternomicon for Privateer Press, it took six months to produce six finished monsters, from initial concept to publication. Design, editing, balancing, consultation, redesign, artwork, a wee bit o' playtesting, final edits, approvals, the final check to ensure no OGL violations.
Imagine redisigning a whole gaming system plus the flavour elements! Sheesh!
Seriously, my hat will so be off to Scott Rouse and team if they pull this one off.

And how many of you were working on those 6 monsters? Just you? And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you had other things to do as well.

WotC has something like 10 employees dedicated to Design and Development alone. They also have people dedicated to editing, artwork, approvals, and legal checks. In-house playtesting could probably involve 15 groups without player overlap. Factor in all their home games, and the fact that many of them play in multiple games and you probably have upwards of 100 4e playtest games running inside WotC alone.

In addition, unlike 3e, they've also put all the monsters and their stats into a database so that rechecking and balancing doesn't involve 60 different math computations every single time.

From what we've been told, a significant part of what they worked on during their "downtime" on 3e products was getting the support systems up to snuff. I know that most companies don't use excel spreadsheets to produce all their monster statistics - in fact, WotC didn't even used to. However, from what we've been told, WotC does do that now.

I did some free editing for the guys at Green Ronin between the initial .pdf release and the final .pdf (and print!) release of True Sorcery. Rob appreciated it - a LOT. Most game companies just don't have the kind of staff Wizards does, and trying to extrapolate based on experience with them is probably misleading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For myself, it is not the the pace that bothers me. I am bothered by several of the changes (mostly mechanical) and I was looking forward to a 4e with mechanical changes as there are a number of ideas in third party products, Unearthed Arcana and scattered throughout a few other WOTC products) that I would have liked to have seen implemented in a 4e.

However, the new mechanics as previewed in WOTC products are, imo, are unimpressive and often not as good as new ideas from 3rd party companies.


Maneuvers from TOB:B09S: I liked the goal, but disliked the implementation.
- I dislike per encounter abilities and am not happy to see its inclusion.
- I also disliked the schools and mechanics for acquiring maneuvers.
- I disliked the maneuvers that allowed a character to heal an ally while attacking a foe. Therefore, I am not happy with its inclusion as a Paladin smite abiility.

I would have preferred something along the lines of maneuvers in the Book of Iron Might.


Skills and Per encounter powers from Star Wars Saga:
- I disliked the skill system changes (including the consolidation of skills )in Star Wars: Saga edition so much that I won't even play the game so why would I want to see similar changes in 4e?
- Again, I disliked per encounter abilities.


MM5: I disliked the abilities that are triggered by hit point loss. I am not happy to see it introduced into 4e as Bleeding. The thought that characters will have similar abilities just makes it that much less palatable to me


Other things we know about 4e that I am not happy with include:

Combat:
-Armor: I was hoping for damage reduction

-Hit Points: I was hoping that these would go. I prefer the Damage/Toughness Save from True20

Magic: I have wanted to see Vancian Magic go for some time. However, I am not happy with per encounter. I wanted something along the lines of Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth or Elements of Magic (actually, with Jonathan Tweet working on 3e, I was hoping for 3e to use something along the lines of Ars Magica magic).

Monsters: I don't like the monster design philosphy championed by Mearls in his design journals or here on ENWorld. I don't want pared down monster abilities for demons and devils or weaking monster abiitiy effects to make things easier on the players (e.g., the rust monster changes) .
 
Last edited:

JohnSnow said:
And how many of you were working on those 6 monsters? Just you? And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you had other things to do as well.

Well, yeah, just me. And I guess a two- or three-member editorial team. But that's just six monsters! Come on, you can't think that revamping an entire Monster Manual alone wouldn't be several factors of 10 more work? Even with their resources?

JohnSnow said:
WotC has something like 10 employees dedicated to Design and Development alone. They also have people dedicated to editing, artwork, approvals, and legal checks. In-house playtesting could probably involve 15 groups without player overlap. Factor in all their home games, and the fact that many of them play in multiple games and you probably have upwards of 100 4e playtest games running inside WotC alone.

Fair enough - I'm not saying they're not a capable bunch.

JohnSnow said:
In addition, unlike 3e, they've also put all the monsters and their stats into a database so that rechecking and balancing doesn't involve 60 different math computations every single time.

From what we've been told, a significant part of what they worked on during their "downtime" on 3e products was getting the support systems up to snuff. I know that most companies don't use excel spreadsheets to produce all their monster statistics - in fact, WotC didn't even used to. However, from what we've been told, WotC does do that now.

I did some free editing for the guys at Green Ronin between the initial .pdf release and the final .pdf (and print!) release of True Sorcery. Rob appreciated it - a LOT. Most game companies just don't have the kind of staff Wizards does, and trying to extrapolate based on experience with them is probably misleading.

Maybe. I still think it's going to push the envelope of even WotC to rebuild the entire game. Thousands of picky details.
Hey, I'm not saying they won't get it done. Maybe even hit it out of the park. I'm just doubtful, when I look at all of the components that will need revision.
 

AGFlynn said:
Well, yeah, just me. And I guess a two- or three-member editorial team. But that's just six monsters! Come on, you can't think that revamping an entire Monster Manual alone wouldn't be several factors of 10 more work? Even with their resources?
But aren't 4e monsters supposed to be a LOT simpler than 3.x monsters, in terms of stats and number-fiddling?
 

AGFlynn said:
I'm not sure WotC gives a *#$(#$&*% about the old FLGS store any more, given the existence of Amazon.com et. al. - hey, look what they did to their own stores.

They do. A majority - or, at least, a very large minority - of their sales are through FLGS. WotC cannot survive without them unless they move to pure digital distribution, and that has survival problems of its own because the market size is an order of magnitude smaller.
 

Zurai said:
They do. A majority - or, at least, a very large minority - of their sales are through FLGS. WotC cannot survive without them unless they move to pure digital distribution, and that has survival problems of its own because the market size is an order of magnitude smaller.
Not to be rude, but I would think most sales of WotC's books were through places like Books-a-Million, B&N and Borders.
 

A) This conversation is irrelevant. This is the real world, and a company has given a team a due-date for product implementation. If that due date were not met, huge amounts of money would be lost and people would be fired. As much as we may academically debate how much time this project requires, and as much as we may or may not feel more time would create a better 4E, in corporate terms, if the project is late, it is a failure and that is that.

B) 6 months for six monsters is what people do if they have day jobs, which I am guessing you and most game designers out there in the world do. WotC has full-time employees who show up for work every day to make monsters or whatever else. And these are people who see game design as a dream job, not shlubs who show up to collect a check. These folks take work home with them and probably don't think about much else. Add up all the time you spend on work-related matters each week AND all the time you spend thinking about gaming each week. That total is how much time this staff spends working on 4E each week. They can do the Monster Manual on time.

C) As mentioned above, 3.5 sales will continue to decrease over the next six months. The PHB is the #1 selling RPG book year in and year out, but I would expect 2008 to be worst year of PHB sales ever... until the 4E version comes out. Six more months of decrease is a corporate nightmare and a fiscal disaster. Not only would people get fired, but paychecks probably would not be written. A delay like the one you're talking about not only won't happen, but should not happen given its consequences for the RPG industry.

D) If you don't believe even a bad new edition of D&D will sell extremely well, you are vastly overestimating the discernment of the average, non-message-board-posting D&D gamer. This is a hypothetical, but if you take the five best, most well-considered and carefully written role-playing game rulesets of any given year, add their sales together, and compare them (even phenomenal games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Burning Wheel or Mutants & Masterminds) to that year or any year's sales of the PHB, I think you'll find the PHB still outsells them all-- even including the year WoD 2.0 came out. I think poor design would hurt long-term sales, but not short-term, and short-term money is clearly the point of releasing a new edition so soon. If the product is not bad, but at least mediocre to decent, they should do fine. If it is good or great, it could revive the post-d20-boom RPG industry. I hope for the best, of course.

E) All that said, there does seem to be a lot of rushing going on. It is my hope that the areas of WotC's implementation that see the drawbacks of that are those where the rushing seems most apparent, like the Digital Initiative and tied-in game settings, and not the game itself. It is my hope that the basic rules of 4E are treated as the centerpiece of the entire operation and therefore given the most care and attention. I do not know if my hopes are realistic, but if someone smart is at the wheel they should see that errors in the Core Rules will poison the peripheral sources of profit.

None of this is to defend WotC or 4E, but such a delay would not happen, and if it did many people-- such as employees and their dependents-- would actually suffer. Good or bad, 4E has to roll for the summer cons. The WotC folks just have to do the best they can in the time they have.
 

Zurai said:
They do. A majority - or, at least, a very large minority - of their sales are through FLGS. WotC cannot survive without them unless they move to pure digital distribution, and that has survival problems of its own because the market size is an order of magnitude smaller.

I'd like to request evidence for either point. In my experience game stores sell minis and cards primarily. RPG books mostly sit on the shelves, just one or two lonely copies for months at a time. And its only two if its a major book, like the D&D PH.

And that, of course, is only when there is a local game store to go to.
 

Rechan said:
Not to be rude, but I would think most sales of WotC's books were through places like Books-a-Million, B&N and Borders.

The local megabookstores have fewer WotC books on the shelves than even the smallest local FLGS, and I live in a pretty big city. Hell, B&N's entire RPG book selection (sandwiched on the top side of a single shelf in the fantasy books section), including the books for every RPG system they sell, would fit on a single rack at a FLGS. The biggest competitors FLGS have are online distributors like Amazon, who don't have to devote precious floor space to such a marginal industry as RPGs.

Voss said:
In my experience game stores sell minis and cards primarily. RPG books mostly sit on the shelves, just one or two lonely copies for months at a time. And its only two if its a major book, like the D&D PH.

Just because you see one or two copies on the shelf for months at a time doesn't mean they aren't being sold. My FLGS orders 4-5 copies of a book when it's released, then re-orders them as they're sold. I know for a fact that he's gone through half a dozen copies of the Book of Nine Swords since I bought mine a couple months ago, but you wouldn't know it by looking at the shelf.
 

The scale of the changes is about right. I'm not so keen on the direction of a lot of the changes, but that's another rant for another day.

The very best time to set up a Digital Initiative is with the start of a new edition - the software is just massively easier to write for three books than 30. The best time to bring Dragon/Dungeon in-house is at the natural end of the five-year licensing agreement, and the best time to move them online is when kicking off a digital venture for which they can serve as incentive to buy-in. And the best time to change the fluff is when also changing the rules, so the whole thing can line up neatly.

It does look like they might have bitten off more than they can chew, though. But whether that is actually accurate or not won't be clear until the middle of next year.

AGFlynn said:
Why not take longer, guys?

That's a very good question to ask... about four months ago. Once it was annouced, the time for delays was pretty much over.

Why not move the publishing date to 2009?

Financial disaster for all involved. WotC could probably survive a year with no D&D sales. There are maybe five FLGS worldwide that could survive the same (yes, that's a made up number). Then there are all the third-party companies who depend on a current edition of D&D for their business plans. They'd be done too.

Basically, delay the game by a year at this stage, and the industry might die altogether.
 

Remove ads

Top