D&D 4E David Noonan on 4E "Cloudwatching" (Added Dave's newest comment from his blog)

[Raven Crowking]

I doubt that.

Seriously, for a second.....

I imagine that the reason 1e succeeded so well (and D&D before it) was that it was easy to start, easy to play, and easy to make a new character if you died. Five minutes after the fatal sword thrust, you were right back in the game.

From 2e on, the time required to make a character has only increased. As a result, dying became less and less of a "fun" part of the game. Sure, in 1e, we would groan when we died, but it was par for the course at low levels. In a lot of ways, our "dying stories" stayed with us and got retold, if we managed to die in interesting fashions.

I tend to think that, without a real risk of death (as well as lesser risks, such as loss of equipment, etc.), D&D simply isn't rivetting enough (or at least not consistently). 2e convinced me to pull punches, because that was the DMing advice given, and it ruined the game. Now I don't pull punches, and the game is great. This is not a manifesto for unfair DMing, and I feel the same as a player.....I want a game that advocates letting the dice fall where they may.

In order to regain anything like the popularity of 1e, 4e would have to be easy to learn for newcomers, and quick to make characters for old hands, with a lot of added complexity that allows you to tweak the system the way you want, but can be ignored if you prefer to ignore it. You also need flavourful text that pulls you into trying the mechanics, and allows you to visualize it in your head.

Ultimately, if you want a broadly appealing game, you need to aim for easy play, fast play, and real risks/rewards.

All IMHO, of course.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I think its safe to say the second applies. Limited playtesting may or may not be under way, but we wouldn't know because anyone involved would be under an NDA.

Really? Sounds to me like they have doing long-term in-house and near-to-house alpha testing for a while, and that there will be some sort of more open but still beta or post-beta testing before release to shake out the last bugs.

And that sounds like a heck of a lot more testing than rules usually get in this industry.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Playtesting isn't aimed at converting people! It's aimed at... well, playtesting.

Yes, but one assumes that the point of playtesting is to determine how the system works under multiple playstyles and from as widely divergent a test sample as possible. Pulling your playtesters from people already hyped on the project is, IMHO, counterproductive.

Frankly, they should be getting some grognards like diaglo to playtest, some people who are hyped, and some people who express serious doubts.

In terms of converting others, I'd have to say I'd be more likely to buy 4.0 at this point because Celebrim said it was fantastic than because people culled from the DI said so.

RC

 

[BryonD]

Seriously, for a second.....

I imagine that the reason 1e succeeded so well (and D&D before it) was that it was easy to start, easy to play, and easy to make a new character if you died. Five minutes after the fatal sword thrust, you were right back in the game.

Sounds like WoW.

SNIP

All IMHO, of course.

I'm not going to argue with any of your points.
But I think they are more true of us ENWorlder types than the broad appeal I'm talking about.

1E was a really good game. But I think if you fail to account for the lack of competition, or rather the vastly more competition now, when comparing the numbers then you are not doing a remotely reasonable assessment.

I'd wager that if 1E had had to go up against a WoW type attraction in the 1980s that the term 1E would not mean anything because there would have never been another edition.

 

[Glyfair]

I imagine that the reason 1e succeeded so well (and D&D before it) was that it was easy to start, easy to play, and easy to make a new character if you died. Five minutes after the fatal sword thrust, you were right back in the game.

No, I don't think so. Maybe character creation in 3E suffers in comparison to AD&D and D&D, but they weren't easy games. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think that is what attracted many people.

Compare the rules for any edition of D&D with any other mainstream game (and I use mainstream pretty loosely) and it suffers based on size. There are too many options that you need to cover. And that is what drew people to D&D and other roleplaying games. It was the options in play. You weren't limited to a playing field designated in the game, with a limited set of moves. You could try anything you wanted, even if you were restricted by a certain rules structure.

 

[Delta]

...What part of that blog (or the comments attached in this thread) has anything at all to do with the OGL? You'll have to hilight that bit for me because I dont see it.

3E introduced the OGL, which Ryan Dancey modelled on GPL software, suggesting that everyone would get a chance to write modifications, and the best stuff would be selected by a community process to add to the official core rules. It's one of the biggest things that excited me about 3E.

4E designers are in words and practice saying that whatever your responses or actions may be as players, "None of them move the clouds," and "Your reactions to it are your own", which is exactly the opposite. Ryan Dancey also admitted recently that player-community modifications cannot, in fact, enter into the core rules, for practical reasons. It's one of the biggest things that disappoints me about 3.5 and 4E.

So, this constitutes an explicit (and not solitary) rejection of the original promise behind the OGL, which was the #1 thing that personally brought be back to D&D with 3E.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Of course there will. You think they'll just grab people and say "Hey! You're a playtester now, whether you want to be or not!"

There will be an application process.

Now I can envision a big bruiser-looking fellow in the stereotypical Italian mode cracking his knuckles and saying: "Youse looks like you can throw some dice. Mike Mearls (pronounced "Moike Moiles") would like to see you. He's got an offer youse can't refuse."

--fje

 

[Grog]

Yes, but one assumes that the point of playtesting is to determine how the system works under multiple playstyles and from as widely divergent a test sample as possible. Pulling your playtesters from people already hyped on the project is, IMHO, counterproductive.

Why? Why would their playtest experiences be any less valid than anyone else's?

Frankly, they should be getting some grognards like diaglo to playtest, some people who are hyped, and some people who express serious doubts.

In terms of converting others, I'd have to say I'd be more likely to buy 4.0 at this point because Celebrim said it was fantastic than because people culled from the DI said so.

The purpose of playtesting is not to convince people to buy the product.

 

[see]

Remember; some publisher is going to put out a 3.5.1 if there's anything resembling a market for it. There are enough bits & pieces around under the OGL that it would be next-to-trivial to cut-n-paste text; write up some gods, some flavor text, and some example; add art; do layout; and publish, say, four books. Son new players will be able to buy new 3.5 books

So the only way 4e takes off in the long run is if 4e is preferred over 3.5 in the long run; otherwise publishers of a 3.5.1 will eat WotC's lunch.

 

[DaveMage]

Granted, I'm a "leap-grognard"; I was a 1e old-timer that skipped 2e and returned to the fold with 3e. I recently started a new IRC chat-based game and would like to convert to the 4e rules, when they are available. So long as I can run a 4e game in the World of Greyhawk, in a setting entirely underwater with non-core races, I'll be set. Did I mention that the BBEG is a bard? Oh, and the D&DI won't run on my Mac, so that's out too.

I was still looking forward to years of 3.5e releases; "The Hydronomicon", "Races of Water", "Complete Aquan", and "Waterscape", for a start. "Tome of Magic II: Hag Magic" would have been a boon (which brings us to the merging of the erinyes and succubus... wrong direction, for my tastes, I wanted female daemons and demodands and have created such beasties for my games).

The whole monster role versus PC role scares the bejeebers out of me, as I don't use core races in my games, aside from NPCs.

LOL!