How much content do you want from WotC?

[renau1g]

A note up-front: I don't run 4e, I'm not in the market to buy anything 4e-related, and that won't be changing until 5e is released (hopefully, in several years time). So, treat what follows with the appropriate scepticism.

I would say it's not really a question of "how much", but rather "what type". At this point in time, there is so much material out there for 4e already that players should be able to create and run pretty much any type of character they want. As such, I really don't see much of a market for further expansions, except maybe for Essentialised versions. (Although, since Essentials is definitely not 4.5e, there really shouldn't be any call for such things...)

They should only publish more "player options" if they're sure they come up with something new and exciting that they're sure will have 'traction'. (Obviously, this is hugely difficult to judge - Warforged, Dragonborn, Tieflings and Shardminds all seem to have it; Zephs, Raptorans and Kalashtar not so much...) But just putting out books of options for the sake of it seems pointless at this stage.

That being the case, I would suggest their best option would be to focus on two things: providing tools to allow DMs to run the best games they can, and restoring the reputation of the DDI to the point where it becomes considered a "must-have", prior to an eventual 5e.

For DM tools, then, I would suggest doing a "beginner setting", and some "beginner adventures" - materials designed specifically to move new DMs from 'novice' to 'competent', and, crucially, allowing them not just to run the pre-canned materials, but also holding their hands through designing their own settings and adventures. (The existing books no doubt do this to a certain extent, but more is always welcome.)

For more experienced DMs, they should provide more (and better) adventures, and maybe some interesting settings (or maybe just a book of half a dozen "setting seeds").

Meanwhile, the DDI, they should aim to get the tools up and working (and improved) as quickly as possible. And they should be using eDragon and eDungeon to provide "something for everybody, every month".

So, Dragon should have class acts articles, should provide interesting takes on existing options, should expand the fluff surrounding the new races, and so on, and so on. The aim, as I said, should be to provide at least something for every class (and/or race) every month, even if that's just one feat, power, or whatever.

(They might also consider using Dragon, or Dungeon, to do a series on world-building, possibly also stepping through the process of creating a new web-exclusive setting. Thus giving subscribers something to play in that isn't available anywhere else.)

With Dungeon, I think they should aim for every issue to have at least three adventures (one per tier, though five would be better), to provide a mix of short zero-prep delves for DMs in a hurry, longer standalone adventures to drop into a campaign, and Adventure Paths. (I do think Dungeon should feature Paths, preferably one a year, possibly consisting of nine adventures covering 15 or so levels.) And they should also make a point of providing adventures set in the published settings, ideally tailored specifically for those settings (as opposed to being "generic adventures with FR Proper Nouns dropped around the place").

I think the ideal mix I would advocate for Dungeon would be:

1 Heroic zero-prep Delve (for use in a single session)
1 Paragon zero-prep Delve (for use in a single session)
1 Adventure Path module (of whatever level)
1 generic standalone adventure (Heroic, Paragon or Epic, whatever the AP is notusing this month)
1 setting-specific standalone adventure (again, H, P or E depending on what the AP and generic adventure aren't covering)

Naturally, they would need to ensure that the quality of both these mags is very high. I would strongly recommend also that they drop the "Delve" format for Dungeon adventures, except for the two zero-prep Delves.

I strongly agree with you on the Dungeon sad state of affairs and if they came close to this I'd re-sub in a heartbeat. I disagree that they have enough material to play any concept. Like say I wanted to play a competent controller...I wouldn't select a Seeker as they are pretty terrible and they have 0 support. Same for Runepriest, Str-clerics, assassins, Changelings, etc. There's many examples of opportunities they've not addressed.

I want about as many adventures as I used to get in Dungeon Magazine. And a similar quality in writing and illustration. And 3-room Delves don't count.

Which reminds me that I need to cancel my DDI subscription before it autorenews at the end of the month.

Yes, those three room delves don't take me more than 20-mins on my own to throw together. Note: I'm not knocking the authors of them, there are some decent ones and they're forced into that format by their customer.

 

[Balesir]

Purely a personal perspective, but I would like to see more game "rulesets". What I mean by that is, 4E has a good ruleset for the combat game/challenge. It has a kinda-ruleset, or, at least, a core mechanic, for the Skill Challenge - although I think this could drive several distinct 'sub-games' for different types of challenge. But I would love to see others. The challenge-busting is the core player focus of 4E, in my experience, and the more paths and options we have there, the better.

As an example, a social subgame that covers both one-on-one persuasion or argument and more subtle scenarios with several players and relationships and reputations would be very cool. Making this a tactical exercise where undermining NPCs or changing opinions over time - or even being able to (try to) manipulate the feelings of the populous - would add a whole new arena to the game. This not to be used for every social encounter, obviously - only those that are "challenging" parts of the adventure at hand.

 

[wedgeski]

As an example, a social subgame that covers both one-on-one persuasion or argument and more subtle scenarios with several players and relationships and reputations would be very cool. Making this a tactical exercise where undermining NPCs or changing opinions over time - or even being able to (try to) manipulate the feelings of the populous - would add a whole new arena to the game. This not to be used for every social encounter, obviously - only those that are "challenging" parts of the adventure at hand.

This is going to sound glib, but don't you think that a Skill Challenge variant would handle these scenarios adequately?

 

[Zaran]

I picked adventures. I feel 4e us lacking in that department. Especially when you eliminate the low quality ones.

I also wouldn't mind seeing new campaign settings like Dragonlance and Oriental adventures.

 

[Balesir]

This is going to sound glib, but don't you think that a Skill Challenge variant would handle these scenarios adequately?

Sure, that's kind of my point. The Skill Challenge rules as they stand are sort of the "Attribute vs. X Defence roll to hit" core mechanic. How about adding some analogues to the movement rules, the damage rules and all that good stuff onto that? Making whole subsystems out of Skill Challenges, rather than just giving the core mechanic?

 

[wedgeski]

Sure, that's kind of my point. The Skill Challenge rules as they stand are sort of the "Attribute vs. X Defence roll to hit" core mechanic. How about adding some analogues to the movement rules, the damage rules and all that good stuff onto that? Making whole subsystems out of Skill Challenges, rather than just giving the core mechanic?

Hmm, yeah okay, I think I see where you're going. Sounds like good stuff for a hypothetical DMG3.

 

[Kzach]

I would much prefer to have very high quality, well thought out, thoroughly play-tested, well-made hard-cover books twice a year than twenty crappy, badly made, not very well thought out and hardly play-tested paper-backs.

And quite frankly I could do without DDI altogether.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

10 year plan...

- One Player's Book every 2 years
- One DM's Book every 2 years
- One Planar book every 2 years
- One Campaign Setting Book every 2 years
- One Monster Book every 2 years (pick 30 'themes', some generic, some specific and create about 10 monsters of different ranks but similar levels for each theme)
- One Niche book every 2 years (Modern; Future; Deities & Demigods)
- One Adventure per month*

*and not necessarily adventure paths, mix and match things up. Maybe 6 Heroic Tier, 4 Paragon Tier and 2 Epic Tier adventures per year. Keep the adventures shorter and more focused (that cuts down on padding).

 

[Jhaelen]

Recently I was looking at the thief class guide on char op boards, and got rather miffed. The consensus there seems to be, if you are a thief, grab a rapier, be a kulkor arms master, charge, make two attacks, win. If you're not doing this, you're handicapping yourself. I don't want to see this sort of pigeonholed jank. I want options. Real ones.

But isn't that to be expected? I think that's a side-effect of Essentials classes. These are straightjacketed builds that are meant to be played 'as-is'. If you want to deviate from a build, there isn't a lot you can do, except pick a different build.

If you'd like to play a staff-fighting halfling thief you have to play the new 'halfling staff-fighter' build for thieves which will be introduced in the forthcoming 'Heroes of Shortness and Wooden Implements'.

Meaningful options and character customization was what 'classic' 4e was all about.

Essentials is about pre-packaged cookie-cutter builds, which is great if one of the builds happens to perfectly fit your vision and not so great in every other case.

Maybe, the game will return to former greatness after they've released the new multi-classing rules. I won't hold my breath, though.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

But isn't that to be expected? I think that's a side-effect of Essentials classes. These are straightjacketed builds that are meant to be played 'as-is'. If you want to deviate from a build, there isn't a lot you can do, except pick a different build.

If you'd like to play a staff-fighting halfling thief you have to play the new 'halfling staff-fighter' build for thieves which will be introduced in the forthcoming 'Heroes of Shortness and Wooden Implements'.

Meaningful options and character customization was what 'classic' 4e was all about.

Essentials is about pre-packaged cookie-cutter builds, which is great if one of the builds happens to perfectly fit your vision and not so great in every other case.

Maybe, the game will return to former greatness after they've released the new multi-classing rules. I won't hold my breath, though.

Really?

I'm sorry to hear that your imagination is so limited.

Essentials builds are still plenty adaptable to many different concepts, without a lot of tweaking. It's a feature, not a bug. Not every concept needs to be expressed as a series of powers that you burn off every encounter.