D&D 4E Paizo and 4e - Vive le Revolution!

[Nellisir]

I suspect they've been play-testing for quite some time. They've been developing since 2005. The playtest reports we're reading from WotC doesn't mean that they're the FIRST bit of playtesting that they've done in house.

3 or 4 versions of classes, from Mearl's blog post - which could be construed as three or four rounds of playtest, depending on how they structure the playtesting.

 

[Nellisir]

I'll grant that 'best' is a qualitative statement based upon a matter of taste. That said, no company other than WotC has more 3x adventures than Paradigm Concepts.

I've heard of Paradigm Concepts, and I do have some of your books - but I've heard almost nothing about a line of adventures. If you're talking about a line of publically available, for-sale adventure modules, then you might want to review who ever is doing your advertising, cause it ain't working.

 

[Nellisir]

That's not really what I said. What I said was: these d20 designers all have independent, proven track records as professional game designers AND as veteran gamers. From that hard cold evidence I conclude they would do a good job if they decided to unite to create a SRD-based fantasy gaming ruleset. And if they could find something they all agree on, I guarantee it would be good.

I realize that nearly all game design is "cart before the horse", but this seems particularly blatant.

I think the Trolls did a good job all by themselves with respect to C&C design. I'm not familiar with Monte Cook's rule stuff, but I know those things have been very well received in the d20 community. I have looked at Blue Rose and think it's good and interesting. If, hypothetically, all those folks came up with something, I KNOW it would be good.

I don't know who all is involved in 4E. Mike Mearls I know mostly from his design work for Necro and Goodman, and he's just fine. Bill Slaviscek wrote d6 Star Wars, which is a very, very fine game.

Steve Kenson wrote Blue Rose, and Mutants and Masterminds, and by extension of those, True20. I don't know what Mearls wrote for Necromancer or Goodman Games, but if that's all you know, you're missing out on 95% of his rules-play. He's been working on 4e since 2001 or so, by breaking down the 3e rules into smaller and smaller bits and tweaking them. Those two are the leaders of my d20 design pantheon.
I think Monte is alright, but aspects of his style and approach don't work well for me. And he's out of the game anyways.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's not really what I said. What I said was: these d20 designers all have independent, proven track records as professional game designers AND as veteran gamers. From that hard cold evidence I conclude they would do a good job if they decided to unite to create a SRD-based fantasy gaming ruleset. And if they could find something they all agree on, I guarantee it would be good. I think the Trolls did a good job all by themselves with respect to C&C design. I'm not familiar with Monte Cook's rule stuff, but I know those things have been very well received in the d20 community. I have looked at Blue Rose and think it's good and interesting. If, hypothetically, all those folks came up with something, I KNOW it would be good.

I don't know who all is involved in 4E. Mike Mearls I know mostly from his design work for Necro and Goodman, and he's just fine. Bill Slaviscek wrote d6 Star Wars, which is a very, very fine game.

However, the gods on Olympus at 1,000 keyboards can't write a ruleset in a week much less playtest it. Clark explained that better than I can, but I'm sure there are enough software designers to know about marketing-driven timelines. Their work will get emailed to someone who emails it to someone who reports to Hasbro, who makes cheesy marketing videos and negotiates Pirates of the Caribbean tie-ins. I'm not necessarily bashing Hasbro, it's just a publicly-traded corporation and that means the officers and directors are legally required to make a profit for shareholders. Short playtesting means speed to market, and that means more revenue sooner.

Yes, certainly. But good quality assurance (which playtesting is) will mean that your product will bring in revenue a longer time and more of it. If the corporation has the resources to last long enough to make good playtesting, they will do it if this laso means more revenue later. But if you don't have much money to begin with, you can't afford play-testing that long.

What I also didn't say: none of the d20 publishers have to go to a Hasbro board of directors meeting and justify their choices or expenditures. Clark isn't going to get a memo from Renton telling him to use more half-dragon paladin-monks to move a new line of toys.

I have never heard that the designers and developers of WotC get memos of this nature. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but I suspect that such a thing doesn't happen. Renton will make decisions on the budget, based on the past success or failures of WotC, and the decisions how to use the budget will be based mostly on the ones working at (the top of) WotC. This type of micro-management of Hasbro executes that you imply seems impossible to maintain effectively.

 

[Plane Sailing]

:waiting for Mourn to make a snarky comment:

Don't incite other people please. We don't want snarky comments from anyone, thanks.

 

[catsclaw227]

I've heard of Paradigm Concepts, and I do have some of your books - but I've heard almost nothing about a line of adventures. If you're talking about a line of publically available, for-sale adventure modules, then you might want to review who ever is doing your advertising, cause it ain't working.

I am guessing that he is referring to a few printed, published adventures, but mostly the slew of living arcanis adventures that are available for a free download at the living arcanis website (http://www.livingarcanis.com/).

 

[JamesM]

Bill Slaviscek wrote d6 Star Wars, which is a very, very fine game.

Mr. Slavicsek wrote for Star Wars D6 and he was, I believe, its line editor for a time early in its run, but he did not write the game itself. That honor goes to Greg Costikyan, a true legend in the RPG industry.

 

[carmachu]

Wow you're really trying hard to be negative here. Yes you're right IF they started just recently that would indeed be a bad thing. However I personally don't see 4e being that big of a leap from 3e, thus they probably havn't spent the last 2 years solely coming up with the new rules. I'm no game designer, however I suspect they worked and playtested as they went. My guess is that they probably had (back in 2005) a rough set of rules which they playtested and tweaked as time passed. Thus over time they have a polished set of rules. Doing it the opposite, that is coming up with how the rules will work and then setting about playtesting seems to me to be the idiots way of doing it.

You suspect. You think.

Thats the problem, and why were going to differ. You're going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not.

Working on something since 2005 is not the same as playtesting it out. Using say, GW as an example, they work on a codex for a while....but they dont playtest the bugs out of it NEARLY long enough, or enough games.

Thats exactly how this is feeling like. Worked on it for a good long while to create it, but playtesting the kinks seems awfully short.

 

[Woas]

Yup, a 3.75 edition would still bewithina 3rd edition. When a company puts a patch or update for computer software out on the net, it is not like I need to buy the program over again.
A 3.75 edition would be continuing the process of 3.5. That is, refining the game even more into a better game and exploring new possibilities with the mechanics it has. But still would be compatible with the the previous stuff.

Although I would hope that if it ever did come to reality, a better name be chosen than 3.75. I can barely stand the title "three point five" and wish WotC made a point to call it "Revised 3rd" or something more elegant.

Exactly, those and variant rules from Unearthed Arcana and Book of Iron Might and any number of 3rd party publishers allow most people to pretty much make their own 3.75 rules and still basically be compatible with 3.5.

The people who are going on about how 3.75 may split the market even further arent taking into consideration HOW it can be put together to not completely invalidate 3.5 as 4E is apparently doing. I'd buy into a well done 3.75 version, I'm not re-buying into a version of D&D that pretty much invalidates most of the mechanics (and now it seems most of the fluff as well) that came before it. I'm not also into buying into a new version of something just because it's new. I'd like to be able to still use the metric assload of 3.5 resources and adventures that I have and 4E is not going to allow me to do that.

 

[Celebrim]

Although I would hope that if it ever did come to reality, a better name be chosen than 3.75. I can barely stand the title "three point five" and wish WotC made a point to call it "Revised 3rd" or something more elegant.

I'm partial to AD&D (3rd Edition).