Is WotC innovative?

[Greg K]

The only innovative mechanics that I have seen from WOTC for d20 have been done on products other than D&D. Unfortunately (or fortunately), WOTC either leaves it for others to bring these mechanics to D&D or they introduce a half-assed version as OGL for others to fully implement. An example of the former would be the skill/feat system for magic (or psionics). The skill/feat system was used for the Force in WOTC's own Star Wars, but it took third party companies to bring it to DND. Examples of the the latter would be WP/VP, Class Defense bonus, and Armor as DR which were released as OGL in Unearthed Arcana. The attitude of WOTC was that they released this material as ogl, but they would leave it to others to fully implement into DND rather than doing it themselves. While I appreciate making these items OGL, I dislike the attitude that came with it. As a consumer, if I purchase a product, I expect the company to do the work and not leave it to me or another company to fully implement the system.

 

[MerricB]

The problem with those innovations is that many require you to throw out portions of the existing game to use. (Armour as DR is a very good example of this).

Meanwhile, the innovations in Magic of Incarnum fit solidly into the existing system.

Cheers!

 

[Numion]

I wouldn't call any single game mechanism as very innovative, for example armor as DR or vitality points. I would, however, call two things about 3E very innovative:

1) The license-yadda-yadda already covered

2) First consistent application of market research in designing an RPG. There have been those questionnaires in magazines and games and whatnot before that ask about your favorite gamesm when you startedm etc, but none that I've seen made the crucial connection from those preferences to the big aspects of the new edition. Like 6 months to a campaign on average, tying that to the EL and treasure system, etc. In essence the big market research was used to construct a baseline for most campaign aspects.

 

[Greg K]

The problem with those innovations is that many require you to throw out portions of the existing game to use. (Armour as DR is a very good example of this).

And many of us have no problem throwing portions of the existing game and appreciate options that allow us to do just that.

 

[JustKim]

If WotC's only innovative contribution was the OGL, can we possibly call anything from another company innovative? Can we honestly say this has been matched? Does anyone want to step up to the podium and tell us that Iron Heroes' token system has breathed new life into the industry, created jobs, inspired hundreds of books?

Can we say that WotC's anthology is not innovative while applauding Paizo on its anthologies in other threads? Can we say this is a bad sign for WotC when all of the other big companies- Mongoose, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, FFG, etc.- have already done so years ago? Who has the right to say that for WotC, and only WotC, this is a bad thing?

I don't think this is about innovation. I think it's about people who don't like WotC.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

WOTC puts out the best d20 products.

Perhaps this is true for you. It is definitely not my general opinion of WOTC products (although there are the very rare surprises).

I'm intrigued: who do you think puts out (any) better d20 products than WotC?

 

[Ranger REG]

That's the thing: Innovation means introducing something new. I see that all the time from Wizards, but not on the "here's an entirely new game" level.

Well, to steal a NBC catchphrase: "If it's new to you..."

I guess, if I look at the meaning of the word, WotC may have done something innovative, though I prefer the term "groundbreaking" better. Or perhaps "trendsetting." They did started up the TCG hobby.

 

[MerricB]

Well, to steal a NBC catchphrase: "If it's new to you..."

I guess, if I look at the meaning of the word, WotC may have done something innovative, though I prefer the term "groundbreaking" better. Or perhaps "trendsetting." They did started up the TCG hobby.

Wizards have managed to do some rather amazing groundbreaking things. They have got way too much of my money because of them.

However, the other side of the equation is support and development of those lines. If Gary Gygax had moved onto something other than D&D after publishing just the original set, what then? If Wizards had only published Alpha for Magic: the Gathering, what then?

When there's a new D&D (or d20 System) supplement produced, there are basically two options:

a) This supplement integrates easily into the existing system, and doesn't upset anything.
b) This supplement replaces parts of the existing system, making part of it obsolete.

Wizards usually takes the (a) path. Not always.

Wizards taking the (b) path is problematic. It has the potential... heck, it's not really a potential. It is a certainty that a product that does (b) will split the audience.

You may not have thought of it this way, but each campaign setting takes the (b) path. It *excludes* a series of other products. Wizards do try to fudge this with adaption notes and the like, but the vast bulk of information in an Eberron book is not going to just fit into a Forgotten Realms book.

There is a continuum between the two options, of course.

Now, is either option (a) or (b) innovative? Well, depending on how they're handled, either of them can be. How about groundbreaking? Again, either could be.

The use of the term "groundbreaking" in preference to "innovative" helps clarity greatly! "Innovation" can happen on small levels. "Groundbreaking" leaves little doubt.

Cheers!

 

[Glyfair]

And many of us have no problem throwing portions of the existing game and appreciate options that allow us to do just that.

Which is what Unearthed Arcana was all about. However, to develop it past that would be throwing out portions of the game for certain products, and either splintering their audience (this product is for those that use armor as DR) or else reducing the usable content in each product (these 6 pages of stats are for those who use this option, these 6 pages of stats are for those that use this option, etc).

 

[Greg K]

I'm intrigued: who do you think puts out (any) better d20 products than WotC?

Off the top of my head and settings aside (because I think WOTC's DND settings material are generally done well even if I don't play them), the first three that come to mind are Fantasy Flight Games, Green Ronin, and RPG Objects. I'll also add EnWorld (for their Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth), Malhavoc ("Book of" series), Mongoose, Monkey God (they are no longer making d20, but both "Frost and Fur" and "From Stone to Steel" were both excellent products).

And just for insight, the generic WOTC dnd supplements that I think were done well are: Unearthed Arcana (despite my love/hate relationship with it), Dragonomicon and Stormwrack. Book of Vile Darkness, Complete Warrior, and Sandstorm are also good enough that I may purchase them at some point, but they are not good enough to be on my list of must buys. To be fair, I haven't seen Heroes of Battle, Heroes of Horror, or Magic of the Incarnum (the previews for Magic of the Icarnum made me not want to check out the product).