D&D 4E Star Wars Saga Edition as preview of 4e?

[buzz]

I'm not sure whether a complexity debate derails this thread. To me, it fits the bill quite well. What else do you see behind the title question?

A discussion of whether SWSA was a test-bed for 4e and whether people thought that was a good idea. The old complexity thing spun off via various people other than the OP.

Even if you are most probably right with your assessment of the current fanbase, I think that the makers of D&D might try to address a new generation of players if they don't want to dwindle away with their existing fanbase. A faster, less complex game might be one way to achieve this goal.

I've heard the "if you make it simple, they will come" argument many times before, and I'm not 100% convinced. I think making a game good is really more important. IMO, a certain level of complexity (or "robustness") can add a depth to the RPG experience that is enjoyed by the kind of people who tend to become life-long fans of your product.

Is there room for some simplification, though? Sure. There are aspects of 3.5 that could probably be simpler—"easier" is maybe a better word. Thankfully, I think that the WotC development team has shown that they are constantly looking for ways to enhance how their games play, with SWSA being another example.

 

[Remathilis]

Not to throw water on anyone's fire, but how many rules from the Revised Edition made it into 3.5? Armor as DR? Defense Bonus? Vitality/Wound? Reputation?

 

[MerricB]

Vitality/Wound?

Um... Did you pay attention to the preview? There's a link to the JC article that explains it in more detail.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101

 

[Sir Brennen]

Um... Did you pay attention to the preview? There's a link to the JC article that explains it in more detail.

Umm... did you pay attention to his question?

He's asking how many "innovations" of the previous SW game made it into the D&D 3.5 rules. Of his examples, none. By extension, Remathilis is suggesting that new rules in the Saga Edition won't necessarily make it into D&D 4E, either.

 

[Turjan]

A discussion of whether SWSA was a test-bed for 4e and whether people thought that was a good idea. The old complexity thing spun off via various people other than the OP.

Sure. But that's just wordplay, because SWSA's goal is reduced complexity. If you ask whether SWSA is a test-bed for 4e, it's implied that you ask whether D&D 4e will be streamlined as well.

If you only understand the question as to whether single mechanics may be tested for 4e, that's a trivial one, because that's true for nearly all WotC game books.

I've heard the "if you make it simple, they will come" argument many times before, and I'm not 100% convinced. I think making a game good is really more important. IMO, a certain level of complexity (or "robustness") can add a depth to the RPG experience that is enjoyed by the kind of people who tend to become life-long fans of your product.

I also agree to this point. That's why I mentioned the modular approach, which implies a streamlined base game that makes it easy for newbies and the time-challenged to pick the game up, and later options to expand on this in order to keep people interested. That's quite a task to make such an approach balanced, but it may be worth it. That 1000 page entry hurdle is a bit high for mass appeal.

 

[buzz]

Sure. But that's just wordplay, because SWSA's goal is reduced complexity.

Is it reduced complexity, or just improved play?

If you ask whether SWSA is a test-bed for 4e, it's implied that you ask whether D&D 4e will be streamlined as well.

I suppose, but I didn't think discussing (again) whether 3.5 is/isn't too complex was directly on point.

That 1000 page entry hurdle is a bit high for mass appeal.

It hasn't seemed to hurt D&D's 62% market share in last 30 years.

 

[Desdichado]

Not to throw water on anyone's fire, but how many rules from the Revised Edition made it into 3.5? Armor as DR? Defense Bonus? Vitality/Wound? Reputation?

None that I know of. But that's not necessarily relevent.

On the other hand, how many of d20 Modern's rules made it into 3.5?

 

[Turjan]

Is it reduced complexity, or just improved play?

Both. The new book is shorter, because they didn't need to explain that much. Which was one of the goals of the new edition.

I suppose, but I didn't think discussing (again) whether 3.5 is/isn't too complex was directly on point.

That's okay. It's a fruitless discussion because most people on this board are completely off target regarding considerations like this.

It hasn't seemed to hurt D&D's 62% market share in last 30 years.

Sure. But the player base is aging. You don't only have to keep your fans, but you have to lure the young ones into the game to keep it successfully running for the next 30 years. I don't think an "Everything is fine as it is, we don't need to change a thing" attitude helps with this.

And to repeat it: I don't say "Make D&D a rules light game because nobody can read those 1000 pages". That would be ridiculous. I just say that having a fully functional but less complex entry level game wouldn't be a bad thing for attracting a wider audience. If the game is open to add on all the fiddly bits without breaking the balance, it will also be fine for people who want their menu a bit more varied.

Anyway, I'll have to see the new Star Wars first before I can even see whether it works well as is . Let's talk about implications later .

 

[buzz]

On the other hand, how many of d20 Modern's rules made it into 3.5?

d20M's version of the Jump skill did, iirc. You could also count the concept of having a finite number of pre-defined Knowledge skills, a change from 3.0.

 

[buzz]

I just say that having a fully functional but less complex entry level game wouldn't be a bad thing for attracting a wider audience.

Well, D&D has had an intro product, in one form or another, since almost day one.

I'd even venture to argue that, now, it's the D&D Minis game that's the real "gateway" product. It's a low-cost entry point that serves as a litmus test for the user's desire to get their fantasy fix without a computer. Once past that, you've got them introduced to the crunch side of the equation. They chew on that for a while, maybe read some D&D fiction (equating the brand with "story"), and then decide they want to make the leap to playing just one figure on the mat instead of a whole squad. At that stage, thick hardcover rulebooks become a selling point.

But, to quote Dave Noonan from the latest D&D podcast, "The real D&D intro product is your older cousin." If WotC wants to expand their fanbase, they need to get the game in front of people and show them how to play... and then instill a desire in those people to show others how to play, and so on, and so on...

IMO.