Slaying the greatest sacred cow: E-D&D

[Umbran]

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.)?

I don't believe the level of cake I want to have and eat too is something that is practical for the machine. We are now talking about a realm where humans do something better than computers can present it to them.

If I hold up a rulebook, I can say, "we'll be using this book, but we won't include the Frobning class, or feats X, Y, or Z" you'll have very little trouble absorbing that information.

If that interaction is between me and a computer, the computer must present a toggle for every single element that you want to be able to turn on and off. One things computers do poorly is present huge numbers of options in a comprehensible way.

And that doesn't even get us to the point of being able to alter elements ("We'll be using feat Y, but I've changed the prerequisites, and I've nerfed the bonus a bit"), swap elements ("I'm using rangers, but they have powers J, M, and Q instead of A, B, and C") or add entirely new elements or sub-systems, ("Here are firearms, they work in a fundamentally different way than other weapons" or "This system doesn't have action points - here is my action point system").

The complexity required for a machine to allow the above is... well, let's say I think it is a UI and systems problem that won't be conquered any time in the near future.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Very well put.

I think attempting to focus more and more heavily on automating the game is the wrong way to go. That way lies a shoddy imitation of computer RPGs, which will naturally lose out to the real CRPGs which have been doing it longer and learned to do it better. The focus needs to be on the strengths of tabletop gaming - the depth and flexibility that a live DM provides, which is far beyond what computers can do.

That's not to say the electronic aspect isn't important. But I think the main focus of the tech side should be on networking--supporting the ability of DMs and players to find each other and play together seamlessly online.

 

[malraux]

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?

Well, thus far, every time the character builder updates, my Grasp of the Grave power (lvl 5 wiz daily) has had the wording change.

That said, for things like powers or monsters, I kinda feel like that's already how I play the game. At least for me, unless the compendium/CB is obviously wrong, I assume that it has incorporated the errata.

However, for the rules that govern the interaction of those elements, I'd rather not see lots of minor updates and changes. I never completely got used to all the changes from 3e to 3.5. There were just enough minor changes that I never had the confidence in the rules to be sure that I was correctly remembering the 3.5 version of how some things worked. So I personally would really dislike lots of minor combat changes. For example, now that dominated has now been changed, I'm not sure I'll ever have it straight without looking it up how it works.

 

[Steel_Wind]

So, your proposal to make D&D more profitable is to convert the entire thing to electronic format?

Open it up to further piracy and remove the collectible element of purchasing late product cycle books that rarely get read by the hardcore gamer -- and throw that revenue model out the window too?

I agree that electronic D&D - as a licensed console game or as a major MMO is the greatest possible value in the brand. Compared to those potential profits, the rest of the brand is merely a niche hobby game product.

But to convert to a wholly electronic distribution model is, in a word, nutty, from a revenue persepective for the core game's RPG component.

Chance of happening? 0.00%

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I do not think I would be to bothered about it as long as no update was too wrenching. I have never been too bothered about the RAW and am quite happy to use the Character Sheets Power Cards and monster statblocks as written in the Monster Builder or the module.

So as long as nothing was turned on its head completely I could motor along happily and not even be really aware of the shifting ground about me. Not sure if my players would be as happy though.

 

[delericho]

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?

Quite simply: no. Any RPG that goes electronic-only immediately loses me as a customer. It doesn't matter how good it otherwise is, because I'll never know.

As for the "advantage" that it allows frequent and seamless rules update: I consider that a major disadvantage of D&D 4e. I have no interest in keeping track of the latest new version of whatever WotC comes up with, and I have no desire to see my PCs' abilities being ret-conned at will. Having a fixed form of the rules is a major advantage, IMO.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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)

As an aside.... this is sort of funny to me.

There are third world countries with better, faster internet than the States and Japan. The States in particular are awful that way. Going purely internet would theoretically open more markets than it closes... of course, you need to figure out how to sell the product to those people, but technically that's a separate problem.

On topic.... customization is a red herring. The real strength of Pen and Paper is ownership. When I play WoW, I'm playing Blizzard's game. When I play D&D, I'm playing my game. That's powerful when it's done right. Unfortunately, when it's done wrong, it sends people screaming away from the hobby.

Incidentally, WoW has the same big problem D&D has (leastways IMO): Bad first impressions for most players. The vast majority of their new players (something like 80%, iirc) never make it past level 10. That's why it's still a huge seller every month, but the player base stopped growing a year ago.

Back to topic once more.... D&D and PnP gaming in general is really a niche product. And the future is digital. It's really only a matter of time before the books become a sub-niche. And there are benefits. Look at Class Survivor and such.... there are demonstrably some classes that resonate with people and work, a bunch of classes that do their job well enough, and a bunch of classes that just don't work for most people. The current book model doesn't really allow you to fix that, only put band-aids on it.

We're going to have to wait for another edition to make some classes work right at the baseline. Whereas a fully digital model would allow them to be working on that right now and patch in a proper re-work.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Automated errata are fine, but so-called "updates" would drive me absolutely nuts.

The problem I see is that my philosophy of my game will likely be in constant competition with the The Company's philosophy of The Game.

Fact is, I love psychotically tinkering with subsystems. I'll mercilessly flay and reskin anything and everything. And sometimes I even actually strongly dislike balance. These kinds of things are bound to conflict with constant updates; I really don't want to be fighting that ad nauseum.

Basically, the game doesn't belong to the company in some database; it belongs to me and my group at the table!

 

[Umbran]

There are third world countries with better, faster internet than the States and Japan. The States in particular are awful that way.

Well, yes and no. You have to be careful when you toss around words like "better" - as what constitutes better is a bit subjective. It may have a faster bitrate, but very poor market penetration and coverage, or be expensive compared to the incomes of the people in question.

Sure, a school in Africa may well have a nice, fast satellite connection - but that connection is paid for by charity dollars and not be open for general commercial use by the community.

 

[Mark Chance]

The problem here is, the click-and-mortar nature of D&D currently. The rules are still bound to books.

That's not a problem. It's the main feature. Electronic "book" aren't going to replace collectors' libraries. Where would the satisfaction be in taking a new player into the game room, pointing at a shelf of CDs and saying, "How's that for a collection?"