D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Ferrix]

Well... I like my 3.0/3.5 fine the way it is really. I find the push for 4E by WotC a sort of sad transition. 3rd edition was a great push out of a dying label and system. Pushing into a 4E in the next year or two, depending upon how they make it backwards compatible, could easily rift the community.

I own a handful of miniatures, and most of my friends who game are the same way, they are old school metal figurines, and we generally bought them because they looked cool. I played Magic for a number of years and the collectible aspect of it drains me, sure it's good for a business because people keep buying new stuff, but it was never about owning some hot collectible card, but about having a fun game to play around a table with friends. I won't move into a 4E that is a collectible miniature based game, because it would be a waste of money to me. Role playing games, regardless of their roots in war gaming, are not miniatures based, they are imagination based.

I'll stick with my imagination, the great imagination of my friends, and a decent set of rules like 3rd edition (3.0 and 3.5).

And no offense but I like to play with people who are intelligent on many levels with good imaginations. No computer or video game has ever interested me, multiplayer or not, to the extent that a face to face role playing game does.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It would not be RPing as we know it, but I could imagine a game where the role of DM is rotated, the "point value" of the PCs is totaled up, the DM gets a certain number of points based on a chart, and he runs a "Warhammer-style" tabletop battle against the heroic PCs. It would be easy to add wrinkles to keep the game unpredicatable, e.g. the DM can draw from the Nasty Surprise deck at the cost of a certain number of points.

As I said, it is not a substitute for RPing, but having played in a Bloodbowl League one summer (individual players on your team roster experience up, so there is RPing-lite in the experience) and having watched all those WH40K happily slam their beautiful armies together, I can see how a game of this style could be appealing.

Warhammer miniatures are one of the top 3 pillars that keep your average game store above water financially. I can see why WotC might be thinking that they could leverage the D&D game to take a slice of that sales pie while not necessarily hurting the RPG aspect of the game.

It could be done if marketed and packaged correctly. Keep a core that has a common base of rules. Then split off a RPG line and a Miniature Wargaming line.

 

[MerricB]

It would not be RPing as we know it, but I could imagine a game where the role of DM is rotated, the "point value" of the PCs is totaled up, the DM gets a certain number of points based on a chart, and he runs a "Warhammer-style" tabletop battle against the heroic PCs. It would be easy to add wrinkles to keep the game unpredicatable, e.g. the DM can draw from the Nasty Surprise deck at the cost of a certain number of points.

The game is called Descent, and it's made by Fantasy Flight Games. It's a lot of fun.

Cheers!

 

[sullivan]

Somehow strikes a chord, doesn't it?

The really funny thing? The basic Burning Wheel demo module is effectively a 10'x10' room with one loot item and no Orc. That's it.

P.S. The module suggests that you can place spider, or troll, or a couple other options. But that's entirely optional.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The game is called Descent, and it's made by Fantasy Flight Games. It's a lot of fun.

And if they can reinvent the wheel such that they can grab 20% of the Warhammer miniatures, Descent, and "clicks" miniatures sales, I think it would be fair to call such a game a success. Provided they do not undermine their RPG sales in the process, of course.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Somehow strikes a chord, doesn't it?

If there was a reputation system here, you'd get a big bonus from me! I think that sums certain things up perfectly!

Man, I miss comics like that in Dragon.

 

[Abe.ebA]

The really funny thing? The basic Burning Wheel demo module is effectively a 10'x10' room with one loot item and no Orc. That's it.

P.S. The module suggests that you can place spider, or troll, or a couple other options. But that's entirely optional.

So their demo adventure is "and Pie"?

That must be a fearsome pie...

 

[sullivan]

So their demo adventure is "and Pie"?

That must be a fearsome pie...

You ever had one of those sessions where it seems like the whole thing is spent determining which PC gets the single shiny item of loot? Yeah, well this is sort of like that. Only planned that way so it doesn't suck like a bunch of players bickering tends to. The adventure and it multitude of paths are embedded into motivations of the 4 PCs, which are mechanically represented in the system. Here, you can check it out. The Sword.

 

[Ranger REG]

Declaring an urge on a public forum is the same thing as doing it. Try to keep that to yourself.
-blarg

Then I guess I just did. W00t!!!

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Well, as I said before, they can veto me if I perform my DM duty badly, but they can't veto my rullings made in the sessions.