Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Wicht]

Rich, deep, flavorful game content may not be what WOTC sells because rich, deep, flavorful game content may not sell well.

I don't know about that. I think, over time, good flavor is the only thing that sells consistently.

New rules are fun, but long term gamers come to realize that the rules only take you so far.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

...over time... ...long term gamers...

We are in complete agreement.

But one of the goals of D&D 4E was expansion. "Experienced" gamers were no longer the target(s) (IMHO, etc, etc; we were certainly invited along for the ride, but we weren't the targets).

And, if the options are, sell to "Experienced gamers" or sell to "new players", it's possible WOTC deliberately chose to leave the experienced gamers cold, to increase the game's attraction to new players.

There's an argument that an internet forum about gaming is self-selecting towards experienced gamers. We don't know - we can't know - how D&D 4E does with inexperienced gamers. Maybe they adore 4E adventures, and would flounder helplessly in Paizo's Adventure Paths.

I know when I was less experienced "adventure" meant "dungeon", and adding a wider scale to the game took time. In my teen years, I'm not sure that D&D 4E, and the modules produced for it, wouldn't have been exactly what I was looking for.

And if there are more teens buying D&D "stuff" than experienced gamers, that might explain the situation.

In fact, I think I've just found my new Pet Theory.

Edited to add - I actually game (Pathfinder) regularly with two under-20-year-olds who told me they were "into gaming" with their friends and "play online" (text games) "all the time". In Pathfinder, one of them eagerly role-plays and explores complex character scenarios, while having no idea how to read the character sheet; the other repeatedly says she loves game and loves coming, but seems very intimidated by both the rules-set and the actual "improv" nature of roleplaying.

I'm seriously wondering how they'd do with 4th Edition.

 

[Umbran]

Knock yourself out. I don't care what you are comfortable believing. But if you feel the need to spin both the quality and quantity of data to fit your desired conclusions, that is informative.

There is all kinds of information buried in this comment. (Not the least of which is that you feel free to start playing with the "no politics" rule.)

Please realize that the moderating staff will laugh at you if you try to claim you didn't know you shouldn't make these arguments personal.

EVERYONE: Address the logic of the post, not the personality of the poster. It isn't new, and it isn't rocket science.

 

[BryonD]

People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?"

Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners."

That sure sounds to me like he knew pretty well what he was doing when he did it.

Now, initially, the d20 license was designed to mandate the purchase of a PHB. Dancey is on record hoping someone would make a "Wild West" game using d20 that would require others to purchase the PHB.

But the OGL is a different beast and it was always meant, by Dancey, to allow a back and forth sort of design process with each company feeding off of the work of others.

You are right.
Back when the whole thing was still be publicly planned and described, the obvious analogies to open source code were frequent. And the "you borrow my tools and return them sharper" cliche was common.

They intended *the rules themselves* to be a major part of the open environment. If they just wanted adventures they would have released a license for adventures. They didn't release adventures, they released the system.

 

[BryonD]

I think it's diverted focus. The goals of WotC, as BD points out, are rules-driven. This puts a large focus on developing new and (hopefully) interesting rules and leaves little time for good adventure development.

I felt the same during the 3.x days. Paizo was my source of good adventures back then too. While the 3E WotC adventures were certainly better than the 4E offerings, they were still poor in comparison to Paizo's work.

Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures. They are not in conflict. To the contrary, if you are having real trouble with story, your mechanics will suffer for it through lack of context.

And even if that was an issue, why is it that even by your own account WotC's 3E module stuff was better than the 4E stuff?

 

[ThatGuyThere]

Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures.

Depends very much on the WOTC office environment.

Do they sit around and roleplay, during "playtests", or just run through the encounters, checking the mechanics?

If it's the latter, that could easily lend itself to, well, the type of adventures they produce. Particularly if they think, "Well, the other stuff, we can just write up; you don't have to 'playtest' the introduction to the adventure, after all".

Note that I'm not saying it is this way, or entirely this way. But more in this direction than the other might ... ... be represented in the final product.

 

[BryonD]

I still disagree because these guys are still gamers as well.

Even if they spend 8 to 5 as pure mechanic wonks, they should be playing.
If the guys writing 4E don't play 4E, then there's your problem.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

People keep saying this and I keep wondering, who specifically do you mean by "they?"

Rayn Dancey is quoted as saying, "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners."

That sure sounds to me like he knew pretty well what he was doing when he did it.

Now, initially, the d20 license was designed to mandate the purchase of a PHB. Dancey is on record hoping someone would make a "Wild West" game using d20 that would require others to purchase the PHB.

But the OGL is a different beast and it was always meant, by Dancey, to allow a back and forth sort of design process with each company feeding off of the work of others.

They = WotC. Ryan Dancey had to sell the idea to management at some point. It seems to me that he had a different view of where things should lead. He did a good job selling it, but it seems like management didn't buy the results.

They intended *the rules themselves* to be a major part of the open environment. If they just wanted adventures they would have released a license for adventures. They didn't release adventures, they released the system.

Good point.

Eh, I don't think focusing on rules preempts producing good adventures. They are not in conflict. To the contrary, if you are having real trouble with story, your mechanics will suffer for it through lack of context.

They don't have to preempt, it depends on your resources and how you allocate them. It seems that WotC believes they will get a better ROI on rules than adventures. So less time is spent refining them.

And even if that was an issue, why is it that even by your own account WotC's 3E module stuff was better than the 4E stuff?

I still called those offerings poor. But I geuss the difference would be other factors like available talent, different priorities, etc.

I still disagree because these guys are still gamers as well.

Even if they spend 8 to 5 as pure mechanic wonks, they should be playing.
If the guys writing 4E don't play 4E, then there's your problem.

They have documented accounts of playing, so we reasonably know that they do. I think the 4E modules have some potential. If more resources had been devoted to these modules they could be better. I don't consider them fatally flawed.

 

[Wicht]

They = WotC. Ryan Dancey had to sell the idea to management at some point. It seems to me that he had a different view of where things should lead. He did a good job selling it, but it seems like management didn't buy the results.

Who were the management at the time who initially approved it but today don't like the results? Do you know or are they, in your mind, a faceless, unchanging corporate entity?

 

[BryonD]

I still called those offerings poor. But I geuss the difference would be other factors like available talent, different priorities, etc.

Understood and not challenged. But you still felt motivated to call out a difference.

They have documented accounts of playing, so we reasonably know that they do. I think the 4E modules have some potential. If more resources had been devoted to these modules they could be better. I don't consider them fatally flawed.

I'm certain that is true. I didn't mean to actually imply they don't, but I see how what I wrote could be read that way.

I was just replying to the creative environment suggested by the prior post.