Who would you pick to design Fourth Edition?

[wingsandsword]

Wingandsword was implying that he didn't want new people to design a new edition because they didn't have experience designing new editions. Or at least that's the only way I could make sense of it, because he seemed to be opposed to any of the people mentioned in this thread, and nearly all of them have a good deal of design experience. Perhaps not as much as the MSJ triumvirate, but substantial.

Actually, I mean that today, the people who I consider to have the credibility, skill, and experience to be most qualified create a new edition of D&D have (almost all) worked on prior versions of D&D, and by disqualifying them, you've removed much of the cream of the crop in D&D design.

Back in 1999, I would have still gone to Skip Williams, Monte Cook and so forth, because they were all well established D&D writers with excellent credentials. Most of the D&D 3.x design staff is still in the industry (3.5 was only 2 years ago after all), and still in a position to come back and work for WotC in some capacity or another (Monte Cook, as what appears from this thread to be a consensus favorite among choices from the "veteran" pool, is still in the industry and to the best of my knowledge still on good terms with WotC), and aside from shaking up the lineup a little and adding a few new faces in, they are still overall the people I'd still trust to make a new version of D&D.

 

[jmucchiello]

None of the above.

No 4E, please.

A vote like this one is obviously a vote for me. I mean, do you know how long it would take me to release an entire revision to D&D? I doubt I'd live that long.... Especially in light of my latest project.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hey, I know it's against your request, but you can't really ask a question like this and then try and limit people's favorite designers.

It's like saying, who's your favorite pro-wrestler, but you can't choose the Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, or the Rock.

Not to belabor the point, but this is exactly what I thought when I read RangerWickett's request. How can you ask "who'd you want to design 4e?" then remove the most likely people which folks are going to want to design 4e? It's counterproductive. If the true goal of the thread was to hear about good D&D designers that aren't as high-profile as [that guy] et al, then that should have been the subject of the thread.

Myself, I'll respect RangerWickett's request and not mention [that guy], only to say that [that guy] is exactly who I'd want heading up Project 4e. He's shown through one previous revamp, and his own alternate PH, that he understands rules, balance, flavor, and isn't afraid to completely rework the rules mechanics if need be. I also want the guy who wrote the 3.0 Manual of the Planes on-board, though I can't recall atm who that is. His work there is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Acid_crash]

Steve Kenson
Mike Mearls
Robin Laws
Sean Reynolds
Keith Baker
Monte Cook

with a forward about fantasy gaming written by George R.R. Martin cuz what he wrote in A Game of Thrones just rocks that much!

 

[jeffh]

Mike Mearls (mainly PH), Robin Laws (mainly DMG), Sean Reynolds (officially mainly MM, unofficially chief number-cruncher and ass-kicker for the other two). Lots of other people can do bits, especially of the MM.

Lately I've noticed a few names I normally associate with M:tG working on D&D, and in that vein I nominate as one of the more important of the "lots of others"... Mark Rosewater.

I would like to briefly discuss two other names that multiple people have mentioned. Both would violate RW's new rule but I'm going to discuss why NOT to include them.

Gary Gygax's importance is strictly historical. Honestly, he's not a very talented game designer by current standards; he tends to show few signs of having a unified vision as a designer, and I find most of his stuff sketchy where it needs to be detailed and detailed where it could afford to be sketchy. That's not even mentioning his prose, which can sterilize frogs at 200 yards. What he deserves credit for - and none of us would be here without - is having the vision to oversee the creation of a whole new type of game, but honestly, once the idea for taking that first step was in the air, countless others have surpassed him in the execution of it. (And in any event, there are disputes over how much of the credit for this is his, and how much Dave Arneson's. There is no particular reason to assume Gygax was the more important of the two, he's just the one who had the good luck and/or sheer bloodymindedness to still be around ten years later).

And as for Monte Cook, he is right where I want him (and, I rather suspect, where he wants himself). I would much rather see him pumping out his own stuff on his own terms with relatively little editorial oversight, outside of Hasbro's shadow. As long as he can make a living as the co-owner of and primary contributer to Malhavoc Press, I for one am quite happy to see him doing just that.

 

[diaglo]

Harriet Miers

i guess she could get some experience as a judge somewhere. even if it is as an RPGA judge.

 

[Staffan]

huh?

monte and skip both had plenty of credits prior to 1999.

Jonathan Tweet wasn't exactly a n00b either, having written Ars Magica, Over the Edge, and Everway (and Talislanta 3rd ed, but I don't know how much of that was rewriting previous editions and how much was new game design).

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I'd Nominate the Following Designers:

Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen

Betsey Johnson

Leoh Ming Pei

No that I'm hoping that would end all the 4th ed talk.

Well, not hoping a lot. As in with every FIBER OF MY BEING!!!!!

 

[Erik Mona]

(And in any event, there are disputes over how much of the credit for this is his, and how much Dave Arneson's. There is no particular reason to assume Gygax was the more important of the two, he's just the one who had the good luck and/or sheer bloodymindedness to still be around ten years later).

I've just spent most of the last month working on a history of D&D from 1971 to 1977, and my read of contemporary accounts, editorials, forewords, and magazine articles before things became acrimonious, the only fair interpretation goes like this:

Gygax (with Steve Perren) writes Chainmail, including the Fantasy Supplement that contians many elements that are still in D&D, in 1971.

Arneson uses these rules to create a dungeon-based campaign in which players take on the role of a single character (as opposed to a group of characters--remember, Chainmail was a miniatures wargame). Arneson also includes level advancement in his version of the rules. Accounts of this campaign appear in the Domesday Book, a newsletter of the Castle & Crusade Society, an association of wargamers edited by Gygax.

Arneson sends several pages (possibly as many as 30) to Gygax explaining his modifications to Chainmail's rules.

Inspired, Gygax turns these notes into 100+ pages of playtest rules that later become the D&D game.

Later, Gygax creates Advanced Dungeons & Dragons without significant input from Arneson.

I don't believe there is any way to read the existing evidence to suggest that the creation of the game would have been possible without _both_ Gygax and Arneson. Trying to marginalize either creator is pointless.

The short version:

1. Gygax co-creates basic rules framework.
2. Arneson uses these in his game, adds crucial innovations.
3. Gygax expands these innovations and markets them as D&D.
4. Gygax subsequently expands the D&D rules by creating AD&D, which bears _much_ more similarity to the current version of D&D than the 1974 original boxed set, and certainly than Arneson's loose notes about how he ran his personal campaign.

It was a team effort.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon

 

[diaglo]

The short version:

1. Gygax co-creates basic rules framework.
2. Arneson uses these in his game, adds crucial innovations.
3. Gygax expands these innovations and markets them as D&D.
4. Gygax subsequently expands the D&D rules by creating AD&D, which bears _much_ more similarity to the current version of D&D than the 1974 original boxed set, and certainly than Arneson's loose notes about how he ran his personal campaign.

5. diaglo runs around proclaiming: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.