Design Leadership from 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 4th

takasi

First Post
I have a friend who is, IMO, a little paranoid about the design of 4th edition. One analogy he frequently makes is that 4th edition will be to 3rd edition what 2nd edition was to 1st.

My friend did not like 2nd edition. There were many reasons mechanically, and the point of this thread really isn't to go into them.

What I'd like to look at is the leadership and actual people who designed 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

1st, 2nd and 3rd edition were essentially controlled and developed by entirely different lead designers and brand managers.

4th edition, on the other hand, has the same Director in charge: Bill Slavicsek. Mike Mearls, one of the lead designers, was chosen by Monte Cook as the designer of one of his leading systems after he left WotC. Most of the designers have been on the team for years making a living off of designing 3.5 material.

Do you think there is any comfort in the fact that in 4th edition the torch is actually being passed, whereas in previous editions the torch was either dropped and picked up or taken forcefully by someone else?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

No, I don't think it makes any difference. No one passed the torch to Tweet and Cook, but they did just fine.

Furthermore, I don't think the fact that Malhavoc produced Iron Heroes means that Mearls is annointed by Monte or anything; Malhavoc also produced supplements by Skip Williams and Sean Reynolds.

If there are problems with 4E, I think it will be because its design is influenced by outside considerations, rather than any inability on the part of Mearls, etc. If there's one thing that they've convinced me of with their design documents, it's that they understand the choices they are making, and why they are making them.

Ken
 

Haffrung Helleyes said:
No, I don't think it makes any difference. No one passed the torch to Tweet and Cook, but they did just fine.

But what about from 1st to 2nd?

And is it more comforting that the same manager is leading the change, rather than if it were a completely different company with new staff?

Haffrung Helleyes said:
Furthermore, I don't think the fact that Malhavoc produced Iron Heroes means that Mearls is annointed by Monte or anything; Malhavoc also produced supplements by Skip Williams and Sean Reynolds.

Skip and Sean were a part of the 3rd edition design team. I think the fact that Mearls was chosen to head Iron Heroes says a great deal about Monte's opinion of Mike's design skills.

Haffrung Helleyes said:
If there are problems with 4E, I think it will be because its design is influenced by outside considerations, rather than any inability on the part of Mearls, etc.

What are these influences, and where are they coming from? I'm sorry, that sounds a little 'tinfoil hat' to me. As you said, the designers know what they want to do and they are in charge of design. If it fails, it should be their responsibility for its failure. Unless you mean "listening to angry fans who think they know what they want"?
 

takasi said:
I have a friend who is, IMO, a little paranoid about the design of 4th edition. One analogy he frequently makes is that 4th edition will be to 3rd edition what 2nd edition was to 1st.

My friend did not like 2nd edition. There were many reasons mechanically, and the point of this thread really isn't to go into them.
It's just like the Star Trek movies! Where only the even numbered ones are good! Except, you know, opposite.
 
Last edited:

That's a really interesting question. If nothing else, I think we'll see (and have already seen) different sorts of improvements to the game due to the fact that several key people have worked on 3E as well. I think it will tend towards the game being more "tightly woven" than older editions. You may not like the design philosophy, but it's consistent throughout the game and backed up by certain logic based on how things worked in the previous edition.

But I think there's something else going on too that started in 3E and is really evident in 4E. The designers actually see themselves as professional designers. They're approaching the game design and development in a systematic manner, as opposed to a surge of creativity by one or a handful of individuals. They're more likely to rethink old design elements, and there's been a trend towards the entire game becoming more "systematic". Idiosyncratic elements are also likely to be ironed out before release, for better or for worse.

I'm interested in seeing what they produce.
 

I have similar fears concerning 4e, and have also made the comparison between 4e and 2e before. There are elements of the design philosophy that echo designer decisions in 2e. In particular, I'm annoyed by what appears to be the designers decision that the way we are playing is somehow not fun, and hense the rules must no longer support it. This strikes me as very similar to the justification for taking stuff away in 2e.

I do however think that 4e is going to attract quite a few fans in a way that 2e for the most part didn't. I think that 4e is going to please players who disliked 3e, in the same way that quite a few people felt that Basic D&D was a superior game to AD&D. So, while I still think its fair to compare 4e to 2e, I think its even more fair to compare it to the basic D&D game. It's a streamlined, simplified game designed to support D&D's core play without alot of simulationist material and options that increase flexibility at the expense of slowing down and complicating play. I should note that alot of 1e groups (I think nearly all of them, including mine) used some elements of the Basic D&D rules in thier AD&D games at one point in time, so this is by no means intended as an insult. I'm just saying that like the Basic game, 4e seems to represent a movement in D&D that very much runs against what I'm looking for in a game.
 

Celebrim said:
So, while I still think its fair to compare 4e to 2e, I think its even more fair to compare it to the basic D&D game. It's a streamlined, simplified game designed to support D&D's core play without alot of simulationist material and options that increase flexibility at the expense of slowing down and complicating play.

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into the specifics of why 4th is like 2nd. I'm trying to discuss the differences in leadership transitions between editions.

Your reply will threadjack this post, because I have not seen anything specific that has been presented by anyone to indicate simulationist play isn't possible in 4th edition. Some people have pointed to the additional gamist NPC rules, but that's a DM's choice as to whether to use them or apply the PC rules universally. It's an added option for gamist/dramatist play, but it does not stop simulationism. There are many other misconceptions, but I don't want to go into that in this thread.
 

takasi said:
But what about from 1st to 2nd?

And is it more comforting that the same manager is leading the change, rather than if it were a completely different company with new staff?



Skip and Sean were a part of the 3rd edition design team. I think the fact that Mearls was chosen to head Iron Heroes says a great deal about Monte's opinion of Mike's design skills.
I know Mearls reads this board so he can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think he was so much chosen to head Iron Heroes as that Iron Heroes was his baby and Malhavoc picked it up for publication to cover a soft spot in their own schedule.
 

I think it is good that we have veteran leadership at the helm of D&D at a time of great change. When I first heard the news about 4th, I was very apprehensive. If they just evolved the game like what happened between 1E & 2E, and 3e & 3.5e, then it would not be worth it. Having kept up on all the news of 4e, I can see where a new edition had to come out.

The d20 industry has made great strides in mechanics and concepts. WOTC and third party publishers fundamentally changed the play style of d20 gaming. Their where beginning to be a lot of play options that where faster, more fun than what core D&D could provide (ex. Castles and Crusades, True20, Iron Heroes, BO9S, Complete Arcane, etc.) without a lot of extra work on the individuals part. Play styles have changed with technology too. Groups are getting together from diverse geographic locations via the internet, and technology is starting to infiltrate the sit down game session. The technology driving this is very fragmented; theirs not a definitive product that sets the standard. Their are a lot of high standards in the products offered, however. All of these factors begged for a new edition that sets the standard once again, that provides the vision to wrap these factors into one distinct product. D&D has always been the industry standard, and if WOTC did not act and kept complacent, it would only fracture the industry more.

In times of great change in any segment of society, it is good to have solid leadership at the top with vision for the future. Unlike other times in D&D history, I think we have the right veteran leadership for our industry at the time we need it. At the time of 1e vs. 2e upgrade, the leadership of TSR was fundamentally in turmoil, and it is hard to get visionary products in a situation like that. What you get from that is a product that evolves in a linear fashion. I think a lot of people would agree that 1e to 2e was not much of an upgrade when it came down to it.

Going from 2E to 3E was revolutionary change for the time, and it accomplished the goal of consolidating and expanding the player base, and setting the industry standard again. The leadership at that time was not in turmoil; these where veteran RPG designers, players, and editors that have a love for D&D.

The changes from 3e to 3.5e where not very significant in the grand scheme of things. Mostly, in my opinion, it was a change born of the desire for most designers and players to tweak things. It also served the purpose of keeping the game vital. Changes have to be made in a hobby like ours every so often or things go stale. It's not like Monopoly where one rules set will suffice for generations.

Going into to 4e we have the essentially the same leadership that put D&D back in prominence. As an industry, I think we have the best team available for our future. In the next 5 years this industry is going to change drastically, without or without WOTC or D&D leading the way. I am glad they have chosen to lead and lead in a visionary manner.

As an aside, my favorite version of D&D is the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert edition. I liked and played both 1E and 2E. I never did play 3e. Life did not have me in RPG's at that time. I got back in with 3.5e, and at first liked it but began to hate it from a DM's stand point. This eventually got me looking at other games like Castles and Crusades (great game!) because I longed for simple DM'ing. I live near a college, however, and to keep my gaming group vibrant and full of players, I really had to play 3.5e because that is what all the new gamers where coming in under. They wanted to play D&D. They did not want to play other games. My love of playing the game outweighed my detest of the rules set. I learned to lump it and like it. I want my D&D K.I.S.S.'ed (Keep it simple stupid). On the other hand, I have learned from my young players that having player options can really be groovy! I do not have to think about player options, my job is to think about plot, monsters, and NPC's and make them go at a good pace. In reading the design philosophy behind 4E, it really makes me harken back to the spirit of the Moldvay/Cook edition (simple play) with a modern gaming sense about it (good mathematics, lots of player options, and the ability to manage the backend resources of the game in a K.I.S.S. manner).

Do I have concerns about the new edition? Yes, but I trust in the people we have working on the game to do the best job they can for the love of the game. Is the game going to be different? Absolutely.
 

I was almost the lead designer for 4th edition. . .

Back when 3E was coming out, I wrote a letter to Dragon explaining how a lot of the 3E rules were very close to house rules I implemented in my own game and how they could have saved themselves a lot of time and money just having me provide them a copy of my house rules documentation.

They published my letter, lamented the fact that they hadn't known that at the time, and invited other readers to write in voicing their support for me as lead designer of 4th edition.

I never got the call, so I'm guessing they didn't get enough responses. :)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top