Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Henry]

This is an interesting comment on further reflection - it ties into something that came up in the other thread: would d20 be as successful if it didn't have the name "Dungeons and Dragons" affixed to it?...Isn't this somehow akin to inheriting the family fortune and then patting one's self on the back for buying a hot retail property?

I'm not Ryan, but I'll toss in my worthless tuppence on this: I'd say that just as much as the new system traded in on the in-place network of D&D players, it itself contributed to the return of sales success to pre-1990 levels because of the so-called "Skaff Effect" which was accelerated by the creation of the OGL and the d20 STL. D&D definitely was languishing between 1990 and 1997, and if (despite edition) all other products ultimately drove D&D sales because it was still #1 despite languishing, then the OGL make the masses return to it over and over again, even quicker. If I'm quoting Charles Ryan correctly, last year was the best D&D year of sales ON RECORD (as in, ever.) Whether it's true is up to the sales figures to be believed, because TSR didn't keep as good a track of sales in the early years, but even if you don't take that as true, it restored the sales of the game as a whole to levels unseen in 15 or 20 years, easily.

Therefore, for as much as d20 would have succeeded or not, it and the OGL had as much effect on D&D as D&D had on it. Without it, it may not have gotten its foot in the door, but when it did, it added it's own draw to the picture.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I believe that there are three kinds of people who interact with D&D:

1) People who play it
2) People who DM it
3) People who design content for it

A key issue here is that #2 and #3 have become inextricably linked. A default assumption on the part of many people could be summarized as "the act of DMing requires substantial content design activity".

Right! Fortunately, the current rules set makes content design activity much more structured. For the first time, we have actual rules for making a monster. Or a magic item. Or a spell (the Epic rules). Now, we may argue about whether the rules themselves are flawed or incomplete, but the framework at least exists.

As a long time DM, I can say that this pleases me greatly. I want my DM creations to be rules-legal, even though I could use my DM powers to circumvent the rules at will.

Now Ryan's comment begs the question, "Should content design be inextrixably linked to DM'ing?" And I believe the obvious answer is, "No, because the art of DM'ing is separate from the art of creating adventures / monsters / whatever." I also think that with the greying of the D&D player base, more and more DMs prefer to spend their time DM'ing as opposed to designing content. Hence the clamor for adventures, whether they are in Dungeon magazine or from 3rd-party publishers. Hence the clamor for various play aids such as stat block generators or dungeon tiles. It seems that many people want to spend less time designing content and more time actually gaming.

Now what interests me about the recently published DMG II is that it explicitly addresses content design, but it spends much less time on the art of DM'ing (for lack of a better term). Perhaps this is a wise choice, however: you could read a book on the art of DM'ing, absorb its lessons, and never need to refer to it again. So if the DMG II were 200 pages on the art of DM'ing, buyers would feel ripped off once they had read it through. But, in actuality, the DMG II has plenty of charts, tables, and rules-y sections to which buyers can refer again and again.

Hmm. I thought I had a point when I started this post, but I seem to have lost it along the way. Well, such is the nature of message board posts.

 

[delericho]

I want a program that allows me to instantly generate an advanced monster (or character), of any hit die/class combo, with appropriate equipment and/or treasure (which would then be used and added to the stats of the monster if usable by that monster). I don't want to have to "build" it myself. I don't want to sit there and assign skills. I don't want to sit there and assign feats.

I don't need this program to be usable at the gaming table; I just need it for prep.

I agree with all of this, except that I'd like the ability to specify some or all of these before the program completes its work. I would settle for the ability to change the results, and have the program check my changes for legality.

Ideally, it would encompass all of the D&D books, but at this point, I'd accept it with just the core rules.

I don't agree with this, however, and this is why I think any chance of developing an application for use with 3.x is long gone. I am simply not interested in a product that wouldn't allow me to use the various supplements (WotC and d20) that I have gathered over the years.

 

[SWBaxter]

I believe that there are three kinds of people who interact with D&D:

1) People who play it

2) People who DM it

3) People who design content for it

A key issue here is that #2 and #3 have become inextricably linked. A default assumption on the part of many people could be summarized as "the act of DMing requires substantial content design activity".

I think that this conjunction lies at the heart of much of the DM-side problems with fun factor in D&D (and many other RPGs).

Hmm. I would have bet money that default assumption must be held by the designers of 3E, because it seems to me that 3E sought, above all else, to standardize the tools used in content design and as a result encourage DMs to engage in such design. The alternative viewpoint - that DMing should not require substantial content design activity - is not well-supported either by the 3E (and now 3.5E) core rules or by WOTC's other products.

Note how little comment we see from people who say "I sat down to run [Adventure Path Module X] and realized I had to invest several hours of prep time." I'd suggest that when such comments are made (and I'm certain that some people have already clicked "Reply to this Post" to make them) they invariably start with "in order to change the module to fit my needs, I ..." (or some similiar wording).

Absolutely - unless one's needs happen to gibe exactly with what the author had in mind, the reason for any change made is going to be "to fit my needs". I might be dense, but I don't see how starting a response that way would invalidate any objection to your point. My needs might include detailing the NPCs met in the various home base towns, or working out bridge adventures between the modules, or converting the stats to 3.5E, or any of a dozen other completely ordinary activities that don't really involve major changes to the module's basic design but nevertheless consume some hours worth of time. Or my needs might include more fundamental changes that do change design elements, like fitting the adventure into a homebrew world where some of the module's creatures don't exist, and that also seems to me to be a completely legitimate use of the adventure.

I really think that any plan to ease a DM's workload by getting DMs out of the content design business is doomed to failure. Part of what inspires people to sit on the lonely side of the screen is the ability to put their own creations out there, be they a whole world or just a new template on a critter. Remove that, and you're a good chunk of the way towards removing the DM/player distinction altogether. Which may be a desireable goal, I dunno, but it doesn't look to me like 3E was trying to move in that direction.

 

[DaveMage]

I agree with all of this, except that I'd like the ability to specify some or all of these before the program completes its work. I would settle for the ability to change the results, and have the program check my changes for legality.

Well, as long as we're fantasizing, I'd say it should update, in real time, with any change you make.

I don't agree with this, however, and this is why I think any chance of developing an application for use with 3.x is long gone. I am simply not interested in a product that wouldn't allow me to use the various supplements (WotC and d20) that I have gathered over the years.

Well, as I said, ideally, this is exactly what I'd want too, but just to be able to say "generate a 10th level troll ranger" and have it done completely in a few seconds would be worth it to me.

I'm truly amazed that in this age of computer savvy that something like this doesn't exist. The closest thing we have is e-tools, which, if you add the supplementary rulebook modules, is an astronomical cost, and still doesn't generate creatures like the example above.

I know it's unreasonable, but I want it all, and I want it all for under $100.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really think that any plan to ease a DM's workload by getting DMs out of the content design business is doomed to failure. Part of what inspires people to sit on the lonely side of the screen is the ability to put their own creations out there, be they a whole world or just a new template on a critter. Remove that, and you're a good chunk of the way towards removing the DM/player distinction altogether. Which may be a desireable goal, I dunno, but it doesn't look to me like 3E was trying to move in that direction.

I've been mostly running written adventures since I started DMing 3E and 3.5E. I haven't had to change almost anything. I may have to convert an adventure to 3.5E, but that's it. Even then, I'm lazy enough that I'm currently running RTTToE in 3.5 using the conversion that other people did for it on the internet.

I've done basically 0 prep work for any sessions at all. I've read the adventure once when I ran it about 3 years ago in 3E. I've been working off my memory of the adventure and reading it and the conversion on the fly. Sometimes I stop and read for about 5 minutes, but it hasn't slowed the game down enough to worry about it too much. I figure if I spent an hour preparing before each session, I could avoid this slow down, but as I said, I'm lazy.

If I need something not written in the mod, I make it up on the fly. This is easy, because unless it is very important to the matter at hand, I handwave most of it. i.e. "You want to find a wizard to upgrade your magic item? Umm, sure, you are in a town big enough for that. It will cost the standard cost and time. You can look that up on your own."

So far, my experience with DMing 3.5E has involved very little game design. I trust WotC has done their job and allow almost any feat, spell, or PrC in any book by them and restrict them only once I've seen them in action and have a problem with them. I don't need to know why or how the material is balanced, it just IS unless proven otherwise. Same thing with the mod, it is an interesting story and adventure, I don't feel the need to change it unless I find that in practice it doesn't work out. It seemed to work fine the first time.

I am glad that as long as I know the rules, I can be more of a rules arbiter than a DM. I find it awfully hard to be creative sometimes. I'm glad to have that pressure taken off of me. I do see how, if I came up with all my NPCs, had to come up with plots, and then still DM the game come session time that I might be a little burned out though.

 

[Mythmere1]

My thoughts follow a similar track to Bretbo (who I believe I've seen at Mutants and Masterminds, so he'll know what I'm getting at). I'd love to see D&D's rules follow more of a "Macro/Micro" philosophy, where the DM can use a cut-down rules-set that still interfaces legally with the fully statted out Player Characters, without a ton of prep time. In the old days (and still I do this) I often write down a stripped-down stat-block or I ad-hoc the stats for an NPC or monster, because to write down every critter the PC's would interact with would drive me to distraction; it also means I couldn't run an off-the-cuff D&D session if I had to. Just as in M&M someone's Defense or base attack bonus could be broken down into categories (attack could be broken into ranged, melee, and unarmed, defense could be broken into Natural/Armor and deflection/shield, etc.) the DM could pick a point-buy bonus that was still equivalent to what his PC's would be challenged with, but the players could customize the heck out of their characters and the DM's NPCs would still be legal and appropriate challenge to the PCs.

I'm not even sure if it's doable, but a suite of electronic tools will NOT make it easier to run at the table, and forcing the DM to have to use a laptop to run his game just because of stacks of prep-work needed is NOT the better RPG. The better RPG is the one that both fits the needs of the most number-oriented power gamer (in the Robin Laws sense) and the storyteller, and provide an interface that assists the meeting of the minds between the two.

Henry - you might be interested in following some of the C&C houserules discussions that Scadgrad and I are beginning on the OGL board. With your earlier comments on macro-micro in mind, my players and I are working on house rules for C&C that will meet this criterion. The discussion isn't far enough along yet to be interesting, yet (I think) but we're taking the approach that since C&C xp aren't linked to player level (ie, they have an absolute value) you can let players design pretty complex characters (in a gamist sense) and have the GM basically design everything using C&C's base rules, which are very simple. The result is a party that's uber-powered for C&C RAW, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't throw anything else off.

It's not a true execution of your idea but it's going to work pretty well for getting two levels of complexity going for the strictly wargame part of the rules.

 

[delericho]

I know it's unreasonable, but I want it all, and I want it all for under $100.

I don't think that is unreasonable. A tool like this should exist, and it should exist at a reasonable price. However, in order for it to exist, there would need to be a fundamental shift in the strategy of WotC with respect to PC tools. They would need to go from viewing such things as a "nice-to-have additional revenue stream" to a "fundamental part of the DM's toolset", something that they would want to be as widespread as the DMG.

Indeed, the optimum solution might be for them to package the monster-generation-tool as a CD with the 4th Edition Monster Manual, in the same way that the 3.0 PHB contained a character generation tool. Only I can't see any reasonable business case for doing so.

(Actually, I can, but it would first require the rise of another system that competes directly with D&D, and actually has a chance of winning. Then, the packaging of such a tool becomes a part of your competitive edge. But that's never going to happen, so we're back to reality.)

(On second thought, here's one: if you open 4e with a similar OGL agreement, but require a separate pay-for license to generate monsters to add to the database, and then encourage customers to demand monster books with the expanded toolkit data, you generate a revenue stream that might pay for the development of the tool. The books containing the new monsters' data would have to charge a premium price, but would have an obvious added value. I know I would pay the extra money for the convenience - I wonder if other DM's would follow suit?)

 

[Mythmere1]

Well, I understand that you might feel slighted, however I have observed what Ryan says.

A lot of people who play these rules light systems give the same reasons to me over and over again why they do so. "At least I don't have THIS problem that I had with D&D." Most of the time, if I ask them how they deal with the problems *I* personally had with that particular system, they normally say "well, yes, that's a problem, but I don't care, it's better than D&D."

It seems to be more driven by hatred of D&D than it is liking the new system. The most stated reason I was given why people like Vampire is "It isn't full of powergaming, hack and slash D&D players". Which, of course, isn't true. But the people who play it see it that way.

If people are talking about games on a message board, the discussion will pretty much always be focused on a comparison, and D&D is the benchmark. Look at it this way - when people explain why they prefer D&D to a rules-light game, it's done by comparing the rules and stating what to them doesn't work about the rules-light game. To make any sort of explanation about a preference, you've got to make a comparison.

Lots of games (both d20 and rules-lite) have players who take an arrogant attitude about the comparison, and that can be a pain - but that's about attitude, not about the reason they prefer the system. The arrogance (you're referring to it as hatred) almost always (I believe) comes after a comparative rules decision, not before. It's common for a convert to be a fanatic. In my case, that's kind of true about C&C - I'm a big fan, although I don't think I feel superior to D&D players at all. My switchover had nothing at all to do with feeling superior - it had to do with the very mundane fact that I wanted a faster speed of play and less prep time. That's hardly "hatred" of D&D, but if someone is thinking the way you propose, it could be seen that way. Just like you can make fortune cookies fun by adding "between the sheets" at the end of each fortune, you're proposing a lens in which you'd add "because d20 sucks" at the end of each post in favor of a rules-lite game - which isn't a valid assumption at all.

 

[SWBaxter]

I've been mostly running written adventures since I started DMing 3E and 3.5E. I haven't had to change almost anything.

That's nice, but why did you reply to my post in order to give your testimonial? I didn't claim that it's impossible for anyone to be a DM without doing any design work, I merely said that for some number of DMs the design process is what makes them DM instead of play.

But if you do want comment on your story, it sounds to me like the only reason you DM is because computer games aren't sophisticated enough yet to send your group through an enjoyable packaged adventure. From the way computer games have been developing over the last ten years, it wouldn't shock me if in a few years you found that computer games met your group's needs perfectly well. Of course, there are also some pen and paper RPGs that experiment with removing the GM - Capes, for example - but I think it's more likely that computer gaming companies will fill that niche, since they have more customers and bigger budgets.