My Opinion of WOTC's Digital Initative and the current events

[gizmo33]

Here is my attempt, though I prefer the term 'Story-Creating Gaming'.

The first and primary is the structure. This means that the RPG session will have an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda. Now every RPG session ever played has those features, as they're really just fancy words for start, beginning, middle, and end.

So why not use the words like "start"? Because then it sounds like you're saying "everything has a start, beginning, middle, and end" which is completely underwhelming and sums up in general how I feel about the story-creating gaming thing. It's unremarkable to the extent that it explains what everyone already knows about the story, and it's unusable to the extent that it deviates from what I already do. People IME don't like railroading, they also don't like a party with characters with five different backgrounds going in five different directions. But then you get to the railroading thing...

There should be interesting outcomes no matter how the conflict is resolved. Nor should the GM have several "right" answers. That isn't a dynamic game, that's a railroad with a switching station. The GM has to be able to think on his feet and find a good resolution, and not reject the unexpected but embrace it.

I think you would have lost a potential new gamer by now but experienced ones would recognize a classic situation. "They killed my BBEG in the first round, so how do I save my climax?!" Something like "find a good resolution" IMO is not really beginner advice per se, hopefully an introductory set might explain (probably through example) what "good" means. Though I'm not sure how because you (and story-creating system in general) has already set the bar pretty high by suggesting that the end-all-be-all of the game fits into the intro-story-climax pattern. But a DMs plans rarely survive contact with the dice-rolling players, moreso if you try to fit them within some sort of narrative.

And if you don't "try", and you don't railroad, then what is the point? The advice can hardly boil down to "let the players do what they want and see what happens". Hardly seems worth a blog page if that's what you mean.

I learned alot from modules when I started playing. So if a module said "if the villain dies, do X, if he doesn't die, do Y" would show a beginning DM, through example, how to handle the unexpected. In many of these situations I think an example is worth a thousand words. Reading modules made me want to run adventures and DM. If story-creating people haven't already written tons of best-selling modules that demonstrate their ability to put together an interesting adventure, then they should get to it.

And I think this what "story creating" folks like yourself have already done and continue to do. More power to you. I just don't think it represents the salvation of the game, or some untapped resource seeing as these ideas have been around for 20 years or more (if not, then what do you think White Wolf has been trying to do with Vampire all this time?). IMO the story-creating side of the RPG spectrum is not going to save the game for the rest of us if we'd just get out of the way - AFAICT they've had their chance for a long time.

I agree with folks that say that DnD's strength is that you get to do what you want as a player. I don't think this is completely synonymous with the "story creating" style though, as you define it.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Download PCGen and implement that change. Tell me how long it takes you.

This would be a big reason why I don't use PCGen. The interface is terrible.

And how is this implemented in the character generator itself? Remember, that your front-end has to be translated into the backend in a meaningful way. You changing class-skills also impacts which feats are available, which PrCs are available, what synergies you have, familiar abilities, and so on.

Simple. Think of it like a vlookup in Excel; when the user adds all class skills to Fighter, a Y is placed in the "Fighter class skill?" column. So now when the sheet looks up class skills for Fighters, every skill returns a Y.

And again, this is a relatively simple change. Now imagine if I want to house rule skill sets (a la Monte Cook). How do you code for that kind of change?

Each account has a "My campaign" section/tab that saves house rules. In this case, house rules are limited to the most common definition of that term: changing numerical values (like 4 skill points/level for Fighter), banning certain feats or spells, or adding/removing set abilities (like removing Uncanny Dodge from Barbarian, or tweaking class skill lists).

Want to create entire new mechanics? Well, c'mon. That's out of scope. It'd be unfair to ask WotC to make an online "build your own completely original RPG" utility.

-z

 

[freebfrost]

This would be a big reason why I don't use PCGen. The interface is terrible.

Actually, the interface works quite well these days.

Now implementing rule changes.. that takes some work.

Simple. Think of it like a vlookup in Excel; when the user adds all class skills to Fighter, a Y is placed in the "Fighter class skill?" column. So now when the sheet looks up class skills for Fighters, every skill returns a Y.

Excel won't work for this - it will be a java-based, cross-platform methodology. Regardless, there are multiple places in the character process that are impacted by this change, and future changes. It is very hard to code for that.

Each account has a "My campaign" section/tab that saves house rules. In this case, house rules are limited to the most common definition of that term: changing numerical values (like 4 skill points/level for Fighter), banning certain feats or spells, or adding/removing set abilities (like removing Uncanny Dodge from Barbarian, or tweaking class skill lists).

Sure, that would help, but even so, the changes required for that are hard to implement.

Want to create entire new mechanics? Well, c'mon. That's out of scope. It'd be unfair to ask WotC to make an online "build your own completely original RPG" utility.

Why so? PCGen does it quite well, once you've mastered how to change it!

 

[Zaruthustran]

Actually, the interface works quite well these days.

I just dl'd 5.1, and man, it could use some work. No big "Create character" button, you have to first load "sources" and then kludge through to a bunch of tabbed screens. It's... industrial design, I suppose.

Compare to NWN's character generation tool, or WoW's, or really any other CRPG. Great UI, tooltips, clean and user-friendly. That's good interface.

Excel won't work for this - it will be a java-based, cross-platform methodology. Regardless, there are multiple places in the character process that are impacted by this change, and future changes. It is very hard to code for that.

I guess I don't understand where the difficulty lies. If you can implement the core fighter skill list ("of the entire skill list, include skills A, B, and C on the fighter class skill list") then it seems trivial to add or remove skills from that list ("of the entire skill list, include skills A, Z, and Y on the fighter class skill list").

Such a change impacts exactly nothing else--mechanically. Sure, if you remove Ride from the fighter list, you make it hard for Fighters to qualify for mounted combat PRCs. But that's a game design issue, not a mechanics issue.

Why so? PCGen does it quite well, once you've mastered how to change it!

It's a diminishing returns thing. Sure, WotC could expend an extraordinary amount of resources to come up with a tool allowing the creation of an entirely new game: new rules for damage tracking, getting rid of classes, implementing a magic point system. I'm sure some people would want that product. But its far better to spend those precious resources on what most people want.

It's up to WotC to determine what most people want in an online tool, but I figure tweaks to existing rules (adding or removing skills and feats, altering hit die or starting proficiencies, etc.) are what most people desire. After all, they still want to play D&D.

-z

 

[freebfrost]

I just dl'd 5.1, and man, it could use some work. No big "Create character" button, you have to first load "sources" and then kludge through to a bunch of tabbed screens. It's... industrial design, I suppose.

Compare to NWN's character generation tool, or WoW's, or really any other CRPG. Great UI, tooltips, clean and user-friendly. That's good interface.

True, but you don't have all the options available in those interfaces either. They are a vastly limited subset of the rules, and typically don't even include all of the 3.5 SRD, let alone every supplement out there for "official" D&D.

Such a change impacts exactly nothing else--mechanically. Sure, if you remove Ride from the fighter list, you make it hard for Fighters to qualify for mounted combat PRCs. But that's a game design issue, not a mechanics issue.

This is where the difficulty lies, and where the failures points will first arise - without a good analyst to think through this coding. Such a change does impact other things. For example, that prestige class that requires "x" ranks in Hide to qualify for - now is available to characters other than those originally designed for it. That's a major balance issue right there, and we're not even considering if you allow players to use their characters in other games online. Even in your own campaign, changing skill points allows for feat progression that is faster, changes entire availability of prestige classes, and so on. How do you change a spell you do not like? Can I change Polymorph to the "old" rules online? How do you add Feats - or can you only use what WotC allows? Can you adjust ability scores? What if I want an epic game and allow players a feat every level? Or is it really just plain vanilla, 3 -core book only rules?

There are so many variations, I really cannot see how WotC can advertise for developers last month and expect to put out a solid product in a few months. Heck, I would want that many months just to test the product, and I don't see them hiring QA leads...

It's up to WotC to determine what most people want in an online tool, but I figure tweaks to existing rules (adding or removing skills and feats, altering hit die or starting proficiencies, etc.) are what most people desire. After all, they still want to play D&D.

And who are they asking for that? I have seen one survey asking about the "product" and not the content. I have to go with what Dancey said in his blog - they are ignoring the customer component and building something that they think is what people want, but I haven't heard or seen anything to indicate that they actually asked the consumer.

And now they've taken the Dragonlance license. This just keeps getting better and better!

 

[maddman75]

So why not use the words like "start"? Because then it sounds like you're saying "everything has a start, beginning, middle, and end" which is completely underwhelming and sums up in general how I feel about the story-creating gaming thing. It's unremarkable to the extent that it explains what everyone already knows about the story, and it's unusable to the extent that it deviates from what I already do. People IME don't like railroading, they also don't like a party with characters with five different backgrounds going in five different directions. But then you get to the railroading thing...

Because I'm paying special attention to the start, beginning, middle, and end. I'm not going off some script, I'm setting up a conflict, introducing and expanding on it, and bringing it to an emotionally satisfying climax. Them killing the BBEG early is rarely the problem. Its usually that they resolved the conflict in a way I didn't anticipate, or go in a completely different direction. The aim is to have the evening's gaming end with that climax, not when they reach it in my script.

The other extreme from railroading is completely freeform. The game takes place in a simulated environment - say a dungeon. The game picks up in whatever room they were in when the last game ended, and it ends in whatever room they are in when time is up. This gives the players freedom, but it doesn't grab them at the start, it doesn't build them through the session by exploring their conflict, and it doesn't bring it to a close at the end of the night. That can lead to games that don't grab the players the way I want them to.

I think you would have lost a potential new gamer by now but experienced ones would recognize a classic situation. "They killed my BBEG in the first round, so how do I save my climax?!" Something like "find a good resolution" IMO is not really beginner advice per se, hopefully an introductory set might explain (probably through example) what "good" means. Though I'm not sure how because you (and story-creating system in general) has already set the bar pretty high by suggesting that the end-all-be-all of the game fits into the intro-story-climax pattern. But a DMs plans rarely survive contact with the dice-rolling players, moreso if you try to fit them within some sort of narrative.

And if you don't "try", and you don't railroad, then what is the point? The advice can hardly boil down to "let the players do what they want and see what happens". Hardly seems worth a blog page if that's what you mean.

This isn't for beginners. Nor is it really for players - the players needn't have any clue this is going on. Just that the games are completely awesome and satisfying. I'm also not saying this is the end-all and be-all of gaming - this is one way to make a fun game. Its me basically writing out what I *do*. I don't make plans, I set up a conflict. The PCs can resolve it however they want. What I do is by use of pacing, scene framing, and narrative is to guide things into the intro-conflict-climax pattern. I've found this makes for really good games.

Buffy was a huge influence on me, and got me to think of gaming in episodes. Its infected the rest of my gaming, and I strive to make each session like an episode on a TV show. There's the same characters and places and ongoing plots, but at the same time a self-contained story is created within the session.

I learned alot from modules when I started playing. So if a module said "if the villain dies, do X, if he doesn't die, do Y" would show a beginning DM, through example, how to handle the unexpected. In many of these situations I think an example is worth a thousand words. Reading modules made me want to run adventures and DM. If story-creating people haven't already written tons of best-selling modules that demonstrate their ability to put together an interesting adventure, then they should get to it.

And I think this what "story creating" folks like yourself have already done and continue to do. More power to you. I just don't think it represents the salvation of the game, or some untapped resource seeing as these ideas have been around for 20 years or more (if not, then what do you think White Wolf has been trying to do with Vampire all this time?). IMO the story-creating side of the RPG spectrum is not going to save the game for the rest of us if we'd just get out of the way - AFAICT they've had their chance for a long time.

I agree with folks that say that DnD's strength is that you get to do what you want as a player. I don't think this is completely synonymous with the "story creating" style though, as you define it.

The problem is that my style is highly dependant on the characters in play. The only way I could write a module is with pregenerated characters, and even then it isn't going to get the idea across. The hardest session really is the first one, because there's nothing to build on, I don't even have a firm grasp of how the characters will be played. There's no way I could write a game for someone else to run with someone else's characters - even if I did they would have to do it themselves. The plot in this style isn't ignored. It also isn't prepared ahead of time. It is created real-time, at the table. Its impossible for me to get my plans ruined, because I don't make any. If I'm thrown a curveball I just follow Piratecat's golden rule - ask myself what's the coolest thing that could happen right now? Forget all my plans, forget anything that I might have prepared. Things in my notes are suggestions - if something cooler comes up I go with that.

The essay posted is not complete, and I think this conversation is highlighting some areas I need to explain myself a little more clearly.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I just dl'd 5.1, and man, it could use some work. No big "Create character" button, you have to first load "sources" and then kludge through to a bunch of tabbed screens. It's... industrial design, I suppose.

Hopefully you meant 5.10 since 5.1 was out quite a while ago. I think 5.12 is the current new release.

Realize that PCGen supports multiple d20 core rules variantes (3.0, 3.5, Modern, Deadlands, Spycraft, XCrawl, sidewinder, etc) as well as tons of supplements and add-ons. It does more than WotC D&D.

I guess I don't understand where the difficulty lies. If you can implement the core fighter skill list ("of the entire skill list, include skills A, B, and C on the fighter class skill list") then it seems trivial to add or remove skills from that list ("of the entire skill list, include skills A, Z, and Y on the fighter class skill list").

Actually that is pretty easy.
Fighter.MOD CSKILL:Ride|Handle Animal|...|SkillA|SkillZ|SkillY

It's up to WotC to determine what most people want in an online tool, but I figure tweaks to existing rules (adding or removing skills and feats, altering hit die or starting proficiencies, etc.) are what most people desire. After all, they still want to play D&D.
-z

Actually, that's the hard part. House Rules tend to be contrary to the core design paradigm and require more convoluted solutions. PCGen is not bulky and hard to deal with because the programmers are morons; d20 has become bulky and hard to deal with.

PCGen predated the Psionics Handbook so Psionics were added as a new form of magic. Then each supplement adds more feats, classes with new weird interactions, new types of bonuses, sometimes new item slots and it just keeps growing. Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Complete Arcane all introduced new mechanics that didn't exist in the RSRD system.

Those mechanics are not in PCGen due to licensing restriction but Deadlands, Sidewinder, XCrawl and the like introduced their own versions of special cases that have been supported.

The flip side is that PCGen is a volunteer product that cost you nothing. Consider offering a bounty for a better interface and maybe one of the coders will make it a priority.

I haven't paid money but I have helped the project in a couple of ways by submitting bug fixes for data errors, writing little bits of documentation. Helps me sleep easier at night.

 

[Najo]

In your opinion, what are these?

IMO, the two main ones I see are the need (or, at least, the perception of need) to buy/read lots of books in order to play and the general social stigma of being a gamer. The latter is probably a greater barrier than the former.

I think changing the rules to be simpler without sacrificing tactical complexity, play faster, and fit in one book can be done. Barring some fairly major cultural event, I'm not sure if changing the social perceptions of D&D is possible. Good fantasy movies like LotR help, as does fantasy anime, but I think a lot more has to happen.

Well, first off, I think the new star wars edition is doing a lot of it. Fewer base classes with more flexibility. Simplier skill system that is not open to min/maxing. Streamlined combat with tactical options. I would make sure to keep multiclassing intuitive, make sure all of your subsystems are consistent like sundering, grappling, tripping. You should remember how to do something without looking up once you done it a couple of times. I think D&D needs more of a consistant way to handle magic effects, spells and magic items.

The other area that needs work though is how the rules and the roleplaying experience is presented to new players. Games should teach as you learn and play. WOW does a very good job of this. You take very complicated choices of race, class and faction and it gets broken down into a number of easy steps. Then each piece of the game teaches you about the next part, and by the time you reach certain milestones your ready to learn more complicated elements of game play. D&D sort of does this with magic items, spells and monsters but many splat books break the rules and over complicate it.

In reply to the post above yours, I don't think you need technology to streamline character building or decision making. Magic the gathering works fine as the base rules stay the same, and then cards and official formats are organized well. I think consistent rule design, easy to learn core rules to reference and then add on material adding to those base rules that is presented in formats that make the information easier to use would work wonders.

The one major gripe I have with D&D shows some of what I am speaking of. Look at test DCs, and tell me what is easy, medium and hard levels for a ability test, a skill test, a attack roll, a saving throw and so on. They are all over the map because the bonus ranges at each level and for each class varies so much. You can not easily teach a new DM what a DL 10 means or how he should design his own DCs for material he has created or things he wants players to do that he cannot find a rule for. That is an example of how D&D chains the DM to rules instead of empowering him. The new star wars is getting rid of skill bonus to deal with part of that for example.

 

[Najo]

D&D grew from a crunchy wargame, created before computers were common household items. The current 3.5 ruleset has normalized some of the rules (a high number is always good, etc.) but has also turned the fiddly crunchiness up to 11. At 11, the system starts to break down and a computer is needed to process the game. For example:

* Many different Types of modifiers, some of which stack, some of which don't
* Many different combat modifiers, some of which only apply in certain situations
* Hundreds upon hundreds of feats, many of which allow the character to "break" the rules (for example: Combat Reflexes, which breaks the "only one AoO per round" rule)
* Dozens of skills, many of which have their own sub-system of rules (diplomacy, jump, intimidate) and many of which give bonuses to other skills
* Many hundreds of spells
* Many dozens of PRCs, many of which have new abilities/sub-systems of rules

When even industry professionals have a terrible time using the game, it's time for a fix. There can either be a complete overhaul of the rules (a fourth edition, as the OP describes, with far, far less crunch) or the game rules can be put online. It's one or the other.

-z

I think that one of D&D's problem is there are too many secondary stats with modifiers added in from too many sources. I addressed may of the solutions in the above post. I will add that you can make a game have the depth of mechanics D&D has without the confusion and scattered game mechanics. Better planned books that build on a solid set of core rules that can do most things. Easy to read character sheets with intuitive visual design. More universal rules that everyone knows by named effect and then the occasional special rule that is adding in by a magic item or feat. Talent trees like they are doing in star wars with simpler more flexible classes.

Good games should be simple to learn, difficult to master. This doesn't mean less crunch, just better streamlining, inituitive rules, and a good user interface (lay out on character sheets and in books).

 

[Najo]

I think that lumping dead card games in with dead rpgs and counting both against the company's past performance for RPGS is... not a good way to use the evidence.

Card games are quite a different market, and are developed by different people. And note that while the list of dead card games may be a bit long, the list of dead RPGs since the release of 3e is not. That suggests that they use quite thoroughly different strategies for cards and for rpgs, so we shouldn't conflate the two.

If you do some research you will find that many of WOTCs CCGs and RPGs are connected by some lead designers. Nothing against those people, but 90% of the games on my list make the same game design mistakes. The exception being the Star Wars CCG (designed by Richard Garfield himself), which was a very good game, just did not offer the Star Wars CCG market what it wanted. It played as a wargame (d6 dice pools and all to control randomness) and not like the story/ location driven version that was popular by Decipher. Something that captured the characters and story of star wars like the previous CCG would have succeeded.

The core basics of game design are the same when you get down to it:

1. simple to learn, difficult to master
2. remove as many barriers to entry
3. teach the game while playing the game as much as possible
4. make the game intuitive
5. engage and immerse the players
6. maximize the medium you are making the game in
7. reward your players and give multiple ways to win if possible

If the reward of the game out ways the breaking of the rules above, and the players are aware of the games rewards, they will still play. Otherwise, your game gets ignore. You can compare all of WOTCs duds and they are missing most of these elements. Both D&D and magic have learn curve and barrier issues if starting on your own, they lessen up with friends playing with you. But both games have great rewards within game play making it worth it to the players. Now what happens if you make those games easier to teach and access for new players, with the same degree of depth?