New D&D Edition Article - Pretty interesting for all parties.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

WP, you have hit on a certain irony in the debate over the new edition.

Making 3rd ed "computer freindly" by limiting DM judgement was a central design goal. This has been confirmed by a number of people involved in the proccess.

Remember those CDs in the back of the 3.0 PHB? They had such great plans. Then Hasbro bought the company and licensed off most of the electronic rights. Peter Atkinson would leave soon after. And no CD in the back of the 3.5 DMG.

Well, I don't think the computer games that were based on D&D & D20 weren't bad, at least not all, so I think some of the goals where still reached. But it could probably have been so much more...
Maybe this time?

 

[Chris Tavares]

First time I've ever heard that claim, much less a claim of confirmation.

WOTC screwed the pooch all by themselves on the CD thing. They poured a ton of money into a third party developer that did a piss-poor downright embarrasing job of creating 'E-tools' and I think that burned them so bad they ditched the rest.

I'd actually lay most of the blame for the E-Tools fiasco on WotC's shoulders, not Fluid. First mistake: choosing a game company to write a database app. Followed by a parade of textbook examples of every classic software project management mistake ever made. Constantly changing requirements against a fixed-bid contract. Constantly changing project managers. No communication, followed by "OMG! You did what?!?" moments.

Yeah, Fluid created a mess, but it wasn't just them.

 

[Hairfoot]

Miss Jackson, if you're nasty.



Sorry, old 80s joke.

Oh! I thought you said "hubcap"!


Sorry, old joke between me and my best friend from primary school, on the bus home one afternoon in October.

 

[S'mon]

First time I've ever heard that claim, much less a claim of confirmation.

Monte Cook on his website said that with 3e they were aiming to "take the GM out of the equation".

 

[TerraDave]

First time I've ever heard that claim, much less a claim of confirmation.

WOTC screwed the pooch all by themselves on the CD thing. They poured a ton of money into a third party developer that did a piss-poor downright embarrasing job of creating 'E-tools' and I think that burned them so bad they ditched the rest.

E-tools?? See, first they where Master Tools, and there where other developers...a 3-D engine was involved, and this would be the basis for a D&D mmorpg (this is before the atari one, even before WoW). The Hasbro deal, and probably some early overreaching, brought it all crashing down.

Unfortunatly, you will have to take my word for it. Maybe someone else can chime in with some more facts.

 

[Hussar]

Monte Cook on his website said that with 3e they were aiming to "take the GM out of the equation".

This is overstating the case and taking Monte Cook very much out of context. Unfortunately, this has also been repeated so often that it's become "internet truth".

 

[Crothian]

more spam reported

 

[NewJeffCT]

And, if you look at your old Dragons magazines when 2E came out some time around 1990 or so (or was it '89? I'm old, so my memory can get fuzzy now) you will see the magazine filled with letters complaining about the advent of 2E and how it was going to ruin D&D and was changing things that didn't need to be changed, etc.

 

[BryonD]

I don't see anything in that article I disagree with to a level worthy of dispute. Sure, there may be some disagreement in terms of degree, but it is a reasonable assessment of some of the key elements of what 3E brought in new.

Of course, I see a big difference between "more suitable for adapting to video games" and "too video-gamey".

 

[possum]

I know this is nearly two years old, but nice find, topic creator. Interesting thing to think about, though. Though the article said the rules would be more suitable for video games, the most well-regarded games are for earlier editions. Infinity Engine for 2nd Edition and Gold Box for 1st (IIRC)