Slaying the greatest sacred cow: E-D&D

[Nymrohd]

4E has certainly surpassed former editions in one field; rules updates. They are frequent, the designers have an ear to the community to eliminate imbalance or make underused content up to standards. Yet anyone would admit that there are changes that would make the system better but cannot be made simply because there is only so much of the rules you can update without essentially revising them.

The problem here is, the click-and-mortar nature of D&D currently. The rules are still bound to books. For most of us, not having rows of D&D books in our libraries, or an entire column of them, would probably be the greatest deviation from the system that be possible. And completely dropping the book lines would be a major wound for the FLGs and whatever that entails in attracting new customers. Yet what would the advantages be?

For starters, the designers would be able to make sweeping changes without changing the structure or the edition. Check any MMORPG; they can and do change the rules dramatically, with expansion pacs easily being revision or even new editions of their rule systems. Yet the changes are seamless, automatically applied. With tools like the Compendium, the CB and the Adventure Tools, it should be possible in the near future to allow for such flexibility of design for D&D itself.

Moreover I think that such a model would hinder segmentation of the player base (at least after several outraged players dumped D&D here and then if it happened). With no investment in physical books that become outdated or heavily changed when a pass at those rules takes place, and with those rules no longer an actual product since they would be replaced, I think people would be far less likely to leave the core.

I understand this sounds like a huge change to what D&D is now for most of us. I am simply asking, would anyone else see this as a good idea?

 

[Nagol]

A big problem would be the local cache that every player has -- memory.

Memeory of the rules would be inherently untrustworthy as the player may not have seen the most recent set of rules and thus everything would need to be referenced online.

MMORPGs get away with sweeping changes because at no point do the players learn the rules and even then sweeping changes are problematic. Some of the nastiest flareups on the game boards come from sub-systems no longer functioning as the player have come to expect.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Depends on how often you expect to lose your electricity, or your ability to pay your monthly subscription, or lose your Internet connection (assuming you have one in the first place) I think we want people who live in those kinds of situation to play.

I do not want to be too critical, but all this stuff about internet-only stuff is not possible for large segments of the world population. Granted most of WOTC's customers are in that segment that has access to the Internet. (and a good amount of money to spend on the hobby)

Yes, updating rules is nice, but WOTC is doing that now, more or less, though in small ways, as you said. But is updating and making sweeping changes good for the game?

Is it a good idea to have the game that easy to change? With computer games, it is easy to dictate those changes, as characters are less permanent than D&D ones (at least I hope so) I do hope I play characters longer than that in D&D, and I would not like wholesale changes to my characters when the designers felt like doing it. I'm not sure I would like that, and if the designers were indeed always looking backwards (though I agree the PHBI classes could use a bit of tweaking) do we want to distract them from looking forward?

Is it better to come out with new content or constantly revisit old content? I would go with new.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We don't have computers or internet access at our game table. As long as a lot of games work like that, this won't do it.

Once everyone (well a significant amount of the audience) has a e-reader or tablet and wireless lan is basically always available, this might actually be a feasible way.

Memeory of the rules would be inherently untrustworthy as the player may not have seen the most recent set of rules and thus everything would need to be referenced online.

4E exception based design - and most importantly probably its power system - makes this a smaller issue. As long as you don't make any changes to close to the core to the system, this can work fine. A "fixed" power is not a big issue - most likely only one player will notice the change. Rules like "what's an attack" or "how do encounter powers refresh" might remain unchangeable...

 

[Umbran]

I understand this sounds like a huge change to what D&D is now for most of us. I am simply asking, would anyone else see this as a good idea?

Would it work? Perhaps. Would I like it? Probably not.

I do not want someone I've never met making rules-changes that will affect my game mid-stream without consulting me, and I need to be able to say "No," and pick what updates I am using, and what I'm not. That's a lot of fiddly detail, and I'm not sure that I'd like the software designed to support such use.

 

[Gort]

I like that I can get books and rules online, but in-person D&D is FAR superior to online D&D.

 

[wedgeski]

I do not want someone I've never met making rules-changes that will affect my game mid-stream without consulting me, and I need to be able to say "No," and pick what updates I am using, and what I'm not. That's a lot of fiddly detail, and I'm not sure that I'd like the software designed to support such use.

Without claiming it's right or wrong, it is interesting that DM's feel this way. Compare that to a multiplayer patch for any online game you care to mention, where the need for everyone to be using the same rules is not only essential technically but absolutely critical to the impression of a level playing field amongst players.

In roleplaying, essentially every table is its own version of the game. I know nothing about this observation is new, but I think it's relevant to the difference between today's DM and the DM that, hypothetically, will be happy to run a roleplaying game entirely from the net sometime in the future.

 

[Umbran]

In roleplaying, essentially every table is its own version of the game. I know nothing about this observation is new, but I think it's relevant to the difference between today's DM and the DM that, hypothetically, will be happy to run a roleplaying game entirely from the net sometime in the future.

Perhaps.

I think that if tabletop RPGs are going to survive, however, they will need to play to how they are different from MMORPGs - and customization is one of those differences.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Would it work? Perhaps. Would I like it? Probably not.

I do not want someone I've never met making rules-changes that will affect my game mid-stream without consulting me, and I need to be able to say "No," and pick what updates I am using, and what I'm not. That's a lot of fiddly detail, and I'm not sure that I'd like the software designed to support such use.

But you can have your cake and eat it, too. Instead of considering the entirety of the updates as forced, why not write/use software that processes each individual update (i.e. per power, item, rule, etc.)? Then, when the DM obtains the latest errata (if you will), he picks and chooses those that he wants to adopt for his game. He can change his mind later, picking others or un-choosing ones he took before. He can, of course, do this with the players input (or not) and there should even be an option to "push" those updates to his players so that everyone is simultaneously consistent.

The "local cache" is also easily remedied. You don't step up to an update until you process it. With essentially a line item veto per change, you can process only those you think you can handle. Most of the time, the changes don't affect you (you can't play EVERY character class at once for instance).

There could also obviously be options for off-line play. You need not have an internet connection to reference the rules. You do need electricity, however, but that's an obvious requirement.

IMO, I'd like it, especially if they take the special extra step to consider smart phones. I'd much rather have an app on my iPhone than to have to drag out 6 laptops.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, the greatest aspect of E-D&D is game preparation. The one time things I do before a game that are often tedious.

The character builder is a great example. I make my character once, and I level him once in a while. To me, having an online repository of character info that is regularly updated with errata is absolutely wonderful.

Same with monsters. I love that as a DM I can pluck a monster from my online library, and its got all the updates to it.


But for the rules I use during the game, this is less useful. I don't want skills to be messed with constantly or the grab rules or conditions. For these, the books are still the best resource.