SCOOP! Wizards to release 3E Draconomicon

[haiiro]

That's a perfect example in my area. The local stores around here carry mostly Wizards of the Coast, with the occasional Fast Forward Games book, whereas I see all sorts of 3rd party stuff, because I happen to buy alot of books in Ann Arbor, like 80 miles away from where my group lives. They have good materials, that our local shops will never carry.

The Underworld in Ann Arbor (which I assume is the store you're referring to) does have an excellent selection of 3e material. Pretty much everything that comes out for 3e is available, or on order. Rare exceptions include things like Heroes of High Favor: Elves, which seems to sell out so fast that they can't keep it in stock.

I consider myself very lucky to have this kind of resource available, and it makes keeping up on 3e (and examining a broad cross section of products) much easier.

 

[Remathilis]

The Underworld is a great resource, esp for oop stuff too. The staff is great too.

If you take a hour drive to Garden City, look up Pandemonium Game Store, its got some good d20 stuff and LOTS of minis (Reaper, Warhammer). They usually have lots of new releases in.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeoman, Haiiro, and Joshua Dyal...

Glad to hear from some local gamers. Is there a good place for connections with other gamers in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area? Just looking for some fresh gamers...

To keep this on Topic, I'm defensive about this new book... the first real wizards release I've been leary about.

 

[Drakron]

Well there have always been "Dragon Lovers" ...

Something like "the complete drow handbook" would sell a lot, even if its not very useful as a gaming book ...

Also why you think instead of being called "Guide to the Underdark" (or just plain "the Underdark") it was called "Drizzt Guide to the Underdark"?

 

[jasamcarl]

There's nothing wrong with it, but that doesn't mean there's any existing need in the game for it either - it was the other guy who dragged it into a crunch vs. fluff discussion, I was simply rebutting him on the same foundation he was arguing from.

The reason why I say the game doesn't need this book is because it doesn't. The game has no hole to fill with regard to detailing dragons to the umpteenth degree, whereas it does with regards to, say, mass combat. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and people will buy it....but in my view this book is being marketed towards the same sorts of people who buy books on 1001 drow powerups and god stat droolfests. They just seem extraneous when there are "better" themes for books to do that would probably also sell. That's just a personal suspicion and a broad generalisation, mind you, and may not be warranted in the case of individuals.

This theme will sell, but surely there are other themes out there that would fill an existing need where the game is lacking, and sell. To think of another one alongside the mass combat example - Dancey's suggestion of another core book which describes the game design principles behind 3E, allowing for more confident tinkering - a "Designer's Guide". People have been asking for that, and knowing how much gamers love to tinker it would surely sell well, and it would help their game more than a book on dragon feats...

Existing needs in which games. I suspect of course that a party is far more likely to encounter a dragon or some equivilant tough creature than see (or need) mass combat, which is notoriously difficult to assign CRs or ELs given that it is inherintly based not upon the PCs ability, but a larger mass of troops. This break with the DND paradigm makes it less likely to sell than a book about how to modify and run a favorite monster. Same with a hardcore designer's book. Most DMs probably do not have the time or inclination to create their own material when an off-the-shelf solution is available which has likely seen more playtesting.

But of course this is all speculation. What is not excessive speculation is that Wotc probably has access to the sales info on the 2e equivilant and know how much the original Draconicom sold versus that mass combat game and where it is based to place publication slots and R&D time.

 

[rounser]

Existing needs in which games. I suspect of course that a party is far more likely to encounter a dragon or some equivilant tough creature than see (or need) mass combat,

There are already rules for encountering dragons, but not for mass combat. There's the difference. More rules for encountering dragons is just icing on an already baked cake - in the case of mass combat, there is currently no cake.

which is notoriously difficult to assign CRs or ELs given that it is inherintly based not upon the PCs ability, but a larger mass of troops.

That's exactly one of the reasons why rules are required for it.

This break with the DND paradigm makes it less likely to sell than a book about how to modify and run a favorite monster.

There is no break with the D&D paradigm whatsoever, except if you restrict your views of D&D to dungeon crawls. In the oD&D boxed sets, it was even assumed that higher level characters would become leaders of armies. It would do high level play good to have this as an option, just like stacking feats on to dragons is an option.

If orcs are invading the kingdom and the party wants to wet their blades on the battlefield, or lead their retainers in formation, that's just as much a part of the D&D's pulp swords & sorcery fantasy milieu as marching into a dungeon and fighting said orcs.

Same with a hardcore designer's book. Most DMs probably do not have the time or inclination to create their own material when an off-the-shelf solution is available which has likely seen more playtesting.

Clearly we have very different views of what makes D&D gamers tick. They love to tweak the core rules to lower the magic level, or add new races, or remove AoOs because they don't like them, or whatever.

Every DM I've met derives some fun out of the game from making it their own, with house rules and small tweaks, if not big ones (which were reserved for earlier editions, mostly). Some of the bigger changes I've seen suck, balance-wise. May as well have a book to suggest how to do such overhauls with the "secret designer knowledge" at hand, it might even encourage greater tinkering, helping the DM "own" his or her game even more, because they're out there doing it anyway. If I know DMs, I suspect it'd sell like hotcakes.

 

[haiiro]

Yeoman, Haiiro, and Joshua Dyal...

Glad to hear from some local gamers. Is there a good place for connections with other gamers in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area? Just looking for some fresh gamers...

I met pretty much all of the Ann Arbor gamers that I know through playing Magic at the old Underworld and Campus Collectibles (which was where the new Underworld is now ), or through classes at U of M. There used to be a "gamers seeking gamers" type bulletin board at the Underworld, but I never had much luck with it and I don't know if it's still there.

There's a thread over in the Gamers Seeking Gamers forum (called <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43604">Ontario/Michigan gathering</a>) about a local game day of sorts. I think the current location under consideration is Windsor.

 

[jasamcarl]

There are already rules for encountering dragons, but not for mass combat. There's the difference. More rules for encountering dragons is just icing on an already baked cake - in the case of mass combat, there is currently no cake.

That's exactly one of the reasons why rules are required for it.

There is no break with the D&D paradigm whatsoever, except if you restrict your views of D&D to dungeon crawls. In the oD&D boxed sets, it was even assumed that higher level characters would become leaders of armies. It would do high level play good to have this as an option, just like stacking feats on to dragons is an option.

If orcs are invading the kingdom and the party wants to wet their blades on the battlefield, or lead their retainers in formation, that's just as much a part of the D&D's pulp swords & sorcery fantasy milieu as marching into a dungeon and fighting said orcs.

Clearly we have very different views of what makes D&D gamers tick. They love to tweak the core rules to lower the magic level, or add new races, or remove AoOs because they don't like them, or whatever.

Every DM I've met derives some fun out of the game from making it their own, with house rules and small tweaks, if not big ones (which were reserved for earlier editions, mostly). Some of the bigger changes I've seen suck, balance-wise. May as well have a book to suggest how to do such overhauls with the "secret designer knowledge" at hand, it might even encourage greater tinkering, helping the DM "own" his or her game even more, because they're out there doing it anyway. If I know DMs, I suspect it'd sell like hotcakes.

And I will make this point again, regardless of how much treatment dragon's have seen in the past, a further treatment will still likely sell more than a masscombat system, because it adds diversity to DND's core gameplay paradigm, i.e. expending resources in encounters and recieving gold and xp in return. Now how exactly would this work for a mass combat system where the challenge for a character (the resources expent) is difficult to assess because the outcome of a battle is not so direct a function of PC abilities? How will one assure that the xp and gold gained as reward keep pace with the resources spent in such a way that characters keep up with the treasure/level chart listed in the DMG? How many people demand the type of detail that would require this bookeeping which would make any such system preferable to simple dm handwaving?

Which gets to the core of the issue. A mass combat system would in all likely be a DMs tool by virtue of the design problems presented above. It would basically be a way to paint a backdrop to the more ordinary, balanced encounters that a party will directly face. Which is fine, though why a dm needs rules to affect this type of situation which will have no effect on the character is beyond me. Though that is speculation. Wotc descision speaks far more to consumer demand. Rant done.

As to the design book, while i will concede that that has more potential, I am dubious at the ability for any such book to create balanced feats or prcs, given that its guidlines would likely be far too streamlined/concrete (assuming it wishes to reach a wide audience) and would see of the same problems that point-based character gen systems such as GURPs and HERO see in terms of balance. I'm also doubtful that most DMs are unwilling to play the game as is outside of one or two houserules made a retracted on the fly.

Your game might need this, but most probably don't, else surely one of many d20 publishers would have made a real stab at it. I like the OMCS, but beyond gratifying the simulationist number cruncher in me, i don't see it being pivotal to my game.

 

[rounser]

And I will make this point again, regardless of how much treatment dragon's have seen in the past, a further treatment will still likely sell more than a masscombat system, because it adds diversity to DND's core gameplay paradigm, i.e. expending resources in encounters and recieving gold and xp in return.

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.

Now how exactly would this work for a mass combat system where the challenge for a character (the resources expent) is difficult to assess because the outcome of a battle is not so direct a function of PC abilities? How will one assure that the xp and gold gained as reward keep pace with the resources spent in such a way that characters keep up with the treasure/level chart listed in the DMG? How many people demand the type of detail that would require this bookeeping which would make any such system preferable to simple dm handwaving?

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.

Which gets to the core of the issue. A mass combat system would in all likely be a DMs tool by virtue of the design problems presented above.

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

It would basically be a way to paint a backdrop to the more ordinary, balanced encounters that a party will directly face. Which is fine, though why a dm needs rules to affect this type of situation which will have no effect on the character is beyond me.

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".

Though that is speculation. Wotc descision speaks far more to consumer demand. Rant done.

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.

As to the design book, while i will concede that that has more potential, I am dubious at the ability for any such book to create balanced feats or prcs, given that its guidlines would likely be far too streamlined/concrete (assuming it wishes to reach a wide audience) and would see of the same problems that point-based character gen systems such as GURPs and HERO see in terms of balance. I'm also doubtful that most DMs are unwilling to play the game as is outside of one or two houserules made a retracted on the fly.

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.

 

[Desdichado]

As I stated earlier, Joshua, RoF is the first product to showcase the results of Wizards' artistic house cleaning a few months back. Since the artists are commissioned months in advance, we're just now seeing the results with our own eyes.

Savage Species was the last product in development before the announcement, so it doesn't matter if it only came out a month a month before RoF. The line was drawn between those two products, and serve as a perfect "illustration" of my point.

You stated that, but that's the only place I've heard that before. I also fail to see how it's meaningful as WAR is a freelance illustrator, and wasn't ever part of the WotC "stable" of artists anyway.