New Content or Better Content?

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

I don't have as many posts here. Are you going to devalue my opinion? :razz:

It's an unprepared/prepared numbers game. There's several aspects and ideas about gaming that we've talked about already.

A new character might not impress a veteran like me. I'm simply gaining a rook or gaining a bishop. I know how to use both effectively.

 

[The Little Raven]

WotC has how many people left working on 4e that were there at its advent? Mearls is the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. They've thinned down their creative departments so much that I'm left wondering just who is doing any work on anything at the company.

Rich Baker (1991). Chris Perkins (1997). Greg Bilsland (since before 4e launch, since he worked on the FRPG). James Wyatt (2000).

So when they introduce a whole new class, I'm a bit deflated because it means work has gone into that, that could've been put into the billion and one other things I'd rather see happen, like fixing the assassin, or updating all the monster statblocks to MM3 format, or fixing any number of balance issues, or working on the functionality of the Monster Builder.

It's a class specifically targeted for a campaign setting. They're not going to use that space for assassin fixes or monster updates, so it isn't like they're wasting an opportunity to do so.

Instead we get a new class which brings with it entirely new balance issues that will have to be addressed, not to mention all the support material it will require.

It's a wizard. BAM. It already has some of the best feat support in the entire game.

So, my question to you is, "Would you rather see new content, or would you rather they fixed all the current content?"

Both, which is what they're doing (as evidenced by the Class Compendium articles). Just getting fixes is boring. New content also teaches them more about the design space, which makes for better fixes.

 

[delericho]

I have no comment on the specifics of the Bladesinger class.

On the topic of more or better content, if I have to choose I'll take "better content". But in general I want both.

Although in the specific case of 4e, I feel it's actually already overburdened with content, so they would actually do better still to go through and remove the 'junk' options - so actually "less content" would get my vote!

 

[Mengu]

Although in the specific case of 4e, I feel it's actually already overburdened with content, so they would actually do better still to go through and remove the 'junk' options

I could actually get on board with that.

 

[Zaran]

Instead we get a new class which brings with it entirely new balance issues that will have to be addressed, not to mention all the support material it will require.

The thing is they are not doing much to support theses classes after they are released. The bladeslinger has 5 new powers and the rest are from the Wizard. And the wizard has plenty of support. Everything they have done lately feels to me like they have minimizing their need to add more content. I personally wish they would stop the Player content all together and focus on GM stuff.

 

[D'karr]

I personally wish they would stop the Player content all together and focus on GM stuff.

What kind of GM content would you like to see?

 

[malraux]

What kind of GM content would you like to see?

Personally, I'd like to see a finished monster builder with some reasonable form of an encounter/campaign builder.

 

[Umbran]

They've thinned down their creative departments so much that I'm left wondering just who is doing any work on anything at the company.

WotC has a history of using freelancers for creative work, iirc.

So when they introduce a whole new class, I'm a bit deflated because it means work has gone into that, that could've been put into the billion and one other things I'd rather see happen, like fixing the assassin, or updating all the monster statblocks to MM3 format, or fixing any number of balance issues, or working on the functionality of the Monster Builder.

Some of what you mention there isn't game design work, though. The monster builder work calls for a software developer, not a game designer. Updating statblocks sounds more like intern-level work.

So, my question to you is, "Would you rather see new content, or would you rather they fixed all the current content?"

Looking at the print market - I expect few people are going to pay for reworked old content. Folks expect errata for free, and gripe from here to the heavens if they try to repackage old content in a new book. There's no direct payoff for fixing things if the market isn't going to pay for them.

DDI is another matter - for a subscription, the customers may well find "bug fixes" to be valuable enough to be pleased and continue subscriptions for them. But for any particular piece of old content, only some segment of the population will care if you fix it. So, you need to do a massive job of it for it to be effective. Would doing so pay off? We certainly don't have the information to say.

In the history of RPGs, perfection of old content has never been the norm. Players are generally used to dealing with a certain level of cruft - this is why house rules are so common. I think that's actually healthy - it keeps us out here in the field thinking. Beyond a certain point, filing off the rough edges ceases to pay off for either the consumer or the producer.

We (gamers, not just you and I, personally) are likely to disagree on what that certain point is, though.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

In the history of RPGs, perfection of old content has never been the norm. Players are generally used to dealing with a certain level of cruft - this is why house rules are so common. I think that's actually healthy - it keeps us out here in the field thinking. Beyond a certain point, filing off the rough edges ceases to pay off for either the consumer or the producer.

This is where I firmly disagree with you. It's a brave new world. The line between different types of games keeps getting fuzzier, and D&D has an online presence. At some point pretty soon, the consumer is going to expect the rough edges to get polished. It's what other games do. And the barrier to doing it is no longer printing books but tweaking numbers in a database.

A few more years and the print gaming industry is going to face an "evolve or die" situation around these sort of quality of life issues. Or at least "evolve or become exclusively the province of greybearded grognards."

 

[DEFCON 1]

At some point pretty soon, the consumer is going to expect the rough edges to get polished. It's what other games do. And the barrier to doing it is no longer printing books but tweaking numbers in a database.

Actually, it's already happened, and it's never going to happen. Because the "consumer" is never going to be a universal idea.

We've already got plenty of players who like and enjoy the "computer game patch" mentality we currently have with regards to errata... making tweaks hear and there as we go along to keep as many things balanced against each other as possible.

But we're also never going to see universal support for said mentality either. So no, the "consumer" will never expect what you suggest... because the "consumer" is not and never will be just one type of person (greybeard grognards or no...)