Legends and Lore: Customized Complexity

[delericho]

My response to Mearls on this one is simple: go on then.

The game he describes sounds good, but I don't think it can be done in any sensible way. He believes it can. Fair enough - prove it!

 

[KidSnide]

One other benefit of optional complexity is that the more simple classes take less space to print than the more complicated versions. If PH1 had used the essentialized versions of the fighter, ranger and rogue classes, there would have been more room for the flavor text and roleplaying examples that were so desperately needed.

I could imagine that the 5e PH1 would have a fairly small appendix of martial powers because the initial set of martial classes might start with a narrow range of options. It would be easy to imagine an early heavy splat book with more tactical and customizable martial classes and powers.

-KS

 

[Zaphling]

I always thought WoTC posts these kind of articles so that we, as consumers, can intellectually discuss it, then Wotc staffs will scan our discussions and grab some good stuff to implement on their ever-planned 5e.

 

[Skyscraper]

But really I am not sure where all this is going.

My impression is that they know and have known for a long time where this is going. The entire approach on "discussing" the game and "asking for feedback" is really just a way to ease in the new mechanics that are slated to come into market in a determined time period, to the core gamers that visit the WotC website. This way, they avoid blindsiding everyone with a new set of rules when they come out, like they did in the past. I'm not flaming WotC here, just saying that they have a plan and are carrying it out pretty much to the letter, IMO.

What is the new mechanic? What is the format of the new game? I don't know. But it looks to me like they'll build on 4E and simply introduce option packages that will be usable by players to make the game they want. This will probably allow them to offer packages from which they boot stuff that they don't like (e.g. avoid overlapping powers) and of course offer packages with new stuff too.

It seems like a good idea to me and if this is the way they're going, I'm pretty much looking forward to it since it shouldn't invalidate anything they did before, a bit like the introduction of Essentials. I like for the D&D game to offer new stuff.

 

[OnlineDM]

My impression is that they know and have known for a long time where this is going. The entire approach on "discussing" the game and "asking for feedback" is really just a way to ease in the new mechanics that are slated to come into market in a determined time period, to the core gamers that visit the WotC website. This way, they avoid blindsiding everyone with a new set of rules when they come out, like they did in the past.

I think you're giving them a little too much credit (though just a little). I think they have some ideas of where they might want things to go, so they float those ideas into the community to see what everyone thinks. If the reaction is strongly negative or the community raises legitimate concerns that WotC hadn't thought of, they have time to make changes.

I do NOT think the future of D&D is fully fleshed out, but I do think they have ideas for where they want D&D to go. I applaud them for asking for feedback on those ideas before making them official.

 

[Zaphling]

I think you're giving them a little too much credit (though just a little). I think they have some ideas of where they might want things to go, so they float those ideas into the community to see what everyone thinks. If the reaction is strongly negative or the community raises legitimate concerns that WotC hadn't thought of, they have time to make changes.

I do NOT think the future of D&D is fully fleshed out, but I do think they have ideas for where they want D&D to go. I applaud them for asking for feedback on those ideas before making them official.

I'll restate your last sentence: "I applaud them for asking for feedback on those ideas before making them official."

This strategy was used by Pathfinder first before launching their official books. This strategy made Pathfinder the top 1 RPG game as of Summer 2011. (I haven't played a single Pathfinder so don't flame me).

If DnD 4e's approach, before they even made the transition to 4e, was like this, they could have still be number one. But this is where they failed badly. Our, the gaming community, feedbacks are of utmost importance because WE are their consumers - we are the one giving them their money to feed their families and buy their cars and pay their bills (I'm not ranting ok? )

Although it's a good thing we have Pathfinder as competition because it makes Wotc staffs more careful in their quality, not just monopolize it.

 

[Skyscraper]

This makes so much sense that they probably haven't even thought about it (and who knows if they'd actually do it). Defining the current race and class abilities that come with a particular race or class as feats themselves is exactly what they should do. Good call.

Actually they mentioned this in a previous article. One of Mearls' last, if I recall correctly.

 

[Skyscraper]

I think you're giving them a little too much credit (though just a little). I think they have some ideas of where they might want things to go, so they float those ideas into the community to see what everyone thinks. If the reaction is strongly negative or the community raises legitimate concerns that WotC hadn't thought of, they have time to make changes.

I do NOT think the future of D&D is fully fleshed out, but I do think they have ideas for where they want D&D to go. I applaud them for asking for feedback on those ideas before making them official.

Maybe. My impression is that their idea is pretty well thought out in the general lines (not the finer print) and they'll of course modify that as they move along and as experience settles in. Perhaps I was a tad too strict in my formulation when saying that they know exactly where they want to go; but I think that most if not all ideas for that general line that have been suggested since the Legend & Lore series started have been laid out to set the path to this new ruleset (call it a new edition or not). Some of the more precise implementations, such as how skills will work exactly, I agree that those are probably still up in the air. More: I think that they have some people working on this presently.

I guess what I'm saying is that this series of articles is not an innocent chit-chat with the community. It is not a thought process that started spontaneously some months ago and inadvertantly led to where we now stand. I think the idea of this new system had already been discussed quite a bit and they figured, heck, we're gonna be transparent about it this time and let people know what we're doing and yes, get some feedback on the fine print implementation; but since we can't disclose upcoming products (to avoid consequences on sales of present products), we'll put that into a column that suggets that we're just chatting. Remember the intro to Mearls' articles - "I'm just trying to understand the game and the gamers" message there, that's not the true purpose IMO. The kind of white lie that needs to be there for him to be able to chat with us about the new ruleset.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If DnD 4e's approach, before they even made the transition to 4e, was like this, they could have still be number one. But this is where they failed badly.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Sure, it's nice to pat ourselves on the back and think that not getting our opinions are what stopped 4E from being the 'greatest rpg of all time'... but that's a little much, don't you think? A little too self-serving perhaps? Especially considering there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to think that we gamers would be able to come to any sort of consensus on what would have made 4E 'the greatest rpg of all time'.

Our, the gaming community, feedbacks are of utmost importance because WE are their consumers - we are the one giving them their money to feed their families and buy their cars and pay their bills (I'm not ranting ok? )

You're not ranting... but you're also not really pointing out any sort of actual truth. In fact... 4E DID have quite a number of playtesters from outside their building's walls as part of the general public. Anyone who questions that can just do search on AintItCoolNews, because one of their columnists was a 4E playtester through most of its gestation period. So while yes, they didn't get our (ENWorld forum-posters) opinion on any of 4E... they did get some opinions on it from outside the company.

Although it's a good thing we have Pathfinder as competition because it makes Wotc staffs more careful in their quality, not just monopolize it.

This implies that WotC wasn't 'careful' when they were putting 4E together... which is not giving WotC enough credit. Someone might not like certain changes that were made in 4E, but that doesn't ipso-facto mean Wizards just haphazardly put the game together on a whim and threw it out there. I'm pretty sure the guys and gals at the company did what they thought was the best, and what they thought would be the coolest D&D game they could make, from within whatever structure the business-side of the company asked of them.

 

[OnlineDM]

In fact... 4E DID have quite a number of playtesters from outside their building's walls as part of the general public. Anyone who questions that can just do search on AintItCoolNews, because one of their columnists was a 4E playtester through most of its gestation period. So while yes, they didn't get our (ENWorld forum-posters) opinion on any of 4E... they did get some opinions on it from outside the company.

I'm not an edition warrior, as I didn't even start playing D&D regularly until early 2010 and I started with 4e. I've since played some Pathfinder, too. Both games are fun.

That said, from my after-the-fact understanding, Pathfinder had a massive open playtest period in which anyone who cared to try their rules had the opportunity to do so. Even if WotC had some outside playtesting for 4e during its development, I feel pretty confident in saying that those playtesters were covered under non-disclosure agreements. They got SOME outside feedback, but not WIDESPREAD outside feedback.

Given what they've done with their miniatures skirmish game playtest, WotC is actively moving toward open playtesting. I think this is a smart business move, since people will have the chance to make their opinions heard (even if WotC doesn't necessarily make every change that people suggest).

Don't get me wrong - I think WotC brought out a fantastic product with 4e. I've had a ton of fun playing it, and it's my favorite game. But it does sound like a much higher degree of community involvement in the process (Legends and Lore feedback, open playtesting) would have gone a long way toward fostering goodwill and a sense of ownership of the game among the community, some of whom decided that Pathfinder was better for them. If they're now adopting this open feedback model for the future direction of D&D, I applaud them. It's a big positive change from how they handled the 4e launch, from what I understand.