Legends and Lore: Preserving the Past

[Stalker0]

So far this has been my least favorite article of the series. It basically came down to...old monsters are cool, lets keep them.

I like the focus on looking at the old areas of the game to see what can be kept for future play, but there was no meat to this article, no mechanics, not even really flavor discussion, just.....well a whole lot of nothing if you ask me.

 

[delericho]

If we're talking 5e, and we're assuming the bulk of sales are going to be in the form of DDI subscriptions, then they don't need to bother.

The game should support a basic set of monsters from the get-go, including all the classics. The 4e Monster Manual is actually not a bad starting point; the 3e Monster Manual would probably be a better set. (But that's a quibble - it doesn't matter all that much.)

Then, provide a quick and easy toolkit for creating new monsters, powerful enough so that any DM who requires an unsupported monster for their game is able to convert it by hand easily. (They could call it something like... "Monster Builder".)

But here's the clever bit: When a DM stats up a creature in this manner, give them the option (and try to encourage them) to 'open' their work for others to use. Over time, anything that anyone actually uses will be converted without WotC having to pay to do it. (For extra credit, they should employ someone to go through these various conversions, and select an 'official' version for later use.)

And there it is: minimal investment required, support for whatever is needed from old editions, and a DDI that continually increases in value.

Repeat the same feat with an "Item Builder" and a "Power Builder" (perhaps even a "Class Builder" and/or an "Adventure Builder"?), provide rating/errata tools for DMs to use, and you get all the theoretical benefits of the "open gaming" movement while keeping things in-house. The DDI continually increases in value, and the investment required is pretty minimal (you'll need to employ people to identify the 'official' items and powers that are useable for organised play and the like, and probably need to prune/nerf the fan-made versions to counter munchkinism).

The only people who lose out are the Design & Development teams - such a project kills any value in WotC producing new monsters, items or spells. And so, if they do their job right and create toolkits that are powerful enough, they've basically worked themselves out of a job. Oops.

(Oh, and once again: the poll sucks.)

 

[Walking Dad]

The poll is loaded

It seems that they are moving backwards... They seem afraid to displease the grognards.

...

And I will be a 4e grognard, not wanting 'my' edition go away for a return of a backstep

This and the 'rumors' MC is working on 3.8 (I don't want to call it something new or a forward step from what he wrote) makes me sad.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If we're talking 5e, and we're assuming the bulk of sales are going to be in the form of DDI subscriptions, then they don't need to bother.

The game should support a basic set of monsters from the get-go, including all the classics. The 4e Monster Manual is actually not a bad starting point; the 3e Monster Manual would probably be a better set. (But that's a quibble - it doesn't matter all that much.)

Then, provide a quick and easy toolkit for creating new monsters, powerful enough so that any DM who requires an unsupported monster for their game is able to convert it by hand easily. (They could call it something like... "Monster Builder".)

But here's the clever bit: When a DM stats up a creature in this manner, give them the option (and try to encourage them) to 'open' their work for others to use. Over time, anything that anyone actually uses will be converted without WotC having to pay to do it. (For extra credit, they should employ someone to go through these various conversions, and select an 'official' version for later use.)

And there it is: minimal investment required, support for whatever is needed from old editions, and a DDI that continually increases in value.

Repeat the same feat with an "Item Builder" and a "Power Builder" (perhaps even a "Class Builder" and/or an "Adventure Builder"?), provide rating/errata tools for DMs to use, and you get all the theoretical benefits of the "open gaming" movement while keeping things in-house. The DDI continually increases in value, and the investment required is pretty minimal (you'll need to employ people to identify the 'official' items and powers that are useable for organised play and the like, and probably need to prune/nerf the fan-made versions to counter munchkinism).

The only people who lose out are the Design & Development teams - such a project kills any value in WotC producing new monsters, items or spells. And so, if they do their job right and create toolkits that are powerful enough, they've basically worked themselves out of a job. Oops.

(Oh, and once again: the poll sucks.)

By Jove! I think you have cracked it, delericho. We know that Wotc have cut staff to the bone. In fact one of the major points trotted out against 5e has been the lack of staff to do it and the fact that WoTC has not hired any beyond Monte Cook.

So 5e will be crowd sourced and built on the 4e chassis.

 

[Balesir]

Then, provide a quick and easy toolkit for creating new monsters, powerful enough so that any DM who requires an unsupported monster for their game is able to convert it by hand easily. (They could call it something like... "Monster Builder".)

I'm afraid I must apply a "cease and desist" order to this part of your post; such a tool is purely fictional, and any similarity to any real tool, be it alive or dead, is completely unintentional. And I don't have it on my PC at all1, nosiree.

1: ...and I bet you are in exactly the same position!

 

[rjfTrebor]

there wasnt really a lot to grab onto in this one, i like old school monsters just as much as the next guy but why look backwards when you can move forward? i'd rather see wotc focus on making the classics of the future, there's so much potential in new monsters that it would be a shame to see them drag out droves of 30 year old animal amalgamations.

i think they'd do well making updated versions of fiend folio monsters for ddi, but if i saw a majority of old monsters in the 5e monster manual i'd be pretty disappointed.

 

[delericho]

Of course, one thing does present itself: if the goal is to eventually support everything, why bother with a new edition at all? Surely it makes more sense instead to spend a couple of years "filling in the gaps", rather than wiping everything out and starting yet again?

(I suspect the answer to that is: WotC can't sell enough books just filling in the gaps. So they're going for one last edition cycle, combining one last attempt to reclaim all the various lapsed customers with the inevitable sales bump you get by reselling the Core Rulebooks once again.)

So 5e will be crowd sourced and built on the 4e chassis.

Building on the 4e chassis wouldn't be a bad thing. Mathematically, 4e is actually (mostly) very sound. The big issue with it is a lot of what has been built on top of it. (By which I mean that characters have too many "moving parts" - races, classes, themes, feats, powers, skills, magic items, and whatever else I've forgotten about.)

You could probably build a very strong game by having characters being almost completely defined using the race/class/theme trio and customised using powers. Skills could either by ability score-based (as in earlier columns), or just be another manifestation of powers. (And for your "Basic Game", hard-code the power selections for each included archetype - that way, moving to the "real game" doesn't invalidate anything, it just gives greater flexibility.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think his point hits a few good notes.

1. The designers of the game can't tell us what's cool. We determine what's cool, even if we decided that Campestri are the shiznit. So for all those people who love the campestri, the game needs to at least respect that love.
2. History informs the game going forward. There's been 30+ years of development of the game -- we don't need a new item that changes your appearance. We could perhaps use a new take on it, or a problem solved with it, but it's already there. Reinventing the wheel is just wasting time on busywork.

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-purpose old names for new monsters. We shouldn't pretend that the Archons of 2e and 3e didn't exist. We SHOULD determine their proper place in the game going forward(perhaps as "treasure" rather than as monsters, but still!). Rust monsters and ear seekers and rot grubs might work better as traps than as monsters, similarly.

I'm on board this truck. There's problems with some of the earlier edition stuff, and different ways to take it now, but to ignore it or absolve yourself of it isn't smart.

I like wherever this is going.

 

[MrMyth]

What? I demand links!

It was in Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. I don't think it was in any of the excerpts, though its picture shows up in a few of the previews.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Of course, one thing does present itself: if the goal is to eventually support everything, why bother with a new edition at all? Surely it makes more sense instead to spend a couple of years "filling in the gaps", rather than wiping everything out and starting yet again?

(I suspect the answer to that is: WotC can't sell enough books just filling in the gaps. So they're going for one last edition cycle, combining one last attempt to reclaim all the variousA lapsed customers with the inevitable sales bump you get by reselling the Core Rulebooks once again.)



Building on the 4e chassis wouldn't be a bad thing. Mathematically, 4e is actually (mostly) very sound. The big issue with it is a lot of what has been built on top of it. (By which I mean that characters have too many "moving parts" - races, classes, themes, feats, powers, skills, magic items, and whatever else I've forgotten about.)

You could probably build a very strong game by having characters being almost completely defined using the race/class/theme trio and customised using powers. Skills could either by ability score-based (as in earlier columns), or just be another manifestation of powers. (And for your "Basic Game", hard-code the power selections for each included archetype - that way, moving to the "real game" doesn't invalidate anything, it just gives greater flexibility.)

I had a longer and more detailed reply but I agree wth most of your points expcept the need for an actual 5e as a complate edition.


I do not believe that WoTC need to sell all the books again. They have diversified their revenue model and now receive income from boardgames, ddi books and the rest.
I do not believe we are in any position to assign relative weights to any of this.
What they could do is revamp the core rules to allow some of the changes discussed in the L&L articles with new chargen for simpler characters and a more basic like game but operating at the same power level as current characters and monsters. That way the current software remains valid and the investment in that software keeps paying off but adding alternatives that appeal to different types of players.



This would involve buying a new edition of the rules compendium since that element is not replicated on DDI but buying one book and a DDI subscription and your done is a more pallatible model than buy eveything again.