xechnao said:
Well, I did give two examples, which you obviously identified. I'll go into more details on those below.
I will add that I don't find taking the best elements of
game design from MMOGs to be "aping" those games. One of Bradford's examples is the identification of specific roles for character classes. I'm not sure that it does any good to fail to communicate the roles of character classes to the players of the game. It may be that one can have classes that don't fit nicely into a role, but this will lead to certain situations in the game as it is played that the designers don't feel is optimal. In a combat game, and D&D has always been a combat game, a clear understanding of what a character does in combat can only help new and even existing players. (Similar critiques apply to other elements of game design that have been adopted in 4E that also show up in many MMOGs.)
I haven't got this. I think he is arguing that the tabletop business model should not try to compete with the MMO model and instead try to evolve or revolve in a way that originates and capitalizes to its basic unique premises and strengths in the new era.
Sure, but Bradford appears to be entirely ignorant of the existing, non MMOG, RPG business model. An important part of that model is producing rules product that players (or merely readers) of the game will continue to purchase. This is the role of splatbooks.
Bradford claims that 4E is "crippleware" without DDI, but he provides only one argument for this position and this argument is contrary to the existing model and developer claims.
In the existing model, splatbooks, setting books, and additional "core" books (such as more advanced player and DMs guides) are produced in a way to appeal to gamers. Not every player buys these books, but the continued success of any games companies relies on the purchase of these books. Gaming magazines are a combination of these products, produced in small sizes and at relatively small cost to reach a market that is not willing to spend more on such content and to provide additional opportunities to spend for those who want as much of such content as they can get.
Now DDI can deliver the same content as a gaming magazine, but at a better cost of production (since there are no printing costs). The additional potential abilities of an internet distribution service allow WOTC to bundle other products with this content, thus expanding their market by appealing to a wider variety of gamers. As far as I can tell, this is exactly the use to which WOTC statements claim that the project is for.
Now Bradford's argument for the "crippleware" conclusion seems to be that Hasbro will demand that D&D produce WoW performance. I find this hard to believe, given that Hasbro has the ability to do the cursory market research to find the difference between the two markets. While corporations are quite happy ruining things in the pursuit of profit, it is not enough to merely assume that they will automatically act without any comprehension of their products or market.
But there has been distant tabletop online gaming for quite some time now such as for example PBP/PBEM.
[sarcasm]Right. And there is no difference between PBP/PBEM and the immediacy of the proposed DDI features or between PBP/PBEM and teleconferencing.[/sarcasm]
My point is that better communications technology can bring the immediate social interaction of RPGaming to people at a great distance apart and something like the DDI features would be part of such telecommunications suites. One of the features of RPGs is the immediate construction of narrative in a context where there is no distance between author and audience. This feature is important (whether or not gamers consciously realize this) and it is lost in PBP/PBEM. Voice chat and video conferencing might recover that, but might not.
