[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[I'm A Banana]

And this is why you are outside the target audience of the new edition.
And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.

Evidently the customers most likely to buy D&D Next want something you don't want.

It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.

The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people least likely to buy their new product.

Wat.

Yeah, actively cultivating an older-E feel while demanding constant feedback and claiming a high level of responsiveness is really not doing that. Nothing's set in stone.

I'm pretty sure the only people that WotC DOESN'T want to buy their game are racist nazi sympathizers who then go on murder sprees while scrawling THAC0 4EVA in their victims' blood.

Everyone else: come on and tell them what you want. WotC's site might have a lot of goobers on it, but when have D&D players ever been scared of taking the fight to the dragon's lair?

All Is Not Lost.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The dangerous ground here is that if an at-will is anything more than marginally useful it'll either get broken in a heartbeat or dramatically change how the game gets played.
...

Danger, Will Robinson!

As a practical matter, any 9th level Wizard could easily have all the Mage Hand he could ever want.

I think the basic idea is that there is no real reason to prevent, say, a 12th level wizard blaster specialist from casting 3 Magic Missiles forever. In 3e he could just have bought a cheap wand -- the difference between 50 charges and infinite is unlikely to be important. We get a similar results without the bookkeeping.

 

[am181d]

Everything you say is bad, imo. So, cater to some D&D players, but not others, that smacks of favouritism.

Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.

(A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)

 

[Janaxstrus]

Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.

(A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)

It was about 80-20 iirc...on Wizard's site...where it's mainly current customers.

I definitely will be putting in my 8 cents worth

 

[GM Dave]

Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.

(A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)

If percentages only worked so plainly at the game table.

It is not enough to sell a product to a group of people.

The people that buy the product have to turn around and sell it to their friends.

This is one of the reasons that I still play 3.5/PF. I played and enjoyed 4e along with one of my friends but the others that I normally game with did not adjust to the change.

Now, of the people that I game with they range in how obstinate they are to change and new things.

For example when I GM, I generally will not allow Psionics in my fantasy. I've played as a player doing Psionics in games like Dark Sun but I generally don't want it when I GM.

My choice kills that option for the rest at my table.

Another two people in the group refuse to play anything that smacks of Sci-fi (including Star Wars and other such types) but will play Spelljammer.

That choice is declared and you either accept it or you may lose that person as a player for the group and often at my age (30 to 40) players come in pairs.

If you have a 10 or 20% rejection of the project then the final impact can be much higher in the overall adoption of the project.

This is why, I've seen WotC working hard on giving 'options' rather than dictating a specific form and style of play and choice.

That works for me and I think that at-will, especially with the aim at more colourful spells with multiple uses, as being the better option.

For example, I think there was a cantrip called 'Fling' which essentially tossed a small item. You can use it for things like tossing a grapple hook between spots, passing a message tied to a rock, tossing an item that is required to another player (like a potion), or it could be for tossing an item like a dagger or rock at an opponent. Change the rock or dagger for a flask of oil with another cantrip like Mage Hand for holding a torch and you've got nice crutch fire dispersion device.

 

[Herschel]

They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.

Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out.

A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.

A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells.

I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game. I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on. Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income.

Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?

They need us MORE than we need them. Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition. I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.

And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.

So, like it or not, if they want the game to succeed and be around more than 4 years, they need us grognards and lapsed customers.

This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too.

They need to put out a game we like. ...If it's a bad game (for my playstyle and preferences), I am not out anything. I save my money and move on.

Which goes for old, new, really old and really new players.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I am only outside any audience because of the previous edition. I still own thousands of dollars worth of 1st, 2nd, and 3x edition stuff.
If all they want are the people from their last edition, 5e will not meet their sales goals.

You have no idea how much product they need to sell to be successful. But the formula is real simple: sell as much product to as many customers as possible.

They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.

This is a minor sticking point you can't seem to get past, and a petty reason to reject an entire game system.

A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.

There is nothing revealed so far that suggests this is the case in 5e.

I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game. I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on. Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income. They need us MORE than we need them.

They need only to sell enough product to be profitable - and you do that by creating a product that appeals to as many people as possible - not a small niche market segment who hates your last edition and has already jumped over to competitors.

Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition. I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.

Exactly.

Do you really think they should ignore their current customer base to earn the business of surly, skeptical grognards who are perfectly happy playing some retroclone system and hate everything they hear about 5e?

 

[steeldragons]

Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out.

Well, this strikes me as intentionally argumentative/rude. But that's not really important to my response. I thought it [blasty-at-wills] was directly pulled from the "new". I can/could be wrong, of course.

A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells.

This is a good point. Looking at "implements" and "components" makes a buncha sense. And if it allows for the "Harry Potter wanna-plays" out there, more power to it.

Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?

Woah woah woah. I'm turning 40 in a couple of weeks...and I think I am probably considered a "Grognard" by most. I would include the 30+ somethings in that too since they, most likely, didn't start with 3.x or 4e, that would warrant a "new skooler" label...if such labels can be applied to any of us.

That is not to say someone starting with 1 or 2e can't play and enjoy 4e! Far from it.

But, I dunno. Seems the 30 or 40 somethings would fall into the "general" category of "grognard" (insofar as I understand the term) or "old skooler"...the "4vengers" (i've seen them called hereabouts) would fall under "new skoolers"....do 3.x-ers have a term of their own? I dunno.

But, I don't believe, Janaxstrus implied that 30 or 40 somethings (particularly working in finance!) are not a valid customer base. If there are teens and young adults with no bills...they are equally viable. I don't know just how large a section of the gaming community that is...but it could be considerable.

And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.

Again, I don't believe anyone is saying we want inefficient crap...past, present or future.

This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too.

But the fact is, by a large number, the "new customers" are the ones who didn't buy the last edition. It's about getting "new old customers" and tapping into the 30, 40, 50 something money. From a gaming perspective, age does not matter. From a business perspective, those with the money, be they young or old, certainly do.

Which goes for old, new, really old and really new players.

Tru dat. No argument here...or elsewhere for that matter.

Moreso, just making my case that as one turning 40, I'm not, necessarily, OLD I suppose. lol.

Nothin' else to see here. Moving on.
--SD

 

[Balesir]

It's a question of a game of [or perspective/approach to that game for] Crunch/mechanics or Fluff/flavor. Is it a game "built to be won/beaten 'cuz I'm the bestest there is at wut I does' mentality" or a game "created to be experienced/enjoyed without an 'I win! I'm the bestest' mentality"?

I think this is broadly the nub of the problem, yes. Another way to look at the difference would be:

1) Games where the players are concentrating while actually playing on overcoming the challenges before the characters in the most expeditious way possible congruent with keeping to the rules, and

2) Games where the players are concentrating while actually playing on expanding their view of the game world, their characters and/or the situation/adventure/plot their characters find themselves in the middle of - pushing the boundaries to find the "truth" of that situation.

I think there may also be a (3) of games where the players are concentrating while actually playing on what choices, actions and/or objectives their characters might adopt in order to make the game a more interesting story - how can they stir up some really juicy moral conflict?

It's/I'm not saying this is "goodrightfun" and others are "badwrongfun." Just that I agree with this perspective and hope, very much so, that 5e is able to find that ever-so-elusive "sweet spot" (personally, I think options is the best way of doing this...but there might be some other way I hadn't thought of) to make both camps happy...because, like it or not, they are distinctively different camps from the very way they approach the game.

Right - the different foci are not better or worse than each other - just different. It's like whether you prefer steak or apple pie; neither choice is "wrong", and it's fine to like both.

But I think the task of making "modules" to suit is going to be tough, personally. The different foci really thrive with very different core rules philosophies. One wants the rules to state what happens in system terms precisely, another wants rules that suggest something about how the game world should work. One does better with rules that resolve character actions, another prefers rules that resolve conflicts between entities in the game world. One really needs the rules to define the (game effects of outcomes, another prefers simply defining who will dictate the outcome of a resolution. One wants the predefined game world situation to determine the stakes of a conflict; the other is happier with stakes set by the players of the characters involved.

All of these are pretty fundamental, "core" system elements. Mixing them up can work to a degree, but too much mixing just gives "incoherence" as discussed in innerdudue's thread in this forum. To some extent I think WotC will have to pick a style and focus mainly on it at the expense of the other(s). I don't actually mind which they pick - as long as they don't produce a kludgy mess by trying to mix and match both. Maybe they'll even manage a blend without making it kludgy - who knows? I'm not holding my breath for that last one, though...

 

[Balesir]

But, I dunno. Seems the 30 or 40 somethings would fall into the "general" category of "grognard" (insofar as I understand the term) or "old skooler"

Huh, as one who had a 50-something-th birthday last week, the word "whippersnapper" is tugging at the edges of my mind...

Edit to P.S.: the word "grognard" (which means "grumblers") originally referred to veterans of the Napoleonic French army - most particularly members of the elite Imperial Guard. As such, 30-40 years old is actually probably pretty appropriate for such an "old soldier"!