What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Saint&Sinner]

Please don't take my comment as if I was insinuating your were stupid in any way. Not the intention at all.

Would you please explain what you meant? I would love to run D&D (there are a lot more players available). But the amount of material and rules are daunting for me. I'd love a truly rules lite version of D&D I could play in a pick up fashion.

 

[amerigoV]

I addressed this before, unless your characters (not players) discuss hitpoints, their class or their level in game... how does this affect the versimilitude of the gameworld?

Yep, my fighter after taking 60 points of damage from a dragon but keeps on fighting never thinks to discuss this with his fellow compatriots. If asked, he would say "I just bobbed and weaved, baby, bobbed and weaved!"

I understand what you are saying, but that stuff has been around for ages. Back when the internet was not cool (yes, I am that old), there were plenty of discussions of realistic ways to calculate falling damage, why do you still get a save vs. a Fireball in a 10x10' room, why armor makes your AC better vs. absoribing damage, and why HP are unrealistic. 4e threw in some news ones (like you "Come and Get it" example). The answer is the same now as it was then - its fun!

And if it is not fun for you that is fine as there are plenty of games without those particular gamist items. So it makes sense that WotC is not going to draw you (or me - I play something else now) back.

 

[gamerprinter]

My point earlier about being owned by someone other than Hasbro - I don't mean to imply the "evil WotC empire", I was just as happy when WotC was just WotC and not owned by Hasbro.

I think RPGs are managed and developed in better hands by smaller companies. Where bottomline is still important, but the love and care put in by its creators aren't managed by personel directors, quaterly reports, shareholder meetings. But two or three guys working remotely from home like most other small RPG publishers.

This is the group I fall under, as a 3pp for Pathfinder RPG.

Gary Gygax made a comment toward the end of days at TSR, something along the lines of once there were more attorneys in the decision making process, I was done.

So no need to extrapolate my explanation to mean anything more than it is. I think D&D is better off in the hands of a smaller company. This is not a slam on 4e or any of that, just that heads roll, when the company is not pleased, and having always worked with smaller companies, solutions are met before heads need to roll....

GP

 

[Bluenose]

Massive damage rules and you can voluntarily fail the save.

You landed "just right " into something that broke your fall.

Crud! I landed in the marsh again!

You landed on a slope that time that transferred the force and now you are rolling down the hill.

It might be better just to coup de grace yourself and fail the save.

So if I'd suggested you were thrown off, you'd come up with a different argument. Note that an 80' cliff can't do massive damage, and yet when I worked for mountain rescue I saw some people who'd fallen 80'. Very few were in a condition to jump up and go chasing after their attackers. Yet it's routinely survivable for moderate level PCs. Guess what that does to any sense of verisimilitude I might find in D&D.

 

[Wicht]

I just don't understand the "nerdrage" displayed on what was once a DnD friendly community.

I'm not seeing much rage in this thread, sorry. Many of us want to give WotC our money and are dissapointed that we can't. Not much rage in that sentiment from my perspective. And if I was a business and some customers were telling me exactly what I could do to earn more of their money, I would listen real well, but ymmv.

In my family, we are still very DnD friendly. We play it weekly. We just use the Pathfinder ruleset to do so. I am not sure why one has to like 4e to like DnD. I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons for about 27 years. I played it long before there was a 4e and I figure I'll be playing it long after 4e.

But like others have said, I don't understand why WotC would not want me as a customer. I've supported the game for years and continue to spend money on the hobby. It is poor marketing to get rid of your most faithful customers in an effort to build your brand (a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush is always true). In point of fact, I will continue to believe WotC wants my money until one of their representatives tells me point blank that they don't. However, they really and truly aren't making anything I want at the moment and thats a real shame (again from my perspective).

 

[MrMyth]

I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels.

Emphasis mine. If you admit this... what was the point of everything before?

Because it isn't necessarily anything new.

Look, if the fundamentals of the game - for me, hitpoints and turn-based combat - already don't work for me from any rational viewpoint, then I'm not going to be bothered by a single fighter power.

I admit, I understand wanting more verisimilitude where you can get it. I wouldn't object, myself, if Come and Get It worked differently.

But we've already accepted that core elements of the game have accepted not being able to simulate reality. That, however, is entirely seperate from what is being talked about here - the flavor of classes and their connection to the story.

The argument being made was that 'characters come second' to mechanics - not that there might be one or two powers that strain belief, but that the flavor and roleplaying potential of those classes had actively been hindered by the focus on mechanical balance. And that is a much harder claim to make.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hi Imaro -

I'm posting again because I find your points interesting. I'm not intending to contradict you or bring you into another argument or even argue. I'm offering counters to help us both think through our positions.

That stated, I feel that our positions are different enough such that we're not going to reach consensus, but I hope that another vantage point may help you. I've been where you seem to be as a DM. I could be wrong.

No it's not a flawed point...and I've already addressed why I made the distinction... But just to make it more clear...

Reality: Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. ...

Versimilitude: the property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism; a statement which merely appears to be true

There's a pretty big difference between the two... especially when many like to argue minutiae... kind of like this point you brought up.

I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that reality is defined by what we see and perceive. There are many many things that exist that we don't interact with, because we can't perceive them. This is either due to some spectrum/cognition reason or because we're not in the same space. The fact that X thing exists 5 miles away doesn't exist for me because I'm not there.. it may still be there. I don't recognize it.

So when you clearly make the differentiation between reality and verisimilitude, I get it, but I find it flawed. If players don't experience it, it's not real. If character's don't experience it it's not real. Why? Because it doesn't matter to them until they have to interact with it. Ergo.. reality = verisimilitude. Especially true in games, the real argument is cause and effect in the real world.

So keeping the argument to games, on this forum, I find that your argument is flawed. Fair enough I suppose.

Because he's a tactician (understands good vs. bad tactics) and not a warrior... the same way an unabashed coward wouldn't rush up to him either... their personality characteristics have suddenly been made meaningless in the context of the narrative to accomodate a mechanic.

Understanding tactics does not make a character less human or infallible. Personality characteristics in the real world are vast. Personality text in a module is usually 3 sentences. The DM needs to make up the difference and accommodate the mechanic to satisfy the player dynamic.

He could but then give me a choice to make... like with the fighter's mark. Not an auto-fail power that forces him to make the wrong decision.

Are you not the DM? Do you not have the mandate to do whatever you feel appropriate to benefit the story? It's an encounter power, it gets used once per encounter. The enemy is in range of the power and if he is a master tactician he would know how to offset it if he's run into it before. If the enemy is a master tactician and the DM isn't aware of his players powers ahead of time, then the enemy isn't a master tactician

I'm being difficult, I know. There are probably other powers that cause strife too. We've chosen this one to pick on.

So change the narrative to fit the mechanic being invoked... got you. But all that does is support my point more.

Perhaps true as points can have spin applied to them, but it also gives you an opportunity to be more creative as a DM, which is oftentimes the one trait horribly lacking at the gaming table, and especially obvious when missing.

Huh? You're right, someone, somewhere can explain any power that could possibly be created...given enough time, energy,and inclination... I'd rather just have the mechanics either get out of the way of my narrative or support it... not force me into finding a way to make it fit in the narrative.

Well, I'll agree with you here. I'd like things to fit into nice boxes. But at the point where that happens the need for the DM disappears and there's nothing making the hobby more enjoyable than World of Warcraft. The on-demand flexibility of the DM and the imaginations of the entire table presenting a story you can't get in little boxes is the whole point of getting people together.


Thoughts?

 

[Mournblade94]

So if I'd suggested you were thrown off, you'd come up with a different argument. Note that an 80' cliff can't do massive damage, and yet when I worked for mountain rescue I saw some people who'd fallen 80'. Very few were in a condition to jump up and go chasing after their attackers. Yet it's routinely survivable for moderate level PCs. Guess what that does to any sense of verisimilitude I might find in D&D.

I am willing to bet that most of those people that fell 80' off of a cliff, probably never fought a bullette. Or a young dragon. Or a bunch of orcs. I bet they didn't even have spell buffs.

 

[BryonD]

In case of suicide, I don't think HP apply. You are automatically coup-de-graced by the terrain.

Exactly so.

But, honestly, the question being answered by this is neither here nor there.

There are issues in 3E. It makes a clear effort to minimize them, but by no means does it eliminate them. IME there are very few which can't be easily resolved by a competent DM. But, again, it doesn't matter.

There is a difference in the root philosophy of the design. If that difference has no impact on some people, then great, they can play whichever game they prefer. No one is claiming that everyone has to agree. But the question was asked what would "win back" players.

Changing this philosophy back is my answer.

Andy says the philosophy change is there, so if anyone wants to dispute that. Go ahead. No one should care.

If anyone doesn't see that the change in philosophy makes a difference, again, that is fine. Whether or not someone else sees a difference makes zero impact to those of us who do. And, frankly, if I told you I was color-blind, I doubt you would take that as evidence that the color green was fictional.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Would you please explain what you meant? I would love to run D&D (there are a lot more players available). But the amount of material and rules are daunting for me. I'd love a truly rules lite version of D&D I could play in a pick up fashion.

Offering some advice from experience.

Moving from 2.0 to 3.0 was tragic for me. Moving from 3.0 to 3.5 was annoying and 3.5 to 4.0.. I was livid as I had all the books for 3.5 and more or less knew the system. I didn't want to move to 4.0 at all. Not one bit. Until recently, I was really afraid of running combats.

I was drawn in by the balanced mechanics after reading parts of the PHB at a Borders.

So I said screw it, lets try this.

1. I called my friends who didn't want to play 4e, but wanted someone else to DM (though I did have some sway as I'm an experienced storyteller).

2. None of us knew how to play. We took a full game session to do nothing but roll up characters and put some minis on the table to fight each other.

3. Shock we had fun, and started bitching about things in a good natured way.

4. We rolled up new characters and did the same thing the following week.

5. Shock, we knew more and got hooked into PHB2 and other stuff.

6. We had the balls to play a full session off the cuff with these characters.. We totally screwed up but had fun.

7. Next session we retcon'd and are playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. I'm not fearful of combat anymore and I still don't know all the rules, but there are a bunch of us figuring it out.

So what my advice is is this.. if you don't know how to play, find a group. You'll find that 90 percent of what is in the books isn't used for an average game and the rest of it is used when you build something that needs it or when someone tries something new.

If it's new, look it up, it won't be new anymore.

Play three sessions to feel comfortable and you'll be ok to start DMing. Over time you'll get really good at it. Complaining about new game systems or rules or being fearful of change overcomplicates things.

Just play. Have fun. Tell stories.

KB