SCOOP! Wizards to release 3E Draconomicon

[Arnwyn]

FWIW, there are maybe 3 or 4 mass combat products slated to come out this year, including one by WotC.

Indeed. Apparently it's the "year of mass combat rules", just like last year (or the year before?) was the "year of naval rules". It's nice to see *some* d20 companies "get it" and have seen a demand and are fulfilling that demand.

And I would think that the average DM would have a lot more use for "fluff" info on dragons than for a mass combat system. I'm actually a bit puzzled by the -apparent- demand; I'd think people who wanted mass combat would already be playing Warhammer.

I see your smiley, but that's still an absolutely ridiculous statement. The demand is for mass combat that can be integrated into a D&D campaign. How does Warhammer fit into that? And by no means does a D&D mass combat system have to be reliant on miniatures (though chances are...). It's the same concept as d20 Modern, really. People want mass combat rules that fit with the d20 system so people don't have to learn all new rules (just like d20 Modern allows for games set in "modern" times using a familiar ruleset - even though there are many rulesets that beat the living heck out of d20 for modern and futuristic setting games).

I'm puzzled that people are puzzled about mass combat! It gives an opportunity for PCs to act as generals and have a direct hand in how the battle turns out, or lead armies into battle, or act as scouts, or whatever - with *full game mechanic results* of their actions, instead of DM fiat and handwaving of the results. (How unsatisfying!)

As with everything D&D - different play styles, I suppose.

 

[Olive]

FWIW, there are maybe 3 or 4 mass combat products slated to come out this year, including one by WotC.

I can think of two: Eden's Book of War and Malhavoc's Cry Havoc. What's the WotC one? The Miniatures book? Not sure if that will be mass combat or not myself.

Anyway, as far as Warhammer goes, the complaint is that while there are mass combat systems outthere, they don't intergrate with DnD. Ever tried recreating DnD magic witht the warhammer system? not easy.

 

[buzz]

I see your smiley, but that's still an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Easy on the hyperbole, arnwyn.

All I'm saying is, dragons (i.e., monsters) and info about them are germane to the game of D&D. Mass combat, otoh, while apparently appealing to a lot of people, has virtually nothing to do with the way D&D is generally played. I mean, I've been playing since 1980, and I've never found myself in a situation where mass combat rules were needed.

Not that I think a mass combat system for D&D is a bad idea, by any means. I'm actually looking forward to some of the releases (particularly Skip Willams' Cry Havoc from Malhavoc). However, I simply see a book on dragons to be a *given* for a game called Dungeons & Dragons, while mass combat rules are an "added extra" of appeal to some players.

As with everything D&D - different play styles, I suppose.

Indeed. And this whole line of argument is moot, anyway, as WotC is releasing the dragon book AND mass combat rules in the coming year or so.

 

[buzz]

I can think of two: Eden's Book of War and Malhavoc's Cry Havoc. What's the WotC one? The Miniatures book? Not sure if that will be mass combat or not myself.

According to the story over at GamingReport.com:

In addition to these features, [The Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Handbook] gives expanded rules for three-dimensional, head-to-head miniatures play for both skirmish and mass battle conflicts and is instantly usable with the new D&D miniatures product line.

So, that's:

• AEG's War (already out)
• Eden's Book of War
• Malhavoc's Cry havoc
• WotC's Miniatures Handbook
• Troll Lord's The Art of War

Who knows how many more d20 companies will jump on the bandwagon?

That's five mass combat rulebooks compared to three existing dragon sourcebooks. I dunno, but I think there's ample room for WotC to publish the Dragonomicon, especially given some of the middling reviews I read of the other dragon books...

 

[Gez]

Originally posted by buzz

• AEG's War (already out)
• Eden's Book of War
• Malhavoc's Cry havoc
• WotC's Miniatures Handbook
• Troll Lord's The Art of War

Who knows how many more d20 companies will jump on the bandwagon?

Replace "will jump" by "has already jumped before everyone else", and you could add

• Mongoose's Quintessential Fighter (and Seas of Blood), for the Open Mass Combat System.
• Mongoose's Crusades of Valour for its Cinematic Battle System.

Yes, Mongoose made two systems. The OMCS is more detailed, the CBS is meant to be less rule-heavy.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'll skip it, The Slayers Guide to Dragons fits the bill just nicely.


As for this art discussion. It's only a small part of the purchase, unless it is the completely wrong style then it can annoy me a lot. Bad art I can handle, but wrong art? For example, the Sorcerer in the PHB. A lot of the art in splatbooks is the same. Oh tats and piercings! We are so edgy! Riiiight. But I work around it.

 

[drnuncheon]

Originally posted by buzz

• AEG's War (already out)

I don't think you could call anything in this book a real 'mass combat system'. There were a few pages in the back with two poorly-explained, even more poorly-laid-out sets of 'guidelines' that boiled down to 'have both commanders roll their Tactics skill'.

It'd sort of be the equivalent of turning D&D combat into 'roll a level check against the CR of the monster. If you beat it, you win'.

J

 

[buzz]

I don't think you could call anything in this book a real 'mass combat system'.

Okay. That still leaves six other products.

Dragon gap!

 

[jasamcarl]

Your point is irrelevant from a DM's perspective - we don't have an existing mass combat system where there is a need, and we do have dragon encounters, and although more splat would be nice, it's not as useful. I suspect that it would sell about equally to a book on dragons if WotC bothered to try, because there seem to be just as many DMs interested in dragon splat as there are in running armies. That's just armchair speculation of the "what DMs are interested in" kind, though, and given we're getting a Draconomicon then WotC is just acting on "I like dragons" feedback.

You're talking about design challenges, which are the "how". We're concerned with the "need" - even if the design's challenging, that doesn't make the need disappear in a puff of smoke and waft away on the wind. There's usually a design way to do it, otherwise we wouldn't see Malhavoc Press attempting to do a mass combat system, for instance.

So would a book on dragon splat, unless we're talking about playing dragon PCs. Besides, PCs lead armies too!

I point to an adventure like the Siege of Kratys Freehold, which has got to be one of the most fun and involving adventures I've run. Players know when you're "painting a backdrop", and the tension is just as much less as it is if we resolved one-to-one combat as a "painted backdrop".

How far does their research go? Would I be right in assuming that WotC probably just looks at how well Battlesystem sold versus how well the 2E Draconomicon sold, combined with market surveys of the "what would you like to see more of" type, and draws it's conclusions from there? Battlesystem didn't even really meet gamer needs as much as War Machine did, and the continual random posts to this board for mass combat rules as opposed to dragon splat suggests that their conclusions may be flawed. We'll see - maybe Malhavoc will make a mint.

Again, you seem to be deliberately muddling implementation with need. You assume it would be some sort of points-based mess, as opposed to DMG-like guidelines. There wasn't nearly enough space for that sort of thing in that book.

The comparitive sales of 2e books is still better a better indicator of consumer tastes then what you are arguing for, unless those tastes have changed, which in the case of DnD, i seriously doubt.

And the design issues are fundemental to both the willingness of any company to put out a system and what that system is likely to look like, so yea, the ends and the means are intwined (i.e. i'm not confusing them).

There are two fundemental approaches, rules light and rules heavy. They both have problems of supply and demand, respecitivly. Going the heavy tactical route would entail all the problems i specified above, making playtesting and balancing a nightmare, and attempting to sell a heavy game to a market which has not been receptive to that type of minigame in the past. A rules-light approach, i.e. scene descriptor, is nothing more that a way to gratify the dm, because by definition, the pcs would have very little effect on the outcome so as to avoid the resource/reward problem i already specficied. So on the whole most groups and probably most dms would be happy with simple 'handwaving'.

As to the toolbook, if you don't have a point-based system and just general guidlines, that still hoists a lot of work on DMs in creation. And no guidlines can make up for solid playtesting. So you are likely to appeal to only a small section of dms, an already limited portion of the DnD market.

So why would you think it worth Wotc's effort to produce either of these books when these gaps are only apparent to a very few hardcore including yourself?

 

[Crothian]

Okay. That still leaves six other products.

Dragon gap!

Well, there;s also a simple Mass Combat system in Slaine. Simple but good.