Why so many changes?

[Reynard]

Let me be upfront -- I do not think I will like 4E, based on what I have read so far, but I am softening on some aspects of the design decisions (with Orcus' promise that Necromancer will deliver "old school" fun regardless of what form 4E finally takes as a major component of that softening). It really isn't germain to this discussion, but I thought it best, in the interest of full disclosure, to throw it out there.

Now, what i am curious is whay do you think the 4E design team is making so many changes to "tried and true" D&D-isms, both in crunch and in fluff. It seems odd to me that every update we get includes some element of turning a trope -- whether a mechanic or a "classic" monster -- on its ear, futzing with it. I won't make any value judgements here -- some things seem interesting, some not so much -- but rather just ask the question of waht is motivating these changes, laeg and small, system and (implied) setting?

The cynic in me says that the designers hagve been given carte blanch to do as they please and they are having a massive geek-gasm, injecting stuff they like into the official rulebooks simply because they can (meaning that these changes are no better than what you or I might come up with for our homebrew campaigns and houserules). the slightly less cynical part of me says that D&D sales have dipped over the life of 3E and a concerted effort is being made to change things up to attract a different, more spend-happy demographic. There's a small, optimistic side of me that thinks the changes come from a real deep seeded desire to see D&D be relevent and awesome again, full of wonder and mystery (but, of course, constantly barraging us with previews isn't going to help with the wonder and mystery part) and that it is for our benefit, not WotC's, Hasbro's or the design team's.

What do you think?

 

[billd91]

When I listen to the cynic in me, as I listen to the cynic in you, he tells me "Here we go again. Another person looking for ulterior motives because someone is daring to change his game in a direction he isn't immediately nodding his head to."

Personally, I don't entirely understand the point in some of these threads. For the game company publishing the game to survive, realistically, it needs to reinvent the game periodically. If it didn't, they'd eventually hit their market saturation and fade away with declining sales. Or, they'd have to continually add to the foundation, field tons of criticism about there being too many options and too much overwhelming material, and they'd still be reinventing the game anyway. They'd just be doing it by cobbling more patches on an increasingly old infrastructure that shows more and more rust all the time.

So, why does it appear that so much is changing? In some cases, the reinvention of one aspect leads to the reinvention of another. Simple enough. Happens with integrated things all the time whether they're game systems or software.

It's also the case that when you are in the process of reinventing something, all of the other things that have bothered you over the years suddenly become opportunities. Why change planar travel (particularly in the hostile elemental planes) now? Because it's been on someone's back burner for a while and, with a new edition under way, that's an excellent time to put back burner project on the main track. They're going to be doing a big publishing push for the new edition, might as well make it worth it by getting in all of the other revision project as well. Hell, that's just efficient.

Now, it may be that they are geeking out. Wouldn't that be the dream of a lot of us, though? Why are there so many threads about house rules? Why did so many of us have (or still have) binders or reams of house rules written up (stored in our noggins, posted on websites, on our hard drives, etc) for our games? Because we can't resist the urge to tinker, to implement the ideas we have that we believe are superior. Why do it? Because, quite frankly, we love to do it. Either we love to play enough that we are finding ways to make it easier and smoother for us to do so or we just love to wrap our brains around an issue and implement a gaming solution. Why should the R&D team at WotC be any different? If they do a good job of it, they'll be rewarded with good sales. If not, they won't. Everyone can still pick their favorite edition and play with whatever house rules they've cobbled together during their own geekgasm phase.

Personally, I do think that what they're doing is making sure D&D has another good 5-8 years of good sales and relevance in the broader gaming world by trying to reinvent the game in a way that it's fun and awesome based on today's understanding of game development (one that uses some lessons learned from online games and years of further experience with 3E versions and other previous editions). I don't think anything is being done simply "because they can" or to just tap into a spendthrift demographic.

 

[Celebrim]

There is a term called 'grognard capture', which refers to the difference in catering to your long term customer base which is deeply steeped in the culture of your product and whose needs and desires for the product are a product of that, and attracting a new customer base who either hasn't experienced the product before or who isn't a customer because they don't like the existing product.

It is very difficult to keep both groups happy. At some point, you have to abandon the grognards and hope you can capture the imagination of a wholly new market segment.

When billd91 says:

"Personally, I do think that what they're doing is making sure D&D has another good 5-8 years of good sales and relevance in the broader gaming world by trying to reinvent the game in a way that it's fun and awesome based on today's understanding of game development (one that uses some lessons learned from online games and years of further experience with 3E versions and other previous editions)."

I don't think it contridicts my impression that for whatever reasons they have for the changes, they aren't making them for me. So even if 4e is successful, even if it turns out to be an exceptionally well designed game, I think I'm going to end up amongst those wild-eyed, grey-bearded, grognards that are always muttering to themselves and talking about 'back in my day'.

 

[Stalker0]

I think they are also taking a page out of 3e.

3e from 2e was also a major change, likely as great as this one was. Lots of people complained about everything they saw in the previews, thought they would never convert, etc. Then 3e hit stores, and it was a major success. People complain with their mouths, and then agreed with their wallets.

If its a new edition, it should be pretty different from the old one, else its not a new edition, its 3.75.

 

[Wormwood]

If its a new edition, it should be pretty different from the old one, else its not a new edition, its 3.75.

Agreed---and I believe a couple of third-party developers have echoed that sentiment.

 

[Keldryn]

If I were given the task of leading the design and development of the next edition of the D&D game, there are plenty of things that I would want to change too.

It's the nature of designers and creative folks in general to keep tinkering with things, both to improve them and also to bring their own vision into the mix. Especially when you are passionate about something.

Leaving things the same because "that's the way they've always been" is just as dumb, in my eyes, as changing things simply because they can with no rational reason.

 

[Cadfan]

The current settings in D&D tend to be filled with piles of accumulated detritus from ages of setting books, adventures, and novels.

Grognards are the people who were there as all that weight accumulated. This is why they know the location of the gems within those piles of dust.

If you want to create new gems, or to help new players find the old gems, you have to sweep away the dust.

 

[Pygon]

It seems to me that 4e is attempting to take the 3e mechanics that simplified the system but at the same time made it more complex (simplified by providing concrete rules and abilities but complicated by having SO MANY of them), and make them more streamlined. That at least takes care of the crunch aspect.

As for the fluff and the art, I'm on the fence. Fluff I don't care too much about, I'm more on the dislike side of the art.

 

[Celebrim]

Putting aside the emotion I feel about the upcoming edition, let me state what I think where the major factors in the design of 4e.

1) They wanted a much less generic setting more intimately tied to the core rules so that you didn't have to buy setting material in addition to the core rules when you were just getting started. Despite a few references, the now venerable Greyhawk setting wasn't even really a part of the core books. Instead what you got was a bit of Greyhawk light that was very sparsely supported. That setting had to however, like Greyhawk, easily port adventures between published settings, so it couldn't be as distinctive as Eberron (or Darksun, etc.)

This means alot of the flavor which would normally change only in setting books is changing in the games core rules.

2) They wanted a game that learned from Diablo and WoW (both said to 'do D&D better than D&D' so that it could be more easily ported to a computer environment where they (probably rightly) think that the money is going to be in the future. That meant among other things the game had to have finer granularity in character advancement and more levels right from start. The game had to have explicit mechanics which could be adapted to 'DM-less' play, and the game had to do aways as much as possible with concepts that don't necessarily translate well to computer environments like 'per day resources' and Vancian magic.

3) They probably have market research that suggests flagging sales are tied to flagging DM support, and that flagging DM support is tied to angst over the amount of prep time required. So they want a game which emphasises speedier more streamlined prep time. (I personally think those looking for speedier more streamlined play are going to be disappointed.) They wanted a game which re-fired DM's imaginations and which taught new young DMs how to easily build the sort of complex, imaginative encounters that older DMs are used to making.

4) They probably have market research that suggests that the D&D community is aging and is not attracting sufficient new younger gamers to the game. They want to have a game presentation which they think is more attractive to gamers in the 12-14 year old age range.

5) They wanted to make as much of the game as possible 'the sweet spot'.

 

[Lackhand]

Depending on how good a model of D&D Saga is, porting this D&D to the computer is going to be harder than ever.

I should know, I'm considering it now, modulo the rule book (you'd be surprised how far you can get, just for fun).

The problem is player choice. The more in-play points of player choice you have, especially about things like free re-rolls per day, the harder the game is to make. Especially if they draw on limited resources.

You can do it. But what we're going to gain in a tightly scripted together rule set (even over 3e!) we're going to lose in terms of tighter decision loops between DM and players.

It'll work out *great* at the table, though, I suspect!