Dancey v. Mearls?

[Kzach]

(Psst. Round are worth 10 points each.)

PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST. There are three judges.

 

[Umbran]

"Sir, we could sell 1% more Widgets with an investment of 1 million!"
"Oh! Great! How much extra revenue would 1% more widgets get us?"
"500,000!"
"Hmm...not really worth it...."

".... so go look for some other opportunity!"

Doing better costs money, and if it costs more money than you'd get back by doing better, it's a lousy, lousy business decision.

That, I'm sorry to say, looks logically convoluted, possibly using two different definitions of "better" at once. If it costs more money, then it isn't doing better, it's doing worse. And of course you don't spend money on doing worse!

The point I was making is simple - seeking to sell into new segments of the market is not a sign the current edition did poorly. Nor is it a sign the edition did well. Seeking to increase your sales is expected behavior pretty much all of the time!

 

[eyebeams]

False. Nobody except existing hobbyists cares enough to directly care about the mechanics.

I say "OSR." You lose.

WoW blew Everquest out of the water because the mechanical underpinnings were much better.

No, that was because of the intersection of Moore's Law and software development.

False. The way you make the play experience work with imagining heroes doing things is by providing a superb play experience - and that comes from the mechanics.

This is restating the problem as a solution, so it merits no consideration.

No. It's because financial research hugely favours things that sell. And people only ever play in one setting at a time. Heavy development of a setting is a loss-maker. Which is one of the things that destroyed TSR.

The term "financial research" is meaningless. Do you mean accounting? Market research? Are you talking about anything factual, or merely stringing together words that sound impressive to you?

Many things destroyed TSR, above and beyond what was described by someone looking at the books with an eye toward brokering its acquisition for as little as possible.

The lessons they've learned are that you don't want to follow TSR to its grave with warehouses full of inventory worth $0.00.

As I've noted elsewhere, the "get off the supplement treadmill!" effort lasted exactly as long as it took to get an FY's worth of returns. WotC dropped the core and floppy brown books really fast and eventually poached idea from third parties. These lessons probably consisted less of the ideology impressed onto you by 3e's marketing and more on boring accounting stuff, and advice like "Don't steal from yourself."

D&D 4e? You mean the game where the mechanics now support the fluff of everyone being larger than life rather than linear fighter, quadratic wizard? The game where wizards are no longer tied to the Vancian model? The game where you can have a fight against 20 orcs at once without it being silly?

The game that's being redone to appeal to people who like linear fighter/quadratic wizard no matter how much you declare they shouldn't?

Now the thing is that fluff made impossible by the rules is just annoying. Fluff supported by the rules is wonderful. And the two need to be written hand in hand. And in 4e they are.

Mike Mearls explicitly says otherwise.

It's especially ironic that 4e is a better representation of Dark Sun, what with mechanics such as survival, preserving/defiling, and weapon breakage, than 2e ever was. This despite the fact that Dark Sun was supposedly written for 2e.

I'm glad a game finally does justice to something written in 1991. Boy, y'all must feel like *trendsetters.*

The Nentir Vale? Check your timelines. I think you mean the hot new setting (i.e. Darksun). And you say that as if it actually means something.

It does, and Dark Sun came out in 1991.

I very much doubt that WoTC is unable to write settings. Because it has four damn good ones out there. (PoLand, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Athas - and Sigil come to think of it).

Yeah, TSR sure made some good settings. This is kind of my point. WotC cannot outdo a rickety, nearly dead company whose leadership hated RPGs when it comes to developing worlds.

Keith Baker's Eberron was pretty good too, I heard. Eberron as WotC does it is ass, though. But that's because it was designed as a dumping ground for various conceptual leftovers. (Thanks for the racist Drow guys!).

And I am prepared to bet that one developer of D&D out of every two has their own setting which has not been published. So probably does one DM out of every two (more if you count all the contradictory Nentir Vales).

My buddy paints better than Michealangelo, but I can't show you, because he's in Canada with your girlfriend!

And this makes publishing yet another new setting a vanity project unless it adds something to the game.

(Blah, blah, stuff that doesn't make any concrete points.)

Which is a world away from the TSR-style approach you seem to be advocating. "Of course we'll publish your new setting, Jim. Bill, Fred, Joe. Work on supplements for it. Who cares if they sell?"

A vanity project if it has no hope of creating a valuable intellectual property. To create valuable intellectual property, a company must be willing to take minor risks and experiment. For a decade now, WotC has failed to do any significant development here except to create Eberron -- and Eberron is a failure. Eberron is a failure *because* of WotC's setting development style.

See, you keep talking as if I advocate what TSR did (and as if your reading of WotC's marketing-driven history of the acquisition is wholly representative of that, which is unwise of you). The problem isn't that WotC has failed to stay the course according to market verbiage you heard a decade ago. The problem is that WotC is institutionally bad at this stuff and makes excuses for being bad at it.

See, I've been on the other side of this, in offices arguing whether some visual doodad/model/name works to represent a faction or region. There are good and bad ways to do this and they always raise the issue of reconciling worlds and functional media (gameplay, storytelling, scripting) objectives. For 10 years, WotC has focused on practices that obviously don't work when it comes to creating engaging world-based IP. And the worst thing you can do is make the media objective (in this case RPG play) the entire focus of setting development.

For an example of good practices, go to your local comic store. Marvel makes a fraction of its income from comic books, but understands that comics are the fertile field that good ideas come from. This was in dispute for a short time as one could argue that classic Marvel deserved all the credit, but contributions from more recent projects like the Ultimates to other media demonstrate the soundness of the concept. If something doesn't work, Marvel doesn't waste much more time on it. Easy.

WotC does not get (and you don't seem to get) that worlds and characters are *about* things other than the ability to demonstrate and support Daily Powers and crap.

This is no insult to the genius of people like Mike Mearls, who has not only written great game systems, but wrote one of my favourite Scarred Lands setting books. WotC's problem is systemic. It is obvious that the company has long been without any channel for creative development that isn't subservient to a system design or marketing process. Like I said before: It's sad.

 

[Imaro]

...

Keith Baker's Eberron was pretty good too, I heard. Eberron as WotC does it is ass, though. But that's because it was designed as a dumping ground for various conceptual leftovers. (Thanks for the racist Drow guys!).
...

Dude, As much as I like Eberron... I thought I was the only one who thought making the only "dark skinned" race of elves... "ex-slaves" and "jungle savages" was even more offensive than making them, as a race, majority evil.

 

[Umbran]

You lose.

No, by turning this into a win/lose scenario, you lose.

We've had to close some threads recently because people didn't treat each other well, or show some basic respect for each other. Don't expect us to have further patience for such.

Play nice, or don't play. Very simple.

 

[Jhaelen]

Dude, As much as I like Eberron... I thought I was the only one who thought making the only "dark skinned" race of elves... "ex-slaves" and "jungle savages" was even more offensive than making them, as a race, majority evil.

Well, all elves are ex-slaves in Eberron, just like all dwarves are ex-slaves in the 4e default PoL setting.

What's wrong with that?

What I always felt didn't make any sense is why dark elves are 'dark-skinned' in the first place. If they're elves banished from the surface to dwell in the lightless depth of the Underdark, they should have pale skin!

In the D&D Gazetter about dark elves that was done right. They actually were pale-skinned there.

 

[Imaro]

Well, all elves are ex-slaves in Eberron, just like all dwarves are ex-slaves in the 4e default PoL setting.

What's wrong with that?

What I always felt didn't make any sense is why dark elves are 'dark-skinned' in the first place. If they're elves banished from the surface to dwell in the lightless depth of the Underdark, they should have pale skin!

In the D&D Gazetter about dark elves that was done right. They actually were pale-skinned there.

It's not just that they are ex-slaves... it's that they are ex-slaves, jungle savages and the only dark-skinned race of elves all combined in a pulp setting. It harkens back to the racism and stereotypes of the pulp stories that involved Africa... and for black people who are familiar with some of those stories harkens backto just how offensive they were. YMMV of course.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I say "OSR." You lose.

Huh? The OSR is, so far as I can tell, all existing hobbyists.

No, that was because of the intersection of Moore's Law and software development.

What you list just widens the playing area for the mechanics to exploit.

This is restating the problem as a solution, so it merits no consideration.

At the very least it should merit you asking yourself whether your "problem" is really one.

The term "financial research" is meaningless. Do you mean accounting? Market research? Are you talking about anything factual, or merely stringing together words that sound impressive to you?

I was actually thinking of forensic accounting into failed companies when I wrote that. And didn't explain clearly.

The game that's being redone to appeal to people who like linear fighter/quadratic wizard no matter how much you declare they shouldn't?

Can you give me one scrap of evidence for this please? That there are now old style boring fighter builds that I'd almost rather not play than use myself (*cough*Slayer*cough*) isn't news - and there are people who want to play them so as long as I don't have to I'm not worried. But Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard was a whole different complaint. Give me the mathematical justification behind your claim please?

Mike Mearls explicitly says otherwise.

Link? And demonstration why 4e is worse than any other game. (Given that it's one of the very few games in which I can sword and board fight the way I do in real life...)

I'm glad a game finally does justice to something written in 1991. Boy, y'all must feel like *trendsetters.*

No. Why would I want to? Trendsetters are the people who waste their money on Betamax and HDDVD. However I do feel I have something high quality rather than churned out.

Yeah, TSR sure made some good settings. This is kind of my point. WotC cannot outdo a rickety, nearly dead company whose leadership hated RPGs when it comes to developing worlds.

WoTC does the part of development I don't like to do myself. TSR did the part of development I like.

(Thanks for the racist Drow guys!).

Yeah

My buddy paints better than Michealangelo, but I can't show you, because he's in Canada with your girlfriend!

I have my own settings developing. Unless theirs genuinely add something to mine I'd rather they focus it.

A vanity project if it has no hope of creating a valuable intellectual property.

Vanity publishing of unreadable documents can create a valuable intellectual property. I'm thinking of James Joyce.

To create valuable intellectual property, a company must be willing to take minor risks and experiment. For a decade now, WotC has failed to do any significant development here except to create Eberron -- and Eberron is a failure. Eberron is a failure *because* of WotC's setting development style.

Um... I'll take Eberron over any of the 2e settings I've played in. And you discount the Nentir vale and PoLand.

For 10 years, WotC has focused on practices that obviously don't work when it comes to creating engaging world-based IP.

No. It works for creating good games. Worlds, in my experience, are nothing more than a coathook or basic scene setting.

And the worst thing you can do is make the media objective (in this case RPG play) the entire focus of setting development.

It's not the entire focus. Just a major one.

For an example of good practices, go to your local comic store. Marvel makes a fraction of its income from comic books, but understands that comics are the fertile field that good ideas come from. This was in dispute for a short time as one could argue that classic Marvel deserved all the credit, but contributions from more recent projects like the Ultimates to other media demonstrate the soundness of the concept. If something doesn't work, Marvel doesn't waste much more time on it. Easy.

Wait just a second. You're citing Marvel as good practice? Marvel whose editorial mandates are destroying Spider Man in terms of both stories and sales? (Even having Stan Lee writing Spider Man again isn't enough). Marvel whose events seem determined to things up.

WotC does not get (and you don't seem to get) that worlds and characters are *about* things other than the ability to demonstrate and support Daily Powers and crap.

Oh, I get that. What you do not get is that I do not play any world straight out of the box. Ever. I always customise, as does every DM I know. My worlds have depth the way I see them. And I'll steal things from official worlds. But there's only a point to an official world if it actually adds something new to the game. There's no point in Generic Fantasy World #27. What matters in a world is craftsmanship (which 4e has in spades), whether it extends what I can do with my own worlds, and what sort of stories can be told there. I don't want to buy Secrets of Sarlonia or The Frozen North. As a DM they would just restrict me.

I own two core setting books for 3e - Eberron and Iron Kingdoms (and a number of extra Eberron books picked up at £4 each - only Sharn's been at all worth it). I don't want more than this. I own the Eberron and Dark Sun books. If you want me to buy another damn world then sell me what it does that existing ones don't.

The only RPG I own a lot of setting books for is GURPS. And if I'm ever not sure of an idea for a campaign I pull two GURPS books out and mash them together. And I think I have only once played a world specific RPG in the setting it was meant for with the ruleset it was meant for.

 

[Shemeska]

Vanity publishing of unreadable documents can create a valuable intellectual property. I'm thinking of James Joyce.

I'm perfectly happy to embrace someone's love and adoration of 4e D&D even if I hold a polar opposite opinion, if we can both agree on one thing: James Joyce is the worst thing to have ever happened to writing in human history.

Can we agree on that one point?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

James Joyce is the worst thing to have ever happened to writing in human history.

Can we agree on that one point?

I can't!

I'll take James Joyce over some of the would-be Vogons who live among us:

A Tragedy
____Theophilus Marziais

Death!
Plop.
The barges down in the river flop.
Flop, plop.
Above, beneath.
From the slimy branches the grey drips drop,
As they scraggle black on the thin grey sky.
Where the black cloud rack-hackles drizzle and fly
To the oozy waters that lounge and flop
On the black scrag-piles, where the loose cords plop,
As the raw wind whines in the thin tree-top.
Plop, plop.
And scudding by
The boatmen call out hoy! and hey!
And all is running in water and sky,
And my head shrieks -- "Stop!"
And my heart shrieks -- "Die!"

My thought is running out of my head;
My love is running out of my heart;
My soul runs after, and leaves me dead,
For my life runs after to catch them -- and fled
They are all every one! -- and I stand, and start,
At the water that oozes up, plop and plop,
On the barges that flop
And dizzy me dead.
I might reel and drop.
Plop
Dead.
And the shrill wind whines in the thing tree-top.
Plop, plop.

A curse on him.
Ugh! yet I knew -- I knew --
If a woman is false can a friend be true?
It was only a lie from beginning to end --
My Devil -- my "friend"
I had trusted the whole pf my living to!
Ugh! And I knew!
Ugh!
So what do I care,
And my head is as empty as air --
I can do,
I can dare
(Plop, plop,
The barges flop
Drip, drop.)
I can dare, I can dare!
And let myself all run away with my head,
And stop.
Drop
Dead.
Flip, flop.
Plop.

And let us not forget James Grainger's immortal line, "Come muse, let us sing of rats..."