An open letter to Randy Buehler

[Obryn]

They actually say "6 per tier, so 1&1/2 years", so double what I thought above, but no where did it say 1 adventure per level, I think.

Cool deal, I was going off what I read in the most recent issue.

-O

 

[Hussar]

I realize I have absolutely no credibility left (if I had any before), but a thought did occur to me.

Randy Buehler's statement shows that they are concerned that any overview of the AP would become common knowledge very quickly. The question in my mind, is this a reasonable concern?

Before Dungeon went online, we'd get maybe one thread a month about each issue. Possibly a thread or two about the AP, but, usually not much than that.

Now, we get a thread devoted to every single article in every single issue. That's a great deal more attention being paid to the magazine. If they did post an overview, it's quite likely it would be on the front page of En World news within minutes. It would be read by a large number of gamers and probably dissected in numerous threads. At least one anyway.

In other words, a truckful of people are going to read this. Many of which are players and not DM's. So, there is some validity to his concern that it would be widely disseminated very quickly.

Now, his second concern, that this would make the AP less fun to play in, is more problematic IMO. I cannot really see how, if you write in very high altitude ways, an overview of the campaign would spoil every surprise. It would likely spoil some though. If the AP is going to go planar (a high probability in Epic tier), then even just knowing where you are going could be a problem.

In the end, I think they should post at least the Heroic tier overview. That's enough to keep everyone sort of on the same page without spoiling too much.

 

[Hussar]

/grrrr double post.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Randy Buehler's statement shows that they are concerned that any overview of the AP would become common knowledge very quickly. The question in my mind, is this a reasonable concern?

<snip>
In the end, I think they should post at least the Heroic tier overview. That's enough to keep everyone sort of on the same page without spoiling too much.

I think it is a concern that the players would be spoiled, but I think it's a given that such a player will also just download and read any adventures they want to anyway.

So, I mean, if you have a player that would download it, and then in game try to kill the kid in Adventure 1 that becomes the warlock in adventure 5, then it's a problem, but not with the adventure. The player is a dummy!

I hadn't noticed the other thread until just now, so I've modified my "WotC doesn't want to get stuck in their outline/ can't be sure the writers will adhere" to also include "WotC doesn't want to spoil the contents of X book or Y mini game" (since such material from a yet published book may be integrated into an adventure).

But, again, even if I understand why they might do this stuff, I think it's to the detriment of the DM and is a bad idea.

 

[Fenes]

I simply hate the "some people won't be able to handle this information, so no one will be getting it!" attitude (even if they dress it up with phrases like "the AP will have a bigger impact" or other marketing nonsense).

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Mona's tone is really not different from the tone of many posterson the Paizo boards, so I'm not surprised that the language is harsh.

 

[Erik Mona]

Mona's tone is really not different from the tone of many posterson the Paizo boards, so I'm not surprised that the language is harsh.

Cute.

I confess to posting too late in the day for civility, and to dragging this on too long.

Thanks for admitting your mistake, Hussar. Next time I feel like posting vitriol I'll follow my own advice and keep my mouth shut!

--Erik

 

[Hypersmurf]

Erik's advice - "Check your facts before posting" - is sound.

Hussar's advice - "Don't post when grumpy" - is also good.

I recommend everyone learn both these lessons, shake hands, and continue in this thread with a more congenial tone, or not at all.

Thanks!

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[rounser]

I've been chanting the "3e is constructed, 4e is limited" phrase for a while and I've actually had multiple people mention, "What's constructed/limited" and worse, nobody even comments in either agreement or disagreement.

Worse, is the DDM talk where I tell people about the awesomeness of Limited and why the booster packs HAVE to be randomized, pretty much nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about....

That's because you're applying apple thinking to an orange. The shoe doesn't fit.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what WOTC have done with 4E by approaching the exception based rules model from the wrong direction (the "here's a cool mechanical effect, come up with some flavour excuse for it" direction, rather than "here's a flavour thing we need to represent, come up with something mechanical to represent that"). You see it all over the place in M:tG - a power arguably weakly related to the card concept, and open to interpretation about what goes on "in reality" in regards to how that power manifests.

What works for M:tG isn't necessarily going to map equally well to D&D, because one is a hugely abstracted card game with flavour as...well, flavour...and the other is a very specific fantasy world simulation, with flavour as one of the main reasons for bothering to play in the first place.

I think that the exception-based rules model can work for D&D...really well. But the temptation to create mechanics for mechanic's sake, resulting in abominations with no flavour reason for existing, like the "warlord", is seemingly too strong.

Approaching D&D from the exceptions-based rules model perspective, with flavour as afterthought or a branding exercise, is IMO asinine because D&D lives and dies by it's flavour. M:tG doesn't - it doesn't have to make sense, except in a very abstract "armor of thorns on a wall of air" or "Squaaltrabian Infantry, OK whatever" kind of way. And WoW portrays a specific world everyone plays in, without worldbuilding - it too is not D&D, and doesn't face the same challenges as D&D's implied setting - like supporting a thousand worlds.

D&D isn't a movie, either, and can't use a movie's popcorn logic excuses. It's D&D, and we see silly rules that don't make sense except for extensive handwaving and references to Die Hard.

And yet, and yet, and yet...the 4E DMG is a superb book in places, the best yet in terms of practical advice in some ways, so someone over at WOTC "gets it". How did the design direction go so far and uncompromisingly in the direction it did, though? It's all so ideologically extreme, like the result of giving an extremist political party dictatorship powers, and seeing the unexpected side effect result of their ideologies come into play. And when can we vote the current "ruling party" of D&D out of power?

Maybe D&D will become more like M:tG (or already has become that way), in that people will take their Dragonborn for the +2 strength modifier just the way they'd put a Derelor in their deck for being a cheap casting cost 4/4, and just think about the crunch effect...stuff the flavour. Arguably it's already begun with 3E and it's "builds". They harken to M:tG deck construction.

 

[Fenes]

Very good analysis, rounser.