D&D 4E Can WotC Cater to Past Editions Without Compromising 4e Design?

[Hadrian the Builder]

I don't think that WotC can cater to older editions through 4E; because, 4E is pretty much feature-locked and the changes required to capture the feel of the older editions would require a new edition.

 

[Scribble]

I want their sole concern to be the development of the 4e framework and pushing the concepts forward, in creating new and uniquely 4e settings and classics, not, though Scribble will argue with me here, fall into an apologist rut, and by that I mean revert back to older designs without at least assessing their validity in the current design paradigms and mechanics, or, in the example above, working on past mechanics completely removed from 4e mechanics at the expense of 4e material in attempts to be more universal.

I guess I just disagree that they would stop supporting 4e. Or at least that's not what I'm advocating (I'm not really advocating they do this either, but I guess I'll play that role here for the sake of the thread... )

I wonder if supporting all variations of the game would give them a better understanding of where to go with each line. Maybe it would help them find the strengths of each system, and then build off of those strengths instead of diluting the game for everyone in such a way that it just ends up sucking for everyone.

I look at it kind of along the same lines as D&D vrs the board games and the card games. They don't take support away from each other by existing, but I'm guessing they do inform each other in various ways. I bet there have been plenty of times when someone came up with a new rule or something and someone said well that won't work for X, but if it's tweaked a bit it would work great in this other product...

It's possible that this isn't the case, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

 

[Pour]

I guess I just disagree that they would stop supporting 4e. Or at least that's not what I'm advocating (I'm not really advocating they do this either, but I guess I'll play that role here for the sake of the thread... )

Sorry Scribble, but you and that avatar make such a compelling villain! (Plus I think you're one of the few posters that can defend an opinion, build an argument, and concede a point if necessary.)

In regards to what you said above, I still don't see dabbling or focusing equal time on past editions equating to the exploration of board games and cards in the scheme of 4e. The board games, to my understanding are paired down 4th edition rules given certain 'board game' mechanics. I remember hearing about simplified classes with the choices already made for players, card decks used for random monsters and puzzle tiles for randomly generated maps or at least a surprising fog of war. That to me feels innovative, not because it will be exactly ported over to the RPG, but because it took the rules chasis and pushed the design, in this case toward simplification and justifiably so, all while maintaining certain dangerous and uncertain aspects of exploring Castle Ravenloft- good design, good flavor, and what I imagine good production value. As you mentioned, I could definitely see kernels of rpg design popping from such usage of those board game rules, themes and production, and they largely feel more compatible with 4e. And the fortune cards are really just consumable boons, very much in 4th's realm, but also attempting to bring option decks into the mix. I know they get a lot of heat for it, but I've seen a lot of positive attention at game day and Encounters, as I'm sure there will be at Lair Assault. I don't think 'optional' is ever a bad thing, and I'd hardly call them rules bloat or power creep, despite the boons they provide, perhaps because of the shuffling/random element and the need for fortune decks to have a certain spread of cards, not all of which are so game-changing.

Past editions, on the other hand, should inform 4e in a historical capacity, not a design capacity, and by that I mean in a respectful sort of flavor observation, occasional conversion or re-imagining (something I think they've already taken to the point I'm willing to go- give us a new setting, more new modules, etc) or at the very most in some sort of Essentials-like attempt at finding common design principles, but not at the cost of losing focus on 4e's design paradigms. I personally think Essentials walks that fine line, but manages to remain good design and my preference for introducing new players, but that's just my take and we all know people who feel otherwise.

I think I'd also argue what could have been learned by supporting the past editions (at least 3rd) was learned during 4e's development, and is in fact the result of it, to a scaling extreme based on who you're talking to. And given every designer plays other games, in some respects Paizo, Goodman, Green Ronin and every other company using some D&D-inspired design are like R&D, save WotC doesn't immediately reap the rewards for any of their discoveries. Immediately, anyway, because at this point I feel there's less cloning and more expansion/development of past editions into entirely new animals. Maybe that will benefit D&D in the future without costing WotC a thing in the present.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I dunno, I do kind of think working on one thing takes away from working on something else. You're right, having a variety of products and different people going at 'D&D' from different angles could stimulate more creative stuff, but when it comes down to actually producing either a book or a game this month you only have so many producers, designers, testers, and so much money for art and writing, etc.

 

[Scribble]

I dunno, I do kind of think working on one thing takes away from working on something else. You're right, having a variety of products and different people going at 'D&D' from different angles could stimulate more creative stuff, but when it comes down to actually producing either a book or a game this month you only have so many producers, designers, testers, and so much money for art and writing, etc.

Oh true- I cant argue that it doesn't cost resources in any way. My argument is against the direct correlation.

IE IF the money wasn't spent on X it would have been spent on Y product. In reality it MIGHT have been spent on Y product, or something else entirely, or just put into savings or something, that's all.

Sorry Scribble, but you and that avatar make such a compelling villain! (Plus I think you're one of the few posters that can defend an opinion, build an argument, and concede a point if necessary.)

Beep beep Georgie!

In regards to what you said above, I still don't see dabbling or focusing equal time on past editions equating to the exploration of board games and cards in the scheme of 4e. The board games, to my understanding are paired down 4th edition rules given certain 'board game' mechanics. I remember hearing about simplified classes with the choices already made for players, card decks used for random monsters and puzzle tiles for randomly generated maps or at least a surprising fog of war. That to me feels innovative, not because it will be exactly ported over to the RPG, but because it took the rules chasis and pushed the design, in this case toward simplification and justifiably so, all while maintaining certain dangerous and uncertain aspects of exploring Castle Ravenloft- good design, good flavor, and what I imagine good production value.

Some of them are, but I think some of the others coming out aren't the same. I could be wrong though- I'm not really well versed in their board game line.

As you mentioned, I could definitely see kernels of rpg design popping from such usage of those board game rules, themes and production, and they largely feel more compatible with 4e. And the fortune cards are really just consumable boons, very much in 4th's realm, but also attempting to bring option decks into the mix. I know they get a lot of heat for it, but I've seen a lot of positive attention at game day and Encounters, as I'm sure there will be at Lair Assault. I don't think 'optional' is ever a bad thing, and I'd hardly call them rules bloat or power creep, despite the boons they provide, perhaps because of the shuffling/random element and the need for fortune decks to have a certain spread of cards, not all of which are so game-changing.

I meant the card games as in Magic, and what not, not the 4e expansion stuff.

Past editions, on the other hand, should inform 4e in a historical capacity, not a design capacity, and by that I mean in a respectful sort of flavor observation, occasional conversion or re-imagining (something I think they've already taken to the point I'm willing to go- give us a new setting, more new modules, etc) or at the very most in some sort of Essentials-like attempt at finding common design principles, but not at the cost of losing focus on 4e's design paradigms. I personally think Essentials walks that fine line, but manages to remain good design and my preference for introducing new players, but that's just my take and we all know people who feel otherwise.

I guess I see it as since game rules aren't really a hard science, we can't really say one rule set is better in all situations then another, so while the above is great for people who enjoy 4e, is it really the best for those who don't?

If they can do it without loosing resources that would have been spent on the 4e line, would you be apposed?

I think I'd also argue what could have been learned by supporting the past editions (at least 3rd) was learned during 4e's development, and is in fact the result of it, to a scaling extreme based on who you're talking to. And given every designer plays other games, in some respects Paizo, Goodman, Green Ronin and every other company using some D&D-inspired design are like R&D, save WotC doesn't immediately reap the rewards for any of their discoveries. Immediately, anyway, because at this point I feel there's less cloning and more expansion/development of past editions into entirely new animals. Maybe that will benefit D&D in the future without costing WotC a thing in the present.

I guess my question is doesn't this kind of invoke the those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it mantra as cheesey as that sounds?

I think by actively supporting the older games a lot could be learned about gamer mentality.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh true- I cant argue that it doesn't cost resources in any way. My argument is against the direct correlation.

IE IF the money wasn't spent on X it would have been spent on Y product. In reality it MIGHT have been spent on Y product, or something else entirely, or just put into savings or something, that's all.

Yeah, I agree, it isn't really possible to say that they did X board game and thus they didn't do Y game supplement. OTOH obviously if they started putting out board game after board game and very few supplements we'd be forced to conclude that the focus had shifted. That might be a result of market forces that the company has little control over too. Of course the fact that RPGs in general are apparently a pretty lively market these days would still lead us to question why WotC wouldn't find it a feasible line of business to focus some effort on.

I guess I see it as since game rules aren't really a hard science, we can't really say one rule set is better in all situations then another, so while the above is great for people who enjoy 4e, is it really the best for those who don't?

If they can do it without loosing resources that would have been spent on the 4e line, would you be apposed?

I guess my question is doesn't this kind of invoke the those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it mantra as cheesey as that sounds?

I think by actively supporting the older games a lot could be learned about gamer mentality.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm just not sure there's a lot to be learned about 1e that requires putting out 1e modules or supplements or whatever would constitute real support for that system. I suppose they could find out what the OSR people are most interested in seeing, possibly. The question is wouldn't it be just as easy to do that by going out and buying a copy of OSRIC and a copy of the new GG game and a couple others and playing them and looking at whatever modules there are for them?

Honestly I think having Mike and James and whomever spend a week reading back threads from this forum would advance their understanding of what issues people are seeing and what they at least THINK they want far more than any amount of writing material for obsolete versions of the game would. Remember, all those guys are gamers, JUST like us. They all played AD&D back in the day, probably played a 100 other RPGs. Probably see the same issues in their own games that other people have pointed out, etc.

Really I think the entire 'issue' is simply that the D&D market at this point consists mostly of people that have been playing for a long time, lots of them are not really interested in a significantly different version of D&D than what they have been playing for years, and WotC has locked itself into an edition cycle of publishing a game that simply IS NOT going to appeal to those people no matter how much they tweak it.

I think they can increase the enthusiasm of 4e's current player base by paying close attention to what new things they want and what issues they want addressed, and that increased acceptance may eventually draw in some of the people that aren't now onboard with 4e, and will serve them well with new players, but there's really very little chance it is going to bring the PF and OSR people onboard in large numbers. Eventually it might chip away at those games and as people burn up their nostalgia buzz and PF either grows long in the tooth or gets substantially rewritten itself then 4e might end up on top, except of course that will take so long that 5e will be around by then, or whatever the equivalent of that will be.

As to how any of this would apply to such a 5e, well, I can say with certainty that a 'return to the past' won't please many players. It might please a group of players that are now playing PF and gain more than it loses, maybe. Or it could just kill the product entirely. No doubt '5e' can both look a bit more like the old days in some fashion or other and still mostly be pleasing to 4e fans, but that still doesn't mean the PF/OSR people will play it, because it most certainly isn't going to be really close to AD&D mechanically and still make me happy.

 

[Scribble]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm just not sure there's a lot to be learned about 1e that requires putting out 1e modules or supplements or whatever would constitute real support for that system. I suppose they could find out what the OSR people are most interested in seeing, possibly. The question is wouldn't it be just as easy to do that by going out and buying a copy of OSRIC and a copy of the new GG game and a couple others and playing them and looking at whatever modules there are for them?

Maybe? I think there's a difference though in looking at from afar and being in the thick of things so to speak? Designing and seeing what works I think is different then just looking at what seems to work.

Really I think the entire 'issue' is simply that the D&D market at this point consists mostly of people that have been playing for a long time, lots of them are not really interested in a significantly different version of D&D than what they have been playing for years, and WotC has locked itself into an edition cycle of publishing a game that simply IS NOT going to appeal to those people no matter how much they tweak it.

And I think this is kind of a problem. Especially if each time you do this you 1. Loose some players/customers, and 2 actively create "factions" surrounding your own product.

It just seems like it would be better to cater to people who ultimately like some form of your product just in different ways.

And by this again I don't mean trying to morph the current game into something that tries to meet everyone's needs... I see that as being more damaging. (Even though I can see various optional rules that work in tandem kind of like Gamma World.)

It seems though that it would be a good idea to continue to offer support to your old customers, rather then just cast them off.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe? I think there's a difference though in looking at from afar and being in the thick of things so to speak? Designing and seeing what works I think is different then just looking at what seems to work.

Well.... yeah, maybe, I dunno. I'm not a professional game designer. I'd consider it like this though. There are 2 groups of designers over there. There are the people that have direct experience with at least 2e, and maybe 1e, because they were at TSR in the day. Then there are the people that don't, though many of them do have 3.x designer credits, which is quite a bit closer at least.

I'd think if you were going to gain significant useful experience as an AD&D module designer would need to put out a module, have it on the market long enough to gauge what did and didn't work, and then do that again once or twice, which means a couple year process and a significant investment in writing adventures that are likely to sell next to nothing.

And I think this is kind of a problem. Especially if each time you do this you 1. Loose some players/customers, and 2 actively create "factions" surrounding your own product.

It just seems like it would be better to cater to people who ultimately like some form of your product just in different ways.

And by this again I don't mean trying to morph the current game into something that tries to meet everyone's needs... I see that as being more damaging. (Even though I can see various optional rules that work in tandem kind of like Gamma World.)

It seems though that it would be a good idea to continue to offer support to your old customers, rather then just cast them off.

I think the problem is they WERE 'cast off' years ago in the case of the OSR type people, and in the case of the 3.x people you're trying to compete squarely with Paizo, which is going to eat you alive when you compete with them in their own arena. Plus you're providing support for THEM, not for you since whatever you put out is basically pretty much PF compatible.

That leaves 3 options:

1) Wait until 4e ages out and write a 5e that is retro. MAYBE you can walk a line where you lose less of your 4e fans than you regain of older editions fans, but that is by no means certain. Your game could be rejected by the older edition fans for not being their favorite edition AND rejected by the 4e fans for being too retro. That could be real ugly.

2) Simply abandon the 4e fans, write a rehash of AD&D and hope that somehow all the 4e fans will realize the errors of their ways and play it, and that all the older edition fans really really wanted the 'Genuine D&D' label on their books so bad that they all flock to your banner.

3) Try to market more than one version of the game at the same time by say resurrecting BECMI and continuing to develop and support 4e and beyond.

Well, then there's the 4th option, say nice things to all the older edition fans, throw them a few small bones with 'retro-ish' options and go on ahead with the game you've got now and just assume that being the biggest and deepest resource company in the industry you'll sooner or later outlast the competition. You could also of course try to improve the quality of your output, make money off of a digital D&D initiative, etc. In other words you could do what WotC IS doing...

In other words IMHO WotC is best served by realizing that they are WotC and playing to their strengths instead of trying to somehow retool themselves into being Paizo lite. I'd say everything that Mike and Co are doing right now is basically exactly that. They're good at board games, so they do some of those. They're good at doing misc play aids, so they do those, and they do some rules and adventures because they pretty much have to.

 

[Scribble]

3) Try to market more than one version of the game at the same time by say resurrecting BECMI and continuing to develop and support 4e and beyond.

And this is what I'm advocating pretty much.

In other words IMHO WotC is best served by realizing that they are WotC and playing to their strengths instead of trying to somehow retool themselves into being Paizo lite. I'd say everything that Mike and Co are doing right now is basically exactly that. They're good at board games, so they do some of those. They're good at doing misc play aids, so they do those, and they do some rules and adventures because they pretty much have to.

I fail to see how that makes anyone Paizo lite?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And this is what I'm advocating pretty much.



I fail to see how that makes anyone Paizo lite?

Well, trying to provide support for 3.x would certainly make you 'Paizo lite'. The problem is WotC is just NOT going to suddenly start doing adventures and whatnot at the quality level that Paizo is. They may eventually, but then why not just do them for 4e? And again if you were to say resurrect BECMI every time you make a product you have to ask yourself "wouldn't we just sell more of this product if we made it a 4e product?" That was the issue that TSR always had with BECMI. Their answer was to have it be so close to compatible with AD&D that you could just ignore the differences and run an adventure with either one. They labeled some as for one or the other game, but I can't recall anyone paying attention to that.

There's no doing that with 4e, unless they make a '4e lite' which isn't likely to appeal to the old school crowd or PF crowd at all. It might possibly serve some market, but I suspect WotC long ago concluded that BECMI was a dead loss for TSR and only served to cannibalize some AD&D sales and make stock keeping harder. Maybe with 4e it would serve a more distinct role, but the more distinct it is, the less it can share with 4e.

I know Mike has some notion of sort of making '2 games for the price of one' by making all the fancy rules 'modules' and making the core system dirt simple.