Legends and Lore: Customized Complexity

[UngainlyTitan]

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!

I think it might be doable but I also wonder, is what we think M&M mean when they are talking about optional bits and complexity dials the same as what they mean by the expression.

I to would like to see some implementation of this presented, at least enough to get a grip on the shape of the game and exactly what they mean by it.

What I preceive this game might looks is that there are different way of constructing characters, with different levels of custuminsation and complexity but that all operate with the same final output.

In this way monster defenses and task DCs all use the same numbers.
Is this what others think?

 

[D'karr]

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'.

I agree on the premise, but no on the conclusion. What 4e didn't have going for it was "buy in" from the player base. Even the announcement at Gencon was replete with "mixed" reviews. Specially since it seemed like they had specifically denied working on a new edition 8 months before.

By doing these polls the user base that is the most vocal gets a chance to give their input into the game. Even if not one of their suggestions is followed, at least they feel like they are in some way giving their input to the future of the game they "love", or "hate". That is an extremely powerful marketing tool.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not comparing WotC's public playtesting to Paizo's by any stretch... because obviously Pathfinder was much more open than the NDAd playtesting of 4E. But Zaphling was trying to make the point that WotC failed badly with 4E (something we all know is not the case) because they did not have an 'open feedback' playtesting period like Paizo had.

Let us not forget that Paizo was one of (if not the first) game company to actually HAVE such a wide-ranging completely open playtest of their game. I don't seem to recall open playtests of editons of Shadowrun, or Vampire, or Warhammer, or Mutants & Masterminds or any other major game line out there. So you can't blame WotC for not doing it either, because up until that point pretty much EVERY game had closed playtests with game company employees and selected outside groups under NDAs.

Paizo was able to have an open playtest of Pathfinder partly because they were adapting rules that already were out there because of the OGL. Most of the rules were already known by the playtesting populace because they'd been using them as part of 3.5 for years. So there was little to no risk involved by having everyone and anyone use the rules along with the tweaks that Pathfinder added to the game. But to retroactively blame companies for not doing the same thing BEFORE Paizo showed it could actually be effective and for very little risk is rather disingenuous.

 

[am181d]

I predict:

In 5e, we will get "Dungeons & Dragons" which will feel a lot like 3e, plus "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" which will layer in powers and other options that will make the game feel more like 4e. AD&D will get most of the online support upfront, with "basic" D&D getting less direct support up front.

The future of D&D will then be decided by who buys what.

 

[Zaphling]

Speaking of Paizo and OGL, obviously Paizo, or Pathfinder to be specific, is a pseudo-3e and 4e at the same time, with their own original rules, or should I say they picked the best out of 3e and 4e.

First, Pathfinder is basically 3.5 upgraded. Imagine 3.5 player's handbook copy pasted and edited.
Second, Pathfinder 'grabbed' the secondary racial ability bonus from 4e and mixed it with 3.5. For example, 3e dwarves had +2 Con and -2 Cha while 4e had +2 CON and WIS. Pathfinder combined them into +2 CON and WIS, and -2 CHA. You get my point.
Third, they have a semi-4e approach to trained skills, although it's only a +3 for being trained.

The point with this argument is NOT TO START A RPG FIGHT ok? I'll make that one clear. My point is what is the OGL exactly and why Paizo openly and maybe confidently used WoTC's game rules, which is copyrighted, to make their own game.

Last question, do you think WotC and Paizo are still having lawsuits right now in court about this? Just curious.

 

[Dire Bare]

Regarding Pathfinder's open playtesting and the launch of 4E . . . when looked at as a whole, I do think that 4E's launch was rife with problems and a "failure", but that the game itself succeeded quite well despite the rocky start, which had nothing to do with playtesting. Important to remember with Pathfinder's open playtesting is that Paizo was INNOVATING and trying something no other RPG publisher had done before (I think, at least no other MAJOR publisher). WotC didn't "fail" or make a mistake by not doing something similar with 4E. But WotC did see how successful Pathfinder has become, which is in part owed to that initial year of open playtesting. RPG fans are a nerdy bunch and REALLY like being included in design. Also the reason why Bauer's Open Design (the Kobold Quarterly guy) has also been a success.

So, today, WotC's D&D team is under new leadership and is taking things one step further and is sharing the initial stages of design. The discussions Mearls and Cook are having in the Legends & Lore columns are the types of discussions that ALWAYS happen early in the design process, but rarely shared with gamers. Paizo didn't even go this far with Pathfinder. Once we get past this stage will WotC continue to develop D&D in such an open fashion? Signs are pointing that way, but we'll have to wait and see.

Where is this going? Is all this talk about variable complexity going to be a second attempt at a revamped 4th Edition? Will it be a 5th Edition? Does it matter what we call it? I think we are quite a ways out from the "new" D&D, regardless of what form it takes, and that things will morph and change quite a bit before this ride is over. Which, is part of the whole point of an open design process.

I do chuckle at some of the suspicious and charged language some folks are using. The fears that WotC is somehow trying to fool us or manipulate us are absurd. These L&L columns are exactly what they are, D&D designers playing in the initial stages of design, but this time in an "open design" model rather than a behind-closed-doors model.

 

[delericho]

Speaking of Paizo and OGL, obviously Paizo, or Pathfinder to be specific, is a pseudo-3e and 4e at the same time, with their own original rules, or should I say they picked the best out of 3e and 4e.

Paizo certainly (and obviously) took a lot from 3e, and they made changes of their own. They did not consciously take anything from 4e. If changes look the same, this is due to 'independent invention' - two groups having much the same ideas in isolation.

First, Pathfinder is basically 3.5 upgraded. Imagine 3.5 player's handbook copy pasted and edited.
Second, Pathfinder 'grabbed' the secondary racial ability bonus from 4e and mixed it with 3.5. For example, 3e dwarves had +2 Con and -2 Cha while 4e had +2 CON and WIS. Pathfinder combined them into +2 CON and WIS, and -2 CHA. You get my point.
Third, they have a semi-4e approach to trained skills, although it's only a +3 for being trained.

I get your point, but I disagree. The big change to skills in 4e is not the +5 bonus for Trained - it is the fact that all skills go up by 1 every 2 levels. Pathfinder does not adopt this, it merely clears up the mess of "half ranks" from 3.5e. (Plus, it's not "+3 for Trained" in Pathfinder - it's "+3 for Trained in class skills".)

The adjustments to ability scores are both a very minor change in 4e and they're certainly not one of the best things about the system!

The point with this argument is NOT TO START A RPG FIGHT ok? I'll make that one clear. My point is what is the OGL exactly and why Paizo openly and maybe confidently used WoTC's game rules, which is copyrighted, to make their own game.

Firstly, game rules cannot be protected under copyright, only the expression of those rules.

Secondly, the OGL is a licensing mechanism whereby WotC declared large amounts of material (basically, the core of the 3.0e, 3.5e and d20 Modern systems) to be 'open'. Anyone who wishes to can use that license and incorporate any or all of that material in their own works. Paizo are merely using that license. (And the license is written so that it can never be cancelled.)

The OGL is either the greatest thing that WotC ever did, or absolutely the worst thing they ever did, depending on your point of view.

Last question, do you think WotC and Paizo are still having lawsuits right now in court about this? Just curious.

Nope. The OGL makes what Paizo are doing nice and legal. Basically, all WotC could get would be an awful lot of bad publicity.