What are the biggest threats?

[delericho]

What do you think the biggest threat to D&D 4E?

The Digital Initiative.

If Wizards apply enough resources to make the DI really live up to the promises they've made about it, then they may well be betting the future of the D&D RPG as a whole on its success... and there's no guarantee that it will be a success, even if it is absolutely awesome.

If they decide to play it safe, and cut corners in the development, then the risk to the D&D RPG is vastly reduced... but the DI is almost guaranteed to fail.

I think producing the Digital Initiative is a massive risk. But that's not to say it's a bad idea - the potential upside is similarly huge. Time will tell.

 

[Xyl]

And for good reason; for many people, they help define a game as D&D. Not to say that they all need to stick around as a result, but I can hardly fault them being carried forward.

"This is my grandfather's D&D. The monsters have been replaced twice, and the rules have been replaced three times, but it is still my grandfather's D&D."

 

[delericho]

"This is my grandfather's D&D. The monsters have been replaced twice, and the rules have been replaced three times, but it is still my grandfather's D&D."

Cute. But, when designing 3e, the designers were very careful to draw up a list of 'sacred cows' that they felt defined D&D as what it is. Those sacred cows were not to be touched. Hence, we still have things like six stats rangng from 3 - 18 at character creation, AC, hit points, rolling d20, and so forth. Although many elements were changed, others remained the same, and deliberately so.

Thus, to use a car analogy, the move to 3e may have been a complete overhaul of the engine and the bodywork, plus replacement of all the tyres... but they left the interior the same, including the leather seats that had become so comfy. Oh, and it smelled the same.

Actually, I think it would be good if the 4e designers would tell us what the 'sacred cows' of the 4th edition are. That would probably allay a lot of the "this is D&D in name only" fears.

Unless everything is on the chopping block, in which case only the fluffy dice might be the same

 

[Imaro]

How about a system where you know a set number of spells, and cast them by subtracting their MP cost from your MP total? Seriously, this is the era where people play videogames... And the very fact that people are disagreeing with you is proof that there is room for disagreement, so constantly repeating your assertion that it is inarguable will get you nowhere.

If you reread my post you'll see I didn't claim there weren't simpler systems (in fact I asked for examples and WayneLion gave me some)...but I don't see the magic system of D&D as overly complex when compared to alot of magic systems out there. A little archaic , okay...but not complex. That is my assertion.

Now, as far as steadily repeating my assertion meaning there's no proof for disagreement...I stated that where exactly? Also how am I constantly repeating my assertion? I am responding to posts directed at me. Chill man it's the internet and a...disscusion forum. I'm not forcing anyone to reply to me or even read my posts. You don't like my position that's cool but I'm discussing my thoughts on the magic system with those who want to.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Actually, I think it would be good if the 4e designers would tell us what the 'sacred cows' of the 4th edition are. That would probably allay a lot of the "this is D&D in name only" fears.

I seem to recall reading that there weren't any sacred cows. However if an iteration of 4e stopped feeling like D&D it was back to the drawing board. So there were no absolute rules, no 'thou shalt nots', but there is a commitment to keeping it D&D.

 

[Pinotage]

I agree that their biggest risk is in delaying the SRD. That helps buoy the industry, bringing in new players.

Yip, me too. Having stopped playing after 1e, and then missing out entirely on 2e, it was the 3e SRD that got me back into the game. They need to get the timing on the SRD right.

Pinotage

 

[KarinsDad]

That they continue to drag the mouldering corpse of uninformed* near-random* game design through the decades to placate an increasingly bitter and self-alienating group of grognards who really have no interest in the design ideals of 4e anyway, leaving us with an awful Frankenstein of new thought and legacy issues that pleases no-one. The only true master of the D&D brand is profit, has been since the 80's, and continuing to produce books for an audience whose primary interest is "how few books can I buy so as to use my mountains of old stuff?" is -death-.

D&D's legacy issues really struck me when my replica Septim arrived in the mail, and I realized that the gold standard for fantasy worlds is absurd - and could have been derived from no other source than D&D.

* Uninformed as denoted by there being NO game design before this, so it was largely extracted from wargames.
* Or, as the random denotes, by "making up stuff they thought would be fun". Like the cleric.

DND has evolved as the industry has evolved. And the grognards have evolved with it, or else they would be playing 1E.

That doesn't mean that the grognards have to agree with every decision on any version, including 4E.

Change is inevitable. But, that does not mean to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of things like RPG gold standards and other concepts like Clerics which as a concept, works just fine.

There is a reason DND dominated the industry for over 30 years and it's not because Clerics suck as a concept or because DND is played by "an increasingly bitter and self-alienating group of grognards".

It's because people have fun with it. And, because TSR/WotC has put out a new and fresh version approximately every 10 years which re-vitalizes the industry. That's evolution. That's change. But, it does not mean that "the old way" totally sucked and was a hack, otherwise DND would not have dominated the industry.

 

[Dacileva]

You ever tried explaining the restrictions and possibilities a player can achieve in Mage the Ascension with different spheres and what exactly those different spheres encompass, as well as how to combine those spheres to create spells, oh yeah let's not forget vulgar vs. coincidental magick and paradox. It is definitely more complicated than D&D

This is, however, nothing like explaining the base memorization concept in D&D to someone.

It's more like explaining several different spells to someone, explaining how stacking works or doesn't work for various spells, including untyped bonuses from different spells and from different castings of the same spell, including temp hp (which overlap) and healing (which is additive), normal damage and nonlethal damage and ability damage and ability penalty, and how those spells interact with each other.

I think D&D 3.x's magic system is as complex as any other, without the versatility of some, without the consistency of others, and with some difficult-to-rationalize warts ('readied' spells, a la Arcana Unearthed and the D&D 3.5 spirit shaman, make so much more sense than prepared spells, so much so that I've converted all prepared classes in my 3.x game to readied instead). Cleaning it up and adding both options and consistency would be greatly appreciated by many, I'd bet.

 

[Mallus]

Get your own system that you like. Don't screw up mine.

Or you could just stick with the iteration of the game you enjoy. I think there's plenty in the core mechanics that needs fixing.

Care to tell me how much I don't love the game?

 

[Styracosaurus]

The Digital Initiative.

If Wizards apply enough resources to make the DI really live up to the promises they've made about it, then they may well be betting the future of the D&D RPG as a whole on its success... and there's no guarantee that it will be a success, even if it is absolutely awesome.

That is scary, but I'm not sure how much the DI will actually cost.

If Dragon and Dungeon suffer for being online, they can still be returned to print and possibly benefit from a short absence (in terms of sales).

The Digital Initiative could be spun as an advertising gimmick if it truly fails. (I hope)
I doubt that I'll support the DI much as a consumer.

John