D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[A'koss]

I just nabbed a quote from the WotC minis staff at Gen Con about this concern, take it FWIW...

"Concerning the rumor mill concerning 4th edition D&D and how it will effect the minis game. Fans at the event didn't want their game changed for the sake of the RPG. Wizards minis staff stated they don't want to see it changed either as they themselves have a lot vested in the current minis game."

- From the Gaming Report.

 

[Ranger REG]

I just nabbed a quote from the WotC minis staff at Gen Con about this concern, take it FWIW...

"Concerning the rumor mill concerning 4th edition D&D and how it will effect the minis game. Fans at the event didn't want their game changed for the sake of the RPG. Wizards minis staff stated they don't want to see it changed either as they themselves have a lot vested in the current minis game."

- From the Gaming Report.

Why do I have an overwhelming urge to flip miniatures collectors off? I guess there is a part of me that is pure role-player, and not always an old-school wargamer. Then again, them new-school miniatures collectors got nothing on this old-school.

 

[dcas]

I just nabbed a quote from the WotC minis staff at Gen Con about this concern, take it FWIW...

"Concerning the rumor mill concerning 4th edition D&D and how it will effect the minis game. Fans at the event didn't want their game changed for the sake of the RPG. Wizards minis staff stated they don't want to see it changed either as they themselves have a lot vested in the current minis game."

- From the Gaming Report.

I thought the concern was that D&D would be affected by the minis game, not the other way around. The quote seems to say a lot but it doesn't really say anything at all.

 

[painandgreed]

I thought the concern was that D&D would be affected by the minis game, not the other way around. The quote seems to say a lot but it doesn't really say anything at all.

It says that they're avoiding the actual concerns.

 

[The_Gneech]

Good question. To be honest, if you listen to the suggestions of how some of the "sacred cows" of D&D should be replaced, you start wondering why there aren't more people playing HARP. Probably because it doesn't have the D&D logo on the front cover.

'cause HARP doesn't have Dungeon magazine.

-The Gneech

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah that statement is a little bizzarre. It just reinforces what WOTC has been working toward since 3.0, which is to effectively morph the DM into a "server" to run the game. This is in perfect alignment with thier plans for 4th E which looks like it will be a MMORPG with minis. I have no huge problems with this as long as that is what the majority of the market wants- I still have all of my old game books.

What is the DM now?

I'll assume that "MMORPG with Minis" means "all creative control is out of the DM's hands." This is bullocks. The DM still has the following obligations to fullfill:

* Creating and maintaining a setting/environment to run adventurers in.
* Establishing plots and stocking dungeons
* Running NPCs, Villians, and Monsters both in and out of combat.
* Rewarding adventures with treasure and XP
* maintaining game cohesion (aka keep in moving smoothly)
* Mediating actions not covered explictally by the rules (aka swinging from the chandelier)

Now, Any help WotC wants to give me with these (campaign settings, adventurers/plot ideas, NPC/monster books and generators, etc) is welcomed by me. Anything that reduces the amount of time I need to devote to game-prep is welcomed. In fact, I wouldn't mind a game that I can put 1-2 hours in per week for prep and have most of my generic stuff done. Then I can devote my time to creating plots and memorable encouters rather than stating out 15th level clerics.

However, I don't see the DM being taken out of the equation. I think he'll fill the role of "storyteller" rather than "rule-arbiter" though.

 

[Mallus]

You could reasonably easily distribute what we'd now call "NPC" roles to other players as well, so that they aren't scripted.

I'm not so sure about that. Having a game where every player is essentially a DM would mean players are constantly swapping roles. That wouldn't work for players who enjoy immersing themselves in the role of a particular character. I also can't see it working for anything other than 'local color' NPC's. How do your fellow players run plot-critical NPC's, whose plans and motivations would traditionally be kept hidden from the players. It would seem impossible for Tom to play a Noble Knight trying to uncover the Evil Dukes plot while simultaneously playing the Evil Duke...

It is different, but it can be done.

With one caveat; it would restrict the kind of campaigns you could run. Games the hinge on mystery and exploration would be become more difficult, it not flat-out impossible.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If everyone is a player playing the role of their character, who plays the role of the world around them?

I think anyone seeking an answer to this question should play in an RPGA game.

They're basically 3-5 combat scenarios loosely connected by encounters determined by skill tests.

For example:

Encounter 1: guy approaches party and says "Take X to point Y". Test Sense Motive and Knowledge: Whatever to glean a couple bullet points of info about the upcoming fights.
Encounter 2: While on the way to Y, encounter villains A. Regardless of how the players decide to get to Y, or how they react to the appearance of A, this encounter results in combat*.
Encounter 3: See encounter 2.
Encounter 4: Arrive at Y and deliver X.
Encounter 5: Get ambushed/double crossed, and fight one more time.
The end.

This is *every* RPGA game, as it's explicitly designed to be run. Players yawn or fiddle with dice during boxed-text readings, waiting for the next time they can roll initiative and smash monsters with their super powers. The DMs--oops, wait, in the RPGA they are called "judges"--get blank stares from players if they try to roleplay. I've seen some players literally scream at a DM if he goes "off script" and improvises an NPC response other than what's specifically described in the adventure text.

That's what DM-less D&D would become. Many thousands of people play it today, and many thousands of people enjoy it today--the people who WotC can count on to buy all the new minis and supplements. In other words, their most important customers.

The guys who buy the three cores and no minis? Understandably, these guys just are not as important. It's debatable whether they're even playing the same game.

The logical choice, the right choice for WotC is to cater to the RPGA crowd. The vast-but-non-revenue-generating horde of "three-corers" won't pay the bills.

Unless, of course, WotC does something like move away from products and focus on services, such as a worldwide subscription-based online character storage/generator system. Then they'd be able to monetize even the three-corers indefinitely.

-z


* Sometimes you're given an either/or choice. For example, "do you go by boat? If so, you're attacked by sea elves. Or do you go by forest road? If so, you get attacked by wood elves."

 

[CleverName]

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

Yes, I suppose you could remove either one to lessen the conflict of interest. As I see it; Removing the rules from the DM's control, good. Removing NPCs from their control, bad. I think that is what you were saying to with regards to the M:tG refrees?

Wrong.

This confuses the goal with the means. The goal is a fun night of gaming. This frames the arguement in adversarial light, players vs. DM. I don't buy into that.

 

[Henry]

....which all too often then ends up in a pathological game of brinkmanship. "Ya, well I'm GAWD of the table, and say this." "Ya, well then I quit." With much fustration and unhappiness building up to get to that point.

P.S. The DM is actually running the jury too, and the courtroom, and the street outside, and ..... The non-NPC/monster environment.

I've never seen it happen at any table I've gamed at, and less commonly have ever heard of it at any one else's table. Usually, it's "you suck at DM'ing, next campaign I'm DM'ing."

Admittedly, if the environment is not one of friends gaming together (which I know exists, it's just an unusual one to me outside of tournaments), then hostility can result.

But the DM is not the jury, and never is, not even in the hoary days of OD&D when he was "referee": the jury has always been the other players, and they've always held veto power. That's why it's never bothered me, though if someone doesn't come from an atmosphere of cameraderie-gaming, I can understand the stronger desire for strong controls on the DM's power.