Is WotC innovative?

[GQuail]

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.

Yeah, I like alternate rules and ideas as much as anyone, but if they basically involve me starting a new campaign to implement, they're not going to necesarilly see use for any length of time.

Meanwhile, Weapons of Legacy (whilst not a totally unique idea: more than a few other RPGs and even D20 products had touched on the idea before) featured whole new crunchy bits, advice for how to use it with various other systems (i.e. psionic and epic items of legacy) and was easy to drop into play.

Retreads can be somewhat grating, especially for the older set: I dunno if, when a new version comes out, I'd be champing at the bit to buy Deities and Demigods 4.0 or Manual of the Planes 4.0. But accusing it of being a weakness of an RPG company when they reprint books for their new edition is unfair.

At heart, the only thing that matters to me about an RPG book is "Can I use it in my game?" One of the best purchases I made recently was Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary, which is hardly revolutionary (it's just a pile of templates, many of which are concepts that exist elsewhere, including in some Wizards publications) but it brought with it loads of ideas to add into my game, and I've spent more than a few nights on my computer modifying monsters with them to knock together some unique encounters for my PCs. It'd probably be useful in any D20 game I ran, and in pretty much any adventure I could easilly slip one template on a monster. No matter how exciting a whole new innovative system might be, I'd probably still pick the Advanced Bestiary or a similar "utilitarian" book over it if forced.

 

[GQuail]

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.

Of course, a big point was made with 3rd ed to limit this problem in D&D: whereas converting rules from a Matzica supplmenet to a Greyhawk campaign, or whatever, was more of a chore in older editions, 3.0 was pruposefully built from a more "modular" design point of view.

You're quite right in that, still, any book that's background heavy on one setting essentially has "wasted pages" to other people: crucially, the majority of D&D players, who will be playing in another setting. But at least now, if I quite like the Warforged or a Harpers prestige class or a Ravenloft spell, it takes minimal DM work to slip it into the campaign of your choosing.

For this reason, whole new "system" books like Psionics are perhaps more noticably "clunky" when it comes to adding with other parts: though I've noticed more Psionic references in recent products, and the same for the Complete classes. I'm curious how much this will continue, and if it will continue to be "good references to old books" rather than the "good references to old books" TSR were guilty of.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In general, yes, they are one of the most consistently innovative companies on the market, doing more new things with D&D (and, by some extention, d20) than most would dare to do.

However, they have lulls. Right now, kind of a lull.

 

[was]

I think the OGL was an interesting move by WotC. Now many the of other companies are making products that use the 3.5 rules system, for the most part, instead of inventing their own new systems that compete with it.

 

[Greg K]

I think the OGL was an interesting move by WotC. Now many the of other companies are making products that use the 3.5 rules system, for the most part, instead of inventing their own new systems that compete with it.

if it were not for the ogl and d20 licenses, I would not even be playing d20

 

[DragonLancer]

WotC did a great thing when they allowed the OGL. However since then it seems to me that its the third party publishers who have been innovative, and WotC have generally released the more standard safe products.

 

[nothing to see here]

...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.

Excellent point. The industry, and the hobby, can only benefit from more market research.

 

[Particle_Man]

The Warlock was innovative, imho.

 

[MerricB]

The Warlock was innovative, imho.

Indeed. Actually, the Incarnate and Totemist are very close to the Warlock in some respects.

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

I've enjoyed several products from WoTC.

I find some of the mechanics very innovative. Substitution levels, first for race, now for organization, are pretty high on that list.

Innitiate Feats to help represent specialty clerics are another big cool thing.

Planar Touchstone Feats.

Some of the racial special features, like the half-giant and goliath semi-giant size feature or the warforged living construct features.