D&D 4E Comment about 4E designers loving D&D

[Mouseferatu]

So, it's not sounding like such a small set of changes anymore. Given that 3.5 worked pretty well as is, I'm asking whether the statement that they won't change it for change's sake, because they love D&D is actually correct?

Here's the thing. I can love something, even something that works, and still believe I can make it better--without reducing the love I have for it.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a solid aphorism much of the time, but it doesn't apply universally. If it did, nothing would ever be better than "good enough."

 

[Azgulor]

But they also aren't doing it out of a cold heartless desire to screw us for more money.

Let's be realistic here, though. Last time I checked, WotC wasn't a non-profit organization. They want to make money & rightly so. I'm a big fan of capitalism.

We know from interviews with 3e designers that the biggest RPG sellers are the core rulebooks. An "edition refresh" is going to be part of a sound business plan. Any of us can debate the circumstances of the "correct" timing of such a refresh, but unless they're stupid businesspeople, it's in the plan. And the plan is to make money. If possible, make more than you are now.

I haven't made up my mind about 4e. I won't be able to until the game is released.

But there has been an excessive amount of criticism of anyone who dares to question the way WotC is handling the announcement/rollout. (Just to be clear, I'm not including you in that camp.)

I can only speak for myself, but the biggest issue I have with this is that although we've been given few concrete details, if anyone criticizes WotC they are loudly dismissed as deluded and irrelevant old-timers, WotC-haters, or 3e fanboys. Pay no attention to the negative selling by WotC against 3e, don't dare criticize the lack of specific details comparable to the 3e release (sorry WotC set the precedent, not a competitor), and don't even suggest the possibility that these factors might indicate that 4e is coming in order to meet WotC's business plan. Obviously, it is only out of love for the game that a new edition is coming. :\

While RPGing is a hobby that we at EN World love (and I don't doubt the 4e developers do too), can we please agree to acknowledge that business requirements are driving this bus? I believe that meeting those requirements and love of the game guiding the development can coexist. In a perfect scenario, the business requirements take a back seat to quality of content. For the continued success of D&D, I hope that will be case. But based on what I've seen thus far, WotC's handling isn't inspiring me with confidence that love of the game is winning out over business goals.

The OP's original question is indicative of the mishandling by WotC. Too little selling the pros of 4e and too much selling of the cons of 3e/3.5. I don't work in the RPG industry. I do work in sales for a technology company. I'm drawing a parallel between tech refreshes/version upgrades/new products and a new edition of an RPG based on personal experience in the following example but I think it applies. A customer once said to me early in my career, "Don't tell me it's better. Show me why it's better." I've never forgotten it. Graded against that scale, that's where WotC is getting a failing grade on 4e IMO.

 

[Banshee16]

Yeah, I read that like that, too. Then I realised that it wasn't what the author actually meant, and decided not to worry about it.

The 4e designers are most certainly doing what they're doing in an attempt to make D&D as good a game as they possibly can. It's entirely possible they will fail miserably... it's also entirely possible that they will succeed beyond our wildest hopes. But there is no good reason to believe they won't make an earnest effort to get this right.

If nothing else, consider this: if the game is really good, it will almost certainly be a much bigger success than if it sucks. Given that the cost to develop will be the same either way, it is in Hasbro's best financial interests to produce the best game they can. So, they will.

These are good observations....and I've thought along similar lines. I'm not in the "4E sucks, even though I haven't seen it yet" category.

I hope that they succeed at what they're trying to do. If the game gets better, great. I don't think that the statement regarding the fact that 4E would be good because the designers love D&D was very well thought out.

The concerns I do have about 4E are born out of some specific things....like the Mike Mearls school of monster design, as discussed in various articles on the Wizards site (ie. the deconstruction of the ogre mage, rust monster, etc.). I'm not going to claim that it's incorrect....just that I don't like it, on a visceral level, based on the games I like to run. There are some other things I'm concerned about.

When 3E was coming out, I had concerns about several issues, such as multiclassing, which ended up being faults of the system which the designers eventually admitted to in 3.0/3.5.....consequently resulting in the creation of several prestige classes such as the eldritch knight, mystic theurge, etc.

I hope they are able to address the concerns I have about a few of the tidbits of info we've received, or that the tidbits caused concern where it was unwarranted, through omission.

If they make a game that sucks, it will hit their bottom line. Obviously, they're going to try to make sure it doesn't suck. But I think that whether or not it sucks really has nothing to do with how much they love D&D. And therein lies the crux of my argument. One's love for a topic has nothing to do with how well one knows it, just as one's love of practicing a skill has nothing to do with one's capability. I have a friend who *loves* karaoke, but he's tone deaf, and one of the worst singers I've ever seen. Yet, he loves to do it, throws 110% effort into it every time, and it makes him happy, even if everyone one else wishes they had a "mute" button that would work on him. The manner in which they brought up the idea of 4E not sucking, because of their love for D&D is really what I was reacting to, because it can be taken to mean that the designers of 3E didn't love the game, since the designers of 4E are spending a lot of time telling us how broken parts of 3E were.

Anyways, I hope they get it right. If they don't, I've got a bunch of 3E material which I can still use (and even if they get 4E right, I can still use that 3E material...it's not going anywhere).

Banshee

 

[hong]

So, it's not sounding like such a small set of changes anymore. Given that 3.5 worked pretty well as is, I'm asking whether the statement that they won't change it for change's sake, because they love D&D is actually correct?

If they didn't love the game, they wouldn't want to hack it. Hence, for example, my Iron Heroes hack page.

 

[Banshee16]

Here's the thing. I can love something, even something that works, and still believe I can make it better--without reducing the love I have for it.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a solid aphorism much of the time, but it doesn't apply universally. If it did, nothing would ever be better than "good enough."

But the problem is that we're not talking about building a space shuttle or a jet plane here. It's not physics. It's a game. An RPG game. The rules which underpin it, and the "fluff" etc. are all things which are largely a matter of taste.

How do you build a better dwarf? Is it my better dwarf? Or your better dwarf? How many levels of spells is better?

Is it better to have weapons perfectly balanced, so they're all equal, or should some of them be better, because in real life, they *are* better?

Should or should not a class be included?

There is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions. The answers to them are all intensely personal.

So yes, you can try to tinker and make the game better......*for you*. And some people might agree that the changes one person suggests makes the game better, whereas others won't. The trick is in trying to make the changes that 80% of players will like, rather than changes that will be liked by only 20% of the players.

Is it better to have a condition track, equally distributed HD progression through all levels, reduced hp after high levels, or what? What is the right answer? I don't know if there is. But each approach changes how the game feels and plays.

I'm really looking to see some solid examples of what changes are being made. Because right now, a lot of what we're seeing has the feel of marketing spin, rather than actual content. I want some content.

Banshee

 

[Mouseferatu]

But the problem is that we're not talking about building a space shuttle or a jet plane here. It's not physics. It's a game. An RPG game. The rules which underpin it, and the "fluff" etc. are all things which are largely a matter of taste.

How do you build a better dwarf? Is it my better dwarf? Or your better dwarf? How many levels of spells is better?

Is it better to have weapons perfectly balanced, so they're all equal, or should some of them be better, because in real life, they *are* better?

Should or should not a class be included?

There is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions. The answers to them are all intensely personal.

So yes, you can try to tinker and make the game better......*for you*. And some people might agree that the changes one person suggests makes the game better, whereas others won't. The trick is in trying to make the changes that 80% of players will like, rather than changes that will be liked by only 20% of the players.

Obviously not every change will strike everyone as better. (I think there are a few aspects of game design that are objectively good or bad, but not the majority of them, and I'm not getting into them in the context of 4E, given what we know and don't know.)

That's why companies like WotC do market research. And that's why there are people who actually study and make a living off this sort of thing. It doesn't mean they'll be right 100% of the time, obviously, but it means they're likely to be right more often than other people.

But the thing is, even when there are no objective measurements--even when any change is going to strike some people as good and some as bad--that's still no reason not to try to make the game better. Games are like any other "technology"; they evolve, and they change.

 

[Rechan]

I guess then the game would be better if we just all played OD&D. No reason to change.

 

[Banshee16]

Obviously not every change will strike everyone as better. (I think there are a few aspects of game design that are objectively good or bad, but not the majority of them, and I'm not getting into them in the context of 4E, given what we know and don't know.)

That's why companies like WotC do market research. And that's why there are people who actually study and make a living off this sort of thing. It doesn't mean they'll be right 100% of the time, obviously, but it means they're likely to be right more often than other people.

But the thing is, even when there are no objective measurements--even when any change is going to strike some people as good and some as bad--that's still no reason not to try to make the game better. Games are like any other "technology"; they evolve, and they change.

I'm not going to fight you on that statement. It was never my intention, as I generally agree with what you're trying to say. I think maybe I find game design to be a bit more subjective than you do (or maybe not), but I admit that there's nothing wrong with trying to make it better. The problem is "who judges what better is".

When I consider that, and then look at the fact that I'm leery about some of the tidbits which have been doled out, I do have some concerns. However, perhaps there are other tidbits which haven't been released yet, which will alleviate those concerns....or might address another point that I do find as being a problem....such that the positive changes outweigh the "negative" ones.

I will also admit that a comfort level with the current rules can underlie some of my concerns as well. I'll be checking out 4E when it comes out. Will I switch? Right now, I have no idea. It's going to depend on whether I like it, once I've had a chance to read the completed rules. And if I don't like it, I keep playing 3E. Pretty simple.

Banshee

 

[Mouseferatu]

I will also admit that a comfort level with the current rules can underlie some of my concerns as well. I'll be checking out 4E when it comes out. Will I switch? Right now, I have no idea. It's going to depend on whether I like it, once I've had a chance to read the completed rules. And if I don't like it, I keep playing 3E. Pretty simple.

Simple indeed, and eminently fair. I'll obviously wind up switching professionally, but will I do so in my own games? Well, right now, I like most of what I'm hearing, so I certainly expect to do so--but of course, it'll ultimately depend, as you say, on the final product.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why will this be the best game yet? Because the people working on it love D&D.

which can be rearranged into the implication:

If they love D&D, then it will be the best game yet.

Which has the following corollary:

If it is not the best game yet, then they do not love D&D.

If you read it that way, it implies that if there are any shortcomings in 3rd edition, it's because the designers didn't love the game enough. That conclusion is preposterous, and certainly not what the writer of the quote intended, but when the implication operator gets abused by sloppy writing these things tend to fall out. Of course, if we give the author the benefit of the doubt, it ceases to be an issue.

Seems like an aweful lot of re-arranging of one statement in order to get it to mean the negative implication you want it to mean.