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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Interoffice playtesting as the only playtesting is darn near none at all.

It is the same as an author proofreading his/her own work.

A product should see at least one or two rounds of blind playtesting before release.

What proof do you have that interoffice playtesting is the only type they performed? I personally know 4E playtesters that don't work for WotC.

 

[BryonD]

If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.

This is a absolutely reasonable position. I don't think there is any way it can be argued against.

However, I think my counter-point is also reasonable:

If a system thinks it can cover ever contingency within the covers of a book and never expect any fudging, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.

What I want out of an RPG is immense. Honestly, it probably is not humanly possible to truly design the gold standard of what an RPG would be to me.

"The system" is the game side of an RPG. What the players bring to the table is the "roleplaying" side of an RPG. Those two pieces must touch. And if fudging the system side is not permitted (or is simply minimized) then it is the RP side that must take up the slack. I think this is the same divide that has been a theme of many of my posts in this thread.

Andy said of prior editions: you "get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience" There is the EXACT same divide. The "simulation" is held in balance against the "game play".

Come and Get It, as an example of the general approach, was discussed and the expectation that the players will look at their mechanics (game play) and then define a role play response to fit. ("pop quiz roleplaying")

And, again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with focusing on the game side of RPGs. I don't claim that. I just claim it is different.

I consider myself a "gamer". If asked if I was a gamer, I'd say yes without pause. But, maybe I'm wrong. I play RPGs. I have a small stack of board games. I enjoy them on occasion. But they can easily go months untouched. I basically play RPGs. And I've changes game system many times over the years. But I don't tend to bounce around. I generally play one system. And all these facts have the same reason. The *game* isn't that important to me. It is the creation and roleplay that is paramount to me. That is what I love.

I am far far more likely to be found detailing a minor npc or even inventing a short historic narrative around them than I am to be playing Pandemic or Arkham Horror. (both games I have and enjoy, on occasion). These things, nine times out of ten, don't even impact events at the table. That isn't their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is the joy it gives me.

I love playing with a group because I love seeing my creations come to life with others.
I love playing with a group because I love seeing other people change my creations is cool and unexpected ways.
I also enjoy playing with a group because the *game* is fun.

But the first two are the key.

"The system" is a matrix for creating a reality. It is the backbone. But there is no system that can live up to my expectations. 3E doesn't meet my standards. PF doesn't meet my standards. 4E doesn't meet my standards.

Fudging is needed. Trying to build a system that avoids fudging is missing the point, for the experience I desire.

I can easily see how someone who is more into "a game" is going greatly prefer a system that doesn't anticipate a lot of fudging. And 4E allows unlimited roleplay capacity on top of that solid game foundation. So you have a great game and all the roleplay you could want.

But it isn't giving me the things I want. At least, not nearly as well as some other systems.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That depends, would you rather fight one dire wolf, then a pair of goblins, then a quad of kobolds (who all go down in one or two hits) or have one battle with all of them?

I can do either or both with my system of choice. A battle between 4 6th level PCs and over a dozen carnivorous apes, for example, took less than half an hour to play through. And this was during playtesting, when the players still had to think about thier abilities. And one of the playtesters was 11.

I could also do this in 3e, simply by choosing appropriate Challenge Ratings.

Consequently, I don't believe that this is an either/or thing....Or that you cannot have a system that offers both tactical complexity and speed of play.

That said, I will agree that 4e does a particular type of combat very well, and that the designers should have gone with your philosophy of "running less but more important fights" giving the system they produced. It's a point in your favour that you espouse it with this system, but AFAICT WotC doesn't do the same.

WotC should, IMHO, official endorse this philosophy, both in its books and in its adventures. Focus on moving the adventure forward through role-playing, interaction, and skill challenges. Make tough combats a penalty for failing in a skill challenge, with the stakes of the combats being more than just life-or-death, and the goals of the NPCs being more than just killing the PCs.

For example: PCs want to save NPC sacrificial victim (SV). A skill challenge allows them to get close enough to disrupt the ceremony, and then they have to fight their way out. Failure in the skill challenge means they have to fight their way in, against a ticking clock....And if the sacrifice is completed, the enemies all become much more powerful.

When the goal becomes something other than "maximize your damage potential", all those nifty powers that PCs have matter a lot more. This is as true in 4e as it is in any other edition.....including "unofficial editions", like LL and OSRIC.

Most 4e modules suck, no argument.

Then there are some things we can all (or almost all) agree on!


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

What proof do you have that interoffice playtesting is the only type they performed? I personally know 4E playtesters that don't work for WotC.

Glad to hear it. Care to have any of them come here and share their experiences?

 

[Raven Crowking]

My group of friends learned how to play without the help of any older players.

Me too. But as an older player, I have introduced many others to the hobby.

I prefer that consequences for my choices occur during play, not during character creation or advancement.

This is one of my biggest beefs with 3e.

Trying to build a system that avoids fudging is missing the point, for the experience I desire.

It is also an exercise in futility, unless you sharply limit what can be done within the system.

Computer games can avoid fudging, because you can only attempt what the programmers planned for in the first place. You can avoid fudging in a tabletop rpg using the same method: "Sorry, there's no specific rule for that, so you can't do it." Otherwise, no rpg system does anything more than supply rules for specific situations, and guidelines for extrapolating from those rules in a fair and consistent manner (i.e., fudging).

Within this context, the oft-cited Page 42 might well be entitled "Your Guide to Creative Fudging". And that's cool. That's a good thing.

Skill challenges? Setting DCs? Deciding how recent events affect the local market? Deciding what monsters are encounted? All fudging. At least within the meaning of "fudging" being used here. And that sort of fudging, IMHO at least, is a large part of what differentiates a role-playing game from a non-role-playing game.



RC

.

 

[billd91]

And that form is rather like what Marvel Comics is doing - they don't sell you pdfs once, and then forget it. They give you a subscription to a library that you may peruse at your leisure. When your subscription runs out, your access likewise runs out.

Actually, they do pretty much, at least for selected titles. You can buy libraries of the Fantastic Four and the Avengers on DVD-ROM. They haven't been pulled because of piracy and, I can assure you, they're available out there on torrent sites.

EDIT: And Spiderman and X-men.

 

[Scribble]

Skill challenges? Setting DCs? Deciding how recent events affect the local market? Deciding what monsters are encounted? All fudging. At least within the meaning of "fudging" being used here. And that sort of fudging, IMHO at least, is a large part of what differentiates a role-playing game from a non-role-playing game.

Raven- I think we often see to be at odds on things, but in this case I agree with you completely.

To ME, what makes a roleplaying game special is the human element. The ability (and expectation) of a human player, to take what exists within the framework of the game, and bend/manipulate it to make it a better fit.

I think the heart of the quote, "Say Yes" is the basic essence of a role playing game. A role playing game, unlike other games lets you say yes.

Instead of no, you can't move your game piece here, or no you can't steal that car (it's just scenery) a roleplaying game gives you the tools to say "Yes, you can..."

You might not like the outcome of actually doing/trying whatever it is you did/tried... But at least you had the chance!

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, first off, "new" is a relative term. If you're new compared to folks who have been your customers for a decade, you can still expect several years of good service, which is probably enough for now.

The new folks are more used to the CCGs and videogame models, where games change pretty constantly. They may not be expecting the decade or more of support that some of the older players do.

And, to be cynical, the new players don't know much about how players of older editions feel they were treated, and they probably don't much care, either. For one thing, not every customer of old feels put upon (I don't, for example). The ones who do feel put upon, I fear, paint themselves in such a poor light as to make the newer players... glad that they aren't around.

Perhaps I didn't state my question very clearly because your answer really doesn't cover the topic I was trying to get at. Most likely poor communication on my part.

Let me try this: How can one's strategy be considered to be "cultivating a long-term customer pool", if the only effort put into cultivating is with "new" customers, while neglecting to entice current customers to stay?

Basically, I'm saying that WotC's marketing has not seemed to be geared toward creating a long-term customer pool (at least until the Red-Box Essentials line). Maybe that's changing a bit now. But for those saying that WotC is targeting teens in order to generate a long-term customer pool, the logic doesn't add up. WotC already has a long-term customer pool that for the last few years they have seemed to be unwilling to woo.

Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool. Perhaps our definitions are different, but I view a long-term customer as someone you attempt to keep for the majority of the customers life. Even a ten-year customer plan is just a short term targeting of a specific demographic for maximized short-term earnings. But then again, maybe my concept of this is simply at odds with standard American business philosophy?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven- I think we often see to be at odds on things

We do, but I enjoy reading your posts, and I agree with you more than you probably realize. I sometimes get caught up in minutia (odd for a gamer, I know) and forget to look at the big picture. In the big picture, most EN Worlders are people I'd share a pint or a game table with. AFAICT, anyway.

but in this case I agree with you completely.

Makes you wonder where you made the mistake, doesn't it?



RC

 

[Umbran]

Actually, they do pretty much, at least for selected titles. You can buy libraries of the Fantastic Four and the Avengers on DVD-ROM.

Here's something interesting. Those libraries don't seem to be available on Marvel's own site. Only through Amazon (and, I guess, other retailers). If you go to Marvel itself, they're offering their Digital Unlimited (which includes those libraries, and a whole lot more). The iPad app gives access to... it looks like 10% of the total library.

Interesting business decisions, there...