D&D 4E Monte Cook on 4E

[Arnwyn]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

No. Price (for the core books) isn't an issue for me.

It (partially) is for my players, but not at that discount.

 

[Odhanan]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

No. Price is part of the issue, but it's not about the price of the core books, or between $40 and $120 as far as I'm concerned. It's about all the additional expenses that investment entails.

If I'm going to buy the core books, I'm going to invest in a whole new system and tons of new publications. The real question is : is it worthwhile for me to invest thousands of dollars in a new edition that is so different from the one I have, for which I have already invested thousands of dollars? What would 4E bring to my game table that would justify such an investment?

My truthful answer so far is "very little". A few good things on a management level, even though I spent years to master 3.X and am not that much bothered with prep anymore. Some different things on a flavor level that truthfully I don't really want to incorporate in my games. So so far, the investment simply isn't worth it. I'm happy with what I have, and the tons of third-party products I still don't have, actually.

 

[Tharkun]

Case in point... my group was horribly anti-3.5. "we'll never switch from 3.0" or "I just bought the 3.0 books", or something. I was the one who bought the 3.5 books and brought them to the table for the group to look. Guess which edition that we're playing now?

My group has a dislike for 3.5 as well (overall) and guess which version we are playing...nope, we're not "upgrading" to 3.5 we stayed with 3.0.

 

[Ourph]

Now, a team working on a set of core books is a different story. When the pieces are broken up into manageable units, you really do care. I care about the rogue and the warlock because I had a hand in making them (and I'm playing them to make sure nobody screws them up ). Rob Heinsoo and Mike Mearls really care about the fighter because they had a major role in deciding how it worked. Everybody working on the book is passionate about something, whether it's the halfling, or the cleric, or feats, or the Athletics skill, or magic items, or DM advice. (You wouldn't believe the debate we had about whether attacking around a corner should take a cover penalty!) The team approach to these books makes sure every nook and cranny of the rules gets the scrutiny it should.

My reservations about this style of development is that people will be so passionate about "their" work that protecting their own turf takes precedence over the overall cohesiveness of the system (a common theme on team-oriented projects in any profession IMPE). Your Rogue and Warlock may be fantastically designed and really fun to play. Rob and Mike's Fighter may be a work of genius. What happens if these two great game mechanics don't work great together, or with some other aspect of the system? Being passionate is great for artists and actors. I think, in the long run, a craft like game design benefits more from dispassionate examination of the entire work rather than passionate defense of single pieces by personally invested individual designers. Every project needs someone taking the 30,000ft view.

 

[delericho]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

Not a chance. If I'm going to switch, then the money spent on the core rulebooks (at almost any cover price) will make them the best possible value for any RPG purchase. The amount I use the core rulebooks of games I actually play is huge. So, I'll happily buy, even without a discount.

But I'm not willing to give up my 3.5e core rulebooks. What if I want to go back to the previous edition? There isn't a discount that WotC could offer (even 100%) that would encourage me to take that deal.

Of course, I'm also not in the "refuse to go 4e" camp yet.

 

[delericho]

Personally, I'm all for this approach. I think we turn out better design when we have more people bringing ideas to the table. In a game like D&D, where there are so many different approaches to playing, we need people with different perspectives and play styles to guarantee that everybody who picks up that book finds something they can get excited about.

In "The Mythical Man-month", Fred Brooks discusses a design model similar to a surgery team, where the design is guided by a lead architect, who is responsible for the overall structure of the design, while the work of actually realising that design is split between the various team members. This would seem to combine the best of the "uncompromising single vision" and the "team-working" models.

This would allow many people to bring their ideas to the table, and if they fit the global vision they can be incorporated, while if they do not they get held for some theoretical future edition.

That said, when I read "The Mythical Man-Month", I decided such a team structure would suck for everyone except for the lead architect, so I'm not sure I actually recommend it.

(I'm not sure that adds anything to the discussion. Just thought I'd throw it out there.)

 

[RodneyThompson]

I think, in the long run, a craft like game design benefits more from dispassionate examination of the entire work rather than passionate defense of single pieces by personally invested individual designers. Every project needs someone taking the 30,000ft view.

I think this is actually one area where having a teamwork-based design system is a huge boon, because while I may feel strongly about making the ranger really good, I have three other team members (or, more likely, about 6) looking at it with a critical eye. It's certainly a balancing act. To assume there is no one taking a critical look at each element is, I think, a mistake. In fact, this is one of the problems I have with some "single, unified visions" in that such a vision can also put blinders on the design. I know that no matter how much I may like what I'm doing, I want someone else to look at it without my own prejudices and memories to tell me if what I've written is good, crazy, or bad. Conversely, there is such a thing as too much design by committee, where instead of producing something you actively like you end up producing something that displeases no one. There's a big difference in saying, "I like this," and saying, "This doesn't offend me," and I think the former lends itself well to game design.

Also, dispassionate is hardly a word I would want associated with RPG design. I know I produce better work when I care about what I'm doing, and RPGs are supposed to be fun. It's hard to create something fun when you have a Spock-like emotional detachment from the game.

The way you wrote it, I get this humorous mental image of a team of writers squealing with joy as they write individual elements, then slamming them all together in a mishmash of ideas that comes out looking like mush. That's been far from my experience working here (which is admittedly less time than others have been here).

 

[Khairn]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

Not really. Cost has an influence but it's not major.

I enjoy playing multiple systems, and I really enjoy digging into new systems, but there must be a hook ... a vision ... a style or theme that excites me and makes me want to try the new system. To date, WotC hasn't been able to sell me on the idea that the current 3.5 is broken (and I do believe they've tried to), and they haven't been able to pique my curiosity with the crunch or fluff about 4E that they've released to date.

Until I see something that really makes me excited about 4E, I don't have any reason to even consider a change.

 

[The Little Raven]

That said, when I read "The Mythical Man-Month", I decided such a team structure would suck for everyone except for the lead architect, so I'm not sure I actually recommend it.

Most game design I've been involved with (pen and paper, and computer games) is usually done with that kind of team structure, where you have a lead developer, leads for each department (art, writing, programming, etc.), and then the individual artists, writers, and such. One person being the main visionary and making sure everything meets in a consistent manner is important, especially on large projects.

 

[Tharkun]

Still waiting for the "utterly broken mechanics" in regards to Iron Heroes. I've seen that claim a few times in the thread and I'm interested in know just what they supposedly are.