What do you expect from WotC?

[sfgiants]

Just some thoughts that have arisen out of recent debates around Wizard's products. The real question here is: what do you expect from Wizard's products?

Do you expect cutting edge design and amazing products, or perhaps you expect solid and reliable with third party publishers providing the risky and daring products?

What do you think?

Personally, I like the fact that we have all the options out there...

 

[Umbran]

Hm. Important to separate what we expect from what we want...

I expect solid, workmanlike products from WotC. Being part of a larger company with high expectations alters how they operate. WotC relly does have to cater to the "general, typical gamer". They need to produce things a great many people want. So, their products need to be high quality, general appeal things.

 

[reapersaurus]

this is easy.

I expect them to be in command of the rules they developed.
I expect them to write clear, unambiguous rules that are clear-cut in their application. When they are not clear-cut, or when a combo comes up later in their own product line that makes thei rules unclear, I expect them to publish an official ruling that clears it up.

In other words, I expect them to do at least what they did for Magic the Gathering for its first 5 years of existence.

Secondly, I expect them to proofread their publications.
Running a book by a few people, for example, would have revealed obvious problems like the chapter heading (on even pages) being wrong in chapter 3 of DotF!.

Third, I expect them to be innovative with their game.
If they want me to continue buying their products thru the years, they'd better not just slap existing modifiers together and call it new.
For example, all the feats that are just +X to something.
Anybody can do that - I expect new ideas and new mechanics from the company that made the rules in the first place.

 

[jeffh]

this is easy.

I expect them to be in command of the rules they developed.
I expect them to write clear, unambiguous rules that are clear-cut in their application. When they are not clear-cut, or when a combo comes up later in their own product line that makes thei rules unclear, I expect them to publish an official ruling that clears it up.

In other words, I expect them to do at least what they did for Magic the Gathering for its first 5 years of existence.

Huh? They didn't do a very good job of making the Magic rules clear (or even *available* to most players) until 6th Edition. The early days of Magic, especially the first half year or so, were a shambles by comparison.

And it's not like there is any less support available now, only less *need* for it. If anything magicthegathering.com gives players a look into the game's design process and why things are the way they are that was never available in any form until relatively recently.

I don't know why you would distinguish the situation now from the situation five years or so ago, especially in any way that implies the latter was preferable.

 

[reapersaurus]

I don't know why you would distinguish the situation now from the situation five years or so ago, especially in any way that implies the latter was preferable.

Simply because I chose to comment only on the years I KNEW.

I wouldn't doubt that the rules are even more clear-cut now, but I wasn't sure, so didn't extrapolate.
Within 2 1/2 years of M:tG being out, the rules were quite easy to get clarified - there was an official publication, there were established, verifiable, trusted Sages. Most importantly, there was a reliable mechanism to confirm rulings : email support.
(it didn't take until 6th edition, BTW)
But the point is still clear : Magic has a solid rules base, agreed upon by anyone that even tries to keep up - D&D is no closer today than over 2 years ago, and there is no effort being made on Wizards part to clean any of it up.

With D&D, there is literally no point in emailing questions - whatever response comes back, it will not be official, and more likely they won't understand or be qualified to reply... actually, it's more likely they won't respond.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Heh...I expect WOTC to, as Reapersaurus mentioned, be in full command of the rules that they designed. I expect them to design fairly conservative, but thorough, solid products. I don't expect them to take chances on wildly bizarre settings, or topical supplements that cover a strange or really unusual idea. What they do design, however, should be nearly perfect; it should be thorough, and dependable; it should--for the products that they do produce--set the standard for the industry. They should show others how such and such is *done*. WOTC has the talent, the money, the resources, and the experience--I expect high quality stuff from them, almost without exception. After all, they are the biggest dog on the block, and if anyone should be able to get a product right, it should be them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Umbran]

But the point is still clear : Magic has a solid rules base, agreed upon by anyone that even tries to keep up - D&D is no closer today than over 2 years ago, and there is no effort being made on Wizards part to clean any of it up.

And if D&D were to become as "mechanical" as MtG, folks would gripe that they'd turned a role-playing game into a card game.

No interesting RPG will ever have rules as clear-cut as a CCG. The card game simulates a single, very simplified and stylized combat. The RPG simulates life. Since when was life clear cut? The standard rules for the card game can fit in the little box with the cards. The standard rules for the RPG take up more than 500 large pages. And you expect the RPG rules to be equally clear cut as the card rules?

This is what I meant by separating what we expect from what we wish. If you set your expectations too high, up in the realm of wishes, you'll be disappointed.

 

[diaglo]

i expect they (WotC) will continue business as usual.

which some find to be a good thing and others not.

 

[jeffh]

Most importantly, there was a reliable mechanism to confirm rulings : email support.
(it didn't take until 6th edition, BTW)

Two things. First of all, I didn't say that there was no way to get answers at all until 6E, I said the rules weren't clear in their own right, nor were they available to most players. The latter was referring to the fact that, unlike any other professionally published game I have ever seen anywhere, there was no comprehensive RULEBOOK available anywhere in any form until 6E. Furthermore, until shortly before 6E the rules were in a constant state of flux; you talk like Abeyance and Verdant Force didn't have multiple significant functional changes shortly after being released.

Secondly, e-mail support from Wizards customer service was no more reliable then than it is now, maybe less. Their track record for answering Magic questions correctly is, from what I've seen, comparable to their track record for answering D&D questions correctly.

But the point is still clear : Magic has a solid rules base, agreed upon by anyone that even tries to keep up - D&D is no closer today than over 2 years ago, and there is no effort being made on Wizards part to clean any of it up.

With this, I can agree, but D&D is an RPG and doesn't need one. It is assumed you are playing Magic rigorously by the rules with all the latest errata; on the other hand, every group house-rules D&D to one extent or another anyway. Tournaments notwithstanding, D&D is not a competitive game so it has entirely different needs.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I expect books using the D&D liscence from them. Anything that doesn't suck is a plesant surprize. Not saying their work sucks, just saying that I like it when the stuff is good, but let the buyer beware, and all that.