But it didn't work, becouse they tried to beat videogames in their strongest point: gamism. Plus many of the 4e targets failed in its implementation (for example, it was a 4e target to reduce combat length. It didn't work, combat are even lengthier. But the diagnose was correct anyways: you need to make the combat faster. Just that some of the decisions they made for that (like changing permanent bonuses for situational bonuses) were wrong.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
But it didn't work, becouse they tried to beat videogames in their strongest point: gamism. Plus many of the 4e targets failed in its implementation (for example, it was a 4e target to reduce combat length. It didn't work, combat are even lengthier. But the diagnose was correct anyways: you need to make the combat faster. Just that some of the decisions they made for that (like changing permanent bonuses for situational bonuses) were wrong.
Ahnehnois
First Post
No pen-and-paper rpg can ever compete with a computer game for ease of use. There's probably some room to simplify the rules, make a D&D Basic with add-ons, and cut down on character creation times, but D&D will always be an effort-intensive hobby. And it should be. As with many things in life, you get out of it what you put into it. The only real room for improvement is making sure that long preparation time is spent on character, plot, and setting, not on looking up rules.
There's profitable, and then there's worth doing. Does a small natural foods store make as much as your local Wal-Mart? No. Does The Wire generate as much revenue as American Idol? No. Does a high-quality PnP rpg make as much money as WoW? No.
While D&D may expand its niche, it will probably always be a niche market. What's wrong with creating a quality fan-oriented product as opposed to a commercialized one that appeals to the lowest common denominator? In the 21st century, premium products directed at small markets do well across the board. Perhaps the question here is not can they but "should WotC create a D&D that pleases everyone". I surely hope they don't.
Frankly, the idea of a gaming company as small and poor is a better example of social justice than most of the entertainment industry. No one should get rich off of writing D&D books (or by playing basketball or starring in movies). They should do it because they love the hobby ("by gamers for gamers"). Most of them do.
Why the hell not? Because it isn't "real work" or isn't worthy, somehow? Should they get "real jobs?"
If people want to pay for what you offer the world in volumes and prices enough to make you rich, so be it.
Pour
First Post
Yes, but 4e is not some failed flirtation with the concept of attracting new players and underlining certain design principles over those in past editions, like easier DMing. 4e is a first couple of steps in a continued evolution that is both digital and not beholden to the mechanics of the past. As you say in another post, the goals were good ones, but the implementation still needs work in areas like combat. WotC willing, they will continue to pursue them and not try some universal edition or reconcile with past editions. That leads to stagnation, and I believe is largely futile with the support in place for those editions. There must be forward progression.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
There is an adage in engineering that 90% of innovation fails - more often than not a change fails to improve upon the original. A similar effect is noted in biology. (In biology it is closer to 10,000 to one. With many of the survivors being no more successful, but not dying out either.)
If 4e has a smaller market and/or market share than 3.X then it is not the next step in an evolution, it is merely an evolutionary cul de sac. It may well be a 'failed flirtation' if the older model continues to thrive while the new and innovative withers on the vine.
That said, I think that WotC would be better served continuing with 4e and further developing from their newer architecture - they may have lost territory, but going back to the older philosophy is unlikely to regain them that lost ground. Specialization is natural, trying to survive in two very different environments is unlikely to work.
The Auld Grump
If 4e has a smaller market and/or market share than 3.X then it is not the next step in an evolution, it is merely an evolutionary cul de sac. It may well be a 'failed flirtation' if the older model continues to thrive while the new and innovative withers on the vine.
That said, I think that WotC would be better served continuing with 4e and further developing from their newer architecture - they may have lost territory, but going back to the older philosophy is unlikely to regain them that lost ground. Specialization is natural, trying to survive in two very different environments is unlikely to work.
The Auld Grump
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I played 1e at one time long ago, and I probably wouldn't play it again, not that I dislike it, but I've grown and changed with the various editions up to Pathfinder. In no way am I a grognard. 4e is not my flavor though its certainly a good game to play. But I do prefer real books to electronic format, though I have that too.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
There is a core of gamers who want simpler rules, but there's also a core of gamers who do not. This need to 'streamline' and 'simplify' is only for one group of people, not some universal need all gamers seek. Its certainly something I don't want and I know many who agree.
I like my games complex, and fiddly. I enjoy game prep as much as playing or running game - its a creative puzzle for me to come up with some fun encounters that really challenge the players, which for me includes creating custom monsters, power rich NPCs. This is certainly not for everybody, but neither is 5 minute character creation.
Assumptions that games must become simpler is just a one-sided view.
I like my games complex, and fiddly. I enjoy game prep as much as playing or running game - its a creative puzzle for me to come up with some fun encounters that really challenge the players, which for me includes creating custom monsters, power rich NPCs. This is certainly not for everybody, but neither is 5 minute character creation.
Assumptions that games must become simpler is just a one-sided view.
Dragon Sin-Camealot
First Post
As long as we omit:
Racism, name-calling, intolerance, bigotry, and generally not being a jerk. I learned these fab five from a certain dot-net.
We take polls and gather imput for questions about the targeted fanbase. What are key problems with this? Time, believability, advertisement?
What can you do to get people to go out of their way to read your story? In Chess both players have to abide by the same rules. In fiction there's variance, deception, and lop-sidedness. More apparent than definable games.
In fiction you have all kinds of aspects. Fiction has an upper limit yet it's up to us to define and redefine to capture the interest of our readers.
Racism, name-calling, intolerance, bigotry, and generally not being a jerk. I learned these fab five from a certain dot-net.
We take polls and gather imput for questions about the targeted fanbase. What are key problems with this? Time, believability, advertisement?
What can you do to get people to go out of their way to read your story? In Chess both players have to abide by the same rules. In fiction there's variance, deception, and lop-sidedness. More apparent than definable games.
In fiction you have all kinds of aspects. Fiction has an upper limit yet it's up to us to define and redefine to capture the interest of our readers.
Mouseferatu
Hero
True. But, a game that is simple at its core but allows additional complexity via add-ons is more universally appealing than one that's complex at the core, since those can't easily be simplified on the fly.
I'm not proposing a version of D&D that only caters to the "simpler is better" style--just one that starts with that assumption, and then allows designers/gamers to add additional layers to their heart's content.
(Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)
Dragon Sin-Camealot
First Post
Main reasons: New and Interesting.
Similar Threads
