Gen Con Design & Development Seminar on YouTube

[Mercurius]

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I did a search and didn't come up with anything. Here is a link to [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOzuu45mfTw"]Part 1[/ame] of the Design & Development Seminar at Gen Con on YouTube. It has eight parts and is almost two hours long but is worth skimming through, with lots of Q&A with Stephen Schubert, Rich Baker, and Bill Slaviscek.

I really got the sense that Slaviscek is the man in charge, or at least the guy who has the most clearance to say (or not say) certain things. Not a surprise, really, given his position, but you really see it clearly in these videos. There were quite a few questions about Essentials and you could tell that they, Slaviscek in particular, were getting a bit annoyed and maybe a tad frustrated.

Unfortunately you can't hear the questions and they only repeat them occasionally, but you get the gist of what they were by their answers. I'm pretty sure that someone asked them in a later video if Essentials was 4.5, with BS shaking his head and laughing painfully, saying "No, it is all just Dungeons & Dragons" and then SS saying "We can't use numbers around Bill."

I found Parts 2-4 particularly interesting in terms of Essentials. Slaviscek describes the core rulebooks as being getting on the highway at "10th street" and Essentials is getting on at "1st street." This also clarified to me why I probably shouldn't buy any more Essentials products (I'm toying with canceling my pre-orders for the DM's Kit, HotFK and MV, although will probably still get MV but not the other two).

He also says that "This is the direction we're going to use moving forward." I'm not entirely sure if he means Essentials as a whole, the physical presentation, or the rules adjustments themselves. Maybe all of the above?

He also says, as I've heard some say here, that these were things they had in mind from the beginning, that the first couple years would be about converting old players to 4E and the next phase would be about acquisition. He pretty much says, without outright saying it, that sales have been somewhat disappointing, especially in terms of bringing in new players.

Finally, he did say that there will be more hardcover books, although he also said something to the effect that format in the future depends upon the success of the Essentials products (I can't quite remember how he phrased it, but that was what I took from it).

Any comments or thoughts on this seminar? Did anyone attend?

 

[xechnao]

Wotc designers opted to make a tactical role game with the striker, defender, leader & controller roles.

From that point they tried to shoehorn the d&d tropes strictly into this paradigm.

They fixed a structure to hold things in place and started development and expansion to further development of alternatives upon that structure.

It was obvious that bloat would come after a certain point.

So, they knew that they had better revisit development from the ground up so to reboot.

The reboot would incorporate an effort to address the problems of the reaction of the public to 4e by trying to streamline the game as much as possible while still remaining the same game.

Their plan was to sell to the people that would buy and play 4e no matter what and then try to sell to the public harder to reach after receiving feedback from the easier public to sell to. Additionally they could resell 4e to the easy to sell public.

If they tried the other way they would have to invest more, accept higher risks and lose the chance to sell two times the same thing to a number of people.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I didn't get to go to this panel, unfortunately. Although, I did attend the "new products" seminar where they went over a bunch of their products for the next year and a bit and explained the rationale behind them and what they would contain. They did go over some of this in that seminar as well.

I got the distinct impression that they have a new philosophy going forward. That philosophy appears to be:

1. Make the game more closely resemble the editions people grew up with(1e/2e).

2. Keep things simple for new players.

3. Use much more "fluff"(although, Mike Mearls hates that word).

They used the road analogy during that seminar as well. Saying that Essentials was only 10 products and then it was over. That it was just for getting people in at 1st street and nothing else. But that the design philosophy of Essentials would likely go forward into future products.

They really emphasized point 3 above. This was because Mike Mearls was put in charge of the new D&D philosophy and he feels the game needs more story and context than it has had in the past. One example given was "When you introduce a magic item in a book, give the STORY behind the magic item, not just a stat block". Mike relayed a story about a type of armor from the Heroes of Shadow book called Haunted Armor that had a hole in it about heart level, so that you got the sense that someone died in the armor, and that's why it's haunted and therefore that's how it got its magic powers. He wanted to emphasize the fact that people don't go around creating magic items constantly, that most were created naturally by circumstances beyond people's control.

He also mentioned the fact that they were introducing a book with more non-combat options for players later next year that would also have advice on how to better understand the role your race plays on your character(although, he refused to give details about the book since it is just in the planning stages and was only approved as a concept a week or two before GenCon).

They explained that part of the reason behind the addition of item rarities was as an effort to add story and roleplaying to magic items. They felt that magic items didn't feel special partially due to their lack of story, but partially due to their availability. They also felt that DMs were losing control of their games to players because of the open availability of magic items and wanted to give DMs back the power to choose what magic items were and were not available. It also ties into the aforementioned point about magic items not being created. The idea of common items is that only the most basic of items are created by anyone.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Wotc designers opted to make a tactical role game with the striker, defender, leader & controller roles.

From that point they tried to shoehorn the d&d tropes strictly into this paradigm.

I disagree. The roles were always part of D&D. The number of arguments we had in 3e games about the Cleric who insisted on buffing himself instead of other people or healing(thereby not being a very good Cleric) or the Rogue who concentrated entirely on defense and didn't contribute damage who everyone complained wasn't being very useful to the group(because they weren't being a very good Rogue).

We didn't have the words to properly explain what was going on back then, but the problem was that the further someone decided to drift for the role their class was designed for, the less powerful the group was on the whole. Clerics needed to do the Leader thing, Rogues needed to do the Striker thing, and so on. The game system let you break the mold and go a different route, but it almost always punished you for doing so.

4e's explicit roles were just an acknowledgment of this and an effort to save people from themselves. If removing all offensive capability from a Rogue caused them to be a liability to the group, then they simply removed the ability to take that option.

The reboot would incorporate an effort to address the problems of the reaction of the public to 4e by trying to streamline the game as much as possible while still remaining the same game.

I think that they created a game they thought would work well(and it does, IMHO), but that a decent amount of the public complained about certain aspects(all of the classes being too similar to each other was one of the big ones).

So, they all sat around and discussed how they could make some classes different from other classes without imbalancing the game. They ended up trying out some of these ideas in the psionic classes. When the response was mostly positive they realized they could go a little further and make classes even more different. And they ended up with the Essentials classes.

Their plan was to sell to the people that would buy and play 4e no matter what and then try to sell to the public harder to reach after receiving feedback from the easier public to sell to. Additionally they could resell 4e to the easy to sell public.

I don't think their plans were this nefarious. They made a game they thought everyone would like. When everyone didn't like it, they examined it to see what could be changed in order to address people's concerns without changing it so much that the fans of the system would revolt. They simply made a compromise.

I serious doubt that anyone sat in a room and said "There's going to be some gullible people out there that are easy to sell to, even if we sell them crap. After they've all bought our crap, we'll get their feedback and use it to convince smart people".

 

[Jack99]

I really got the sense that Slaviscek is the man in charge, or at least the guy who has the most clearance to say (or not say) certain things. Not a surprise, really, given his position, but you really see it clearly in these videos.

Well, he has been in charge for a long time...

There were quite a few questions about Essentials and you could tell that they, Slaviscek in particular, were getting a bit annoyed and maybe a tad frustrated.

Wishful thinking or simply your bias? Or maybe mine. Bill didn't seem annoyed or frustrated - just uncomfortable speaking in front of a large crowd.

Unfortunately you can't hear the questions and they only repeat them occasionally, but you get the gist of what they were by their answers.

Yeah, quite annoying. Provide them with a mike next time.

I'm pretty sure that someone asked them in a later video if Essentials was 4.5, with BS shaking his head and laughing painfully, saying "No, it is all just Dungeons & Dragons" and then SS saying "We can't use numbers around Bill."

He definitely looks like a man tired of answering that question constantly. - if that is the question asked. Damn hard to hear much.

I found Parts 2-4 particularly interesting in terms of Essentials. Slaviscek describes the core rulebooks as being getting on the highway at "10th street" and Essentials is getting on at "1st street." This also clarified to me why I probably shouldn't buy any more Essentials products (I'm toying with canceling my pre-orders for the DM's Kit, HotFK and MV, although will probably still get MV but not the other two).

So because they are meant to be an easier entry-point, they are worthless? Or what is your reason to cancel your orders?

He also says that "This is the direction we're going to use moving forward." I'm not entirely sure if he means Essentials as a whole, the physical presentation, or the rules adjustments themselves. Maybe all of the above?

RB, or was it SS is talking specifically about the part where powers, feats etc get more fluff. So must BS be, since he has already stated that the physical size etc will depend on just how well the Essentials sell.

He also says, as I've heard some say here, that these were things they had in mind from the beginning, that the first couple years would be about converting old players to 4E and the next phase would be about acquisition. He pretty much says, without outright saying it, that sales have been somewhat disappointing, especially in terms of bringing in new players.

He says they are happy with the first part of their plan, ie bringing old players over, but not too happy about the second part (We are not exactly where we wanted to be - I think he says) - which doesn't quite means that sales have been disappointing.

Finally, he did say that there will be more hardcover books, although he also said something to the effect that format in the future depends upon the success of the Essentials products (I can't quite remember how he phrased it, but that was what I took from it).

Correct

In other news..(all paraphrased)

The DDI is a pretty big hit (You can see Bill nodding when SS looks at him for confirmation)

Bill loves minis, but they are slowing down production (not stopping) to help retailers sell through one set before the next arrives - bc the minis as is do not sell as before (big shock!!!)

They still claim that they are not doing any needless symmetry..

DS books actually went all through Design before getting changed from the FR/Eberron format of DM-player-adventure books.

The flow between Design, Development and Editing is much more fluid and the different parts communicate a lot more.

They have also gone from 1-man designing his vision, to "work by committee". This speeds up the cycle of producing a product and weeds out the worst and most broken things.

One of things they considered originally was playing up alignment, making it a third pillar of character creation (race-class-xxx) - themes from DS is a take on what the third pillar could have been.

There are too many feats as it is right now, they will try to scale back things.

The Monster Vault will have orcs, goblins, kobolds, trolls, ogres and dragons amongst others in it - it is there to provide the high fantasy iconic D&D feel to those who play it. Some of the monsters might be stolen directly from prior books, but most will be new versions of classic monsters.

 

[Quickleaf]

Thanks for pointing that out! I was wondering about the work by commitee thing when I read the wizard entry in HotFL - the enchantment spells have more story ties than the other 2 schools. The difference really jumps out at you.

 

[Mercurius]

The reboot would incorporate an effort to address the problems of the reaction of the public to 4e by trying to streamline the game as much as possible while still remaining the same game.

Yup, although I don't think "streamlining" is the result. My sense is that Essentials is not a streamlining, but a new formatting that includes one or two major changes (Essentialized classes, magic item rarity) and a few minor tweaks. But yeah, I think their intent was to find a way to make people buy the core rules again but keep it backwards compatible thereby minimizing nerdrage.

1. Make the game more closely resemble the editions people grew up with(1e/2e).

2. Keep things simple for new players.

3. Use much more "fluff"(although, Mike Mearls hates that word).

I love these three in principle. Why am I not thrilled with the result?

They really emphasized point 3 above. This was because Mike Mearls was put in charge of the new D&D philosophy and he feels the game needs more story and context than it has had in the past. One example given was "When you introduce a magic item in a book, give the STORY behind the magic item, not just a stat block". Mike relayed a story about a type of armor from the Heroes of Shadow book called Haunted Armor that had a hole in it about heart level, so that you got the sense that someone died in the armor, and that's why it's haunted and therefore that's how it got its magic powers. He wanted to emphasize the fact that people don't go around creating magic items constantly, that most were created naturally by circumstances beyond people's control.

Sounds great to me. I really like this new take with magic items. One of the consensus Big Problems with 4E is the mundane feeling to magic items. Magic item rarity--especially this "naturalistic" approach--is a great fix, imo. In a sense it makes all "rare" items becoming minor artifacts and almost requires that they have a story to them.

I think that they created a game they thought would work well(and it does, IMHO), but that a decent amount of the public complained about certain aspects(all of the classes being too similar to each other was one of the big ones).

So, they all sat around and discussed how they could make some classes different from other classes without imbalancing the game. They ended up trying out some of these ideas in the psionic classes. When the response was mostly positive they realized they could go a little further and make classes even more different. And they ended up with the Essentials classes.

While I like the idea that this is true and appreciate your view here, even WotC has admitted that Essentials has been in the works for years. Furthermore, there is just no way that they could have taken the feedback with the psionic classes and turned that into Essentials. I mean, what sort of timeline are we talking about? When did psionics first start appearing in Dragon? It can't be more than a few months before the Essentials line came out, and Essentials was announced in the Spring, I think.

Wishful thinking or simply your bias? Or maybe mine. Bill didn't seem annoyed or frustrated - just uncomfortable speaking in front of a large crowd.

A weird comment, Jack. Why would I wish that BS is annoyed? And what sort of bias would this be? I don't get it.

But yeah, I can see how I could have misinterpreted his uncomfortableness speaking to a crowd with irritation.

So because they are meant to be an easier entry-point, they are worthless? Or what is your reason to cancel your orders?

They are worthless to me because A) I've already "entered", and B) Any crunch I want can be found in DDI updates. Eventually. Hopefully.

That said, I really like Rules Compendium. But I very much dislike Heroes of the Fallen Lands, or the way that it is formatted. As I have said elsewhere it feels claustrophobic and I just prefer multiple columns and more page space (and hardcovers, at least for core books). So I'm definitely canceling HotFK and am about 50/50 on DM's Kit (do I really need another book of DM advice? I haven't read all the advice in the books I have), but am probably going to stick with Monster Vault.

 

[Jack99]

A weird comment, Jack. Why would I wish that BS is annoyed? And what sort of bias would this be? I don't get it.

But yeah, I can see how I could have misinterpreted his uncomfortableness speaking to a crowd with irritation.

Lots of people on these boards would just love such a thing. I do not keep a list of such people, and wrongly assumed you were one of them, my bad, I hereby offer you my most sincere apologies.

They are worthless to me because A) I've already "entered", and B) Any crunch I want can be found in DDI updates. Eventually. Hopefully.

That said, I really like Rules Compendium. But I very much dislike Heroes of the Fallen Lands, or the way that it is formatted. As I have said elsewhere it feels claustrophobic and I just prefer multiple columns and more page space (and hardcovers, at least for core books). So I'm definitely canceling HotFK and am about 50/50 on DM's Kit (do I really need another book of DM advice? I haven't read all the advice in the books I have), but am probably going to stick with Monster Vault.

I agree and understand. On one hand, I am not a huge fan of the format, on the other I am (I like the size for reading, bringing to the table etc, but dislike the way powers etc fit in only one column). I am still buying the books though.

 

[TerraDave]

I don't think their plans were this nefarious. They made a game they thought everyone would like. When everyone didn't like it, they examined it to see what could be changed in order to address people's concerns without changing it so much that the fans of the system would revolt. They simply made a compromise.

Yes...

While I like the idea that this is true and appreciate your view here, even WotC has admitted that Essentials has been in the works for years.

The official line (from one of these or one of the podcasts) is that Essentials was done on a rush basis, work on it started Sept 09.

The old player new player claim strikes me as...convienent...For most of the design process they obviously wanted both, and I am pretty sure some of the desingners, as some point, said that sacred cows were slaughtered to broaden the games appeal (as was the whole e-fiasco). And, as has been discussed in other threads, many of the new players they are now looking for with essentials clearly are old players. New-old players seem to be the main market.

I think by last year they realized that market share was stuck, sales of follow on books was falling faster then planned, and that a radical readjustment was needed.