WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs

[Therise]

Xmas-time layoffs at WotC? Completely unsurprised, it's their typical pattern.

Why not Cordell, though? Is he working on something that protects him for a while? Or does he still fit their upcoming vision, whatever it is?

 

[billd91]

I think that Wyatt, more than any other, was the source of the 'bad-wrong-fun' description that a lot of folks felt that WotC was trying to place on 3.X.

And I will be honest - I think that he said exactly what he wanted to say. He said the same things too many times for it to be otherwise - that he really did view 4e as being all about the combat encounter.

You know, it's all fun and games to rip on James, but you don't know how much of what made it on the printed page was modified by an editor nor how much of it was the corporate policy rather than what an individual author wanted to say.

It's no secret that a lot of people view D&D as a combat game. You see that all the time around here as well, and that's before any statements by James made it into 4e promotional material. It informed a substantial portion of 3.5's changes compared to 3.0. So I have a hard time seeing James's statements outside of the already ongoing context of treating D&D increasingly like a skirmish game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

you don't know how much of what made it on the printed page was modified by an editor nor how much of it was the corporate policy rather than what an individual author wanted to say.

Yeah, the intent here wasn't so much to criticize James (there's other threads for that. ), but to present the "who is still at WotC?" in some context. It looks like none of the folks who helmed 4e are still at the helm of the RPG, either because they're laid off, or because they've jumped divisions (My brain registers the memory of him moving off to Board Games right about when Mearls was promoted, but I can't for the life of me find a reference to that, so maybe he's just been really quiet?).

This, and Monte's hire, and Pathfinder's continued success...

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[pemerton]

he wrote some of the most...polemical...words in 4e.

Words like...

As far as I know, "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people" is not from Worlds and Monsters. I think it is from Races and Classes.

the paragraph comes from the core of a good idea (namely, you don't have to spend time on things your group doesn't like).

But to any newbie DM encountering that paragraph, it's like he's saying that the only thing worth doing in D&D is a linear chain of combat encounters.

Do we have any evidence for this? After all, this is the same ruleset that, in the PHB, defines "encounter" as both combat and non-combat, and in the DMG has a chapter on non-combat encounters.

Wyatt's statement was a major turn off for anyone who prefered less combat and gamey styles of play.

Not everyone who prefers a character-driven, story-heavy game was turned off by Wyatt's comments. To me, they suggested that the focus of the game is primarily the situation (encounter), rather than exploration of the GM's imaginary world. That's an approach to RPGing that is completely orthogonal to combat vs non-combat, and to "gamey" styles of play.

 

[BryonD]

Not everyone who prefers a character-driven, story-heavy game was turned off by Wyatt's comments. To me, they suggested that the focus of the game is primarily the situation (encounter), rather than exploration of the GM's imaginary world. That's an approach to RPGing that is completely orthogonal to combat vs non-combat, and to "gamey" styles of play.

Really???!!!???

Obviously I don't for a second dispute that 4E works that way for you.
But can you explain how this is the obvious intent of the words in question as you read them?

I mean, seriously, he didn't say anything that remotely touched on the idea of "the GM's" imaginary world, and his whole focus was on pointing out situations that game was NOT about.

I think your interpretation here is rather orthogonal to a simple reading of the words as stated. And I'll even preemptively concede that painting the merits 4E as a game based on a few lines by one contributor is lame.* But setting aside game loyalty, these was just a really weak statement. I'm certainly a PF fanboy. But there are some lame things here and there and I've said so.




* - I'd also say that in hindsight the painting provided by those words does turn out to resemble the larger tapestry of 4E. But that comes from vastly more evidence with those words simply being a bit of omen.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

James wrote those words. That is fact, not theory.

Of course, and I didn't write anything to the contrary.

They had the described effect all on their own. No conspiracy support was needed.

I beg to differ somewhat. They had an effect, indeed, as any written word read by someone has. But to tell that they would have the effect to actually drive away people from 4e? Come on, guys. I expect roleplayers to be mature enough to evaluate the written word and decide what to use for their own game.

You can debate intent all you want. But, frankly, in the context of "who has WotC kept so far", the best case scenario is that they kept a guy who meant something different than what he said but both did an amazingly poor job of saying what he meant and ALSO didn't have the awareness to realize what the words actually meant when presented on their own. The worst case scenario is that he actually meant it.

So what? I feel free to run and play a 4e game different from the scenario James prescribes in these sentences. I don't feel obliged to remove roleplaying from th equation, though I have to admit that we have preempted the removal of shopping list gaming a long time before those words were typed.

But I felt free to run and play the original AD&D game completely different from what Gary Gygax envisioned and hinted at in many places. Frankly, we did give a damn about all that "official" remarks, the insinuations that to play non-official was bad.

Pray tell me, where's the difference?

Either way, if someone wants to not only try to say that debacle was not a problem but go further and try to point the finger at those who honestly observe that it happened, then that is just funny.

I fail to see a debacle, but it doesn't give me a headache to see other people seeing it differently. Fine that you find my stance funny, maybe I can give aou a laugh with my reply.

 

[pemerton]

But can you explain how this is the obvious intent of the words in question as you read them?

<snip>

I think your interpretation here is rather orthogonal to a simple reading of the words as stated.

<snip>

But setting aside game loyalty, these was just a really weak statement.

There is a well-known approach to RPG design and play that focuses on the situation as the focus of play, and that relies on (by traditional D&D standards) fairly robust scene framing as part of that.

There were pre-publication comments by WotC designers that 4e was influenced by those games. See here, for example, where Rob Heinsoo said:

No other RPG’s are in this boat. There might not be anyone else out there who would publish this kind of game. They usually get entrenched in the simulation aspect.

Indie games are similar in that they emphasize the gameplay aspect, but they’re super-focused, like a narrow laser. D&D has to be more general to accommodate a wide range of play.​

Here is the Wyatt comment from p 105 of the DMG:

Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren’t fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!​

To me, the most natural reading of this - given that it is instructional text for GMing a fantasy RPG - is that it tells the GM to be fairly robust in framing scenes ("fast foward through the parts of an adventure that aren't fun" and "[m]ove the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter"). It also suggests that some scenes are likely to be less gripping than others - those that involve entering a city's gates and paying a toll to the guards, for example, or those that involve eating food and stowing gear.

It fits fairly well with the following passages from the PHB p 9:

Each adventure is made up of encounters - challenges of some sort that your characters face.

Encounters come in two types.

Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. . .

Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. . . Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter. . .

Between encounters, your characters explore the world. . .​

And also PHB pp 258-60:

Encounters are where the action of the D&D game takes place, whether the encounter is a life-or-death battle against monstrous foes, a high-stakes negotiation with a duke and his vizier, or a death-defying climb up the Cliffs of Desolation. . .

In an encounter, either you succeed in overcoming a challenge or you fail and have to face the consequences. . .

Two kinds of encounters occur in most D&D adventures: combat and noncombat encounters. . .

A significant part of D&D adventures is exploration, which takes place between encounters.​

I don't think that this is, by any means, the best-written RPGing advice ever. The treatment of similar issues in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, for example, is in my view a lot better. But I think the general intent is fairly clear. I also think it's pretty obvious that if (for example) the conversation with the two guards at the city gate isn't just the GM making the players play out the scene for the sake of it, but in order (let's say) to discover whether the PCs' enemy already entered the town, then Wyatt (and the game rules) have no objection to playing out the scene - it would be a non-combat encounter of the sort described on page 9 of the PHB. (The game even has a suggested mechanic - skill challenges - although it doesn't give very much advice on how to use it, or when to rely instead on a simple skill check.)

For me, at least, given WotC's access to extensive market research compared to most other RPG publishers past and present, Wyatt's coments give rise to a question: did Wyatt (or WotC) have reason to think that potential players of D&D were being put off by GMs who insisted on resolving every single piece of exploration via a full application of the action resolution mechanics? (Adventure Paths also depend upon hard scene-framing - they just go about it in a slightly different way from that suggested by Wyatt.)

Of course, there's a further question of whether this "fast forwarding" advice is good advice. Trying to change D&D from a "continuous exploration" style of game (as envisaged eg in the discussion of dungeon expeditions in Gygax's PHB and of measuring campaign time in his DMG) into a scene-framing style of game is a major change, and apparently unpopular in some quarters. But if you do want to make that change, then cutting down on pointless encounters with guards, with campsites, with backpacks, etc is one fairly obvious path to take. The general contrast in playstyles is expressed by Ron Edwards here, in a discussion of "step-on-up" attitudes towards situations:

Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy just to piddle about and "be."​

Wyatt is gesturing - however inadequately - at techniques to move away from "piddling about" and "being", to instead make the situation - the challenge - the focus of play. Regardless of how many people want to play that way, I was surprised that Wyatt's comment drew such ire back when it was first published, and I remain surprised. I think that there are many reasons - overwhelmingly mechanical - that 4e is not a very good game for those of simulationist tastes. But I put Wyatt's suggestion that "just piddling around and being" is not fun in the same camp as Gygax's discussions in the AD&D rulebooks of what makes for "skilled play": a designer's expression of preference for how their game is to be played. If I don't like the advice, I don't take it - but I don't get affronted by it. If I think that my preferences are different, I'll just consider it a possible reason to look for a different game engine.

 

[Sonny]

Need you ask (madness is never far away in my case).

Seriously though, just because he worked on 4E does not mean Baker backed every single thing it represents; I blame Mearls, Wyatt and Slavisek for the problems in the 'design philosophy' of 4E that turned me off it.

Baker did so many good things in the 3.5E era that he is excused in my book.

Oh and sorry for starting the corporate greed firestorm Umbran.

Rich Baker was one of the people behind the 4E Forgotten Realms revision. In fact, him, along with the Phil Athans and Bruce Cordell did the initial draft of the 4e Story Bible, which contained the much maligned Spellplague idea.

So yeah, he may not have backed everything 4E, but he was definitely one of those responsible for one of Fourth Edition's largest (perceived) failures.

That being said, I think the recently ended Nerathi Legends, has been one of the best series to appear in Dragon Magazine in the last few years. He's done a lot of great work, and deserved better. I hope he lands on his feet, and continues to work in this industry.

As for WoTC, they should consider that this god awful practice of theirs has actually given one of their biggest competitors, Paizo, a very talented and experienced stable of writers and designers to call on as needed.

Way to (continuously) shoot yourself in foot, Wizards!

 

[Guest 85555]

Pemerton I don't disagree 4e can be played tgat way and I like GMing situationally as defined by Clash Bowley but I really think you are reaching here. He says point blank an encounter with two guards isn't fun. Doesn't qualify the statement at all. The big problem I have with the advice is it fails to acknowledge and describe the range of styles out there. It settles on a narrow approach to the game. Personally I think Wyatts words stand as some of the worst ever written for D&D.

That said I do realize there could have been an editor behind the final product. I know from experience a lot of people in the industry dislike cautious writing that includes lots of "ifs" and "thens". But all we have to go on is what is on the page.

 

[Tuft]

Ye gods, reading those made me growl again, just like the first time.... He had me hating 4e even before it hit the shelves...

The Auld Grump, not freshly dead, neither, things was a movin' under the fur....

Yes, it really makes the blood pressure rise again.

It really was the first major warning flag, and it was a red flag indeed...

Then when the PHB appeared and Skill Challenges was nothing at all like what had been in the prerelease books, but only some kind of Yazee, and rituals just an embarrasing afterthought - well, when my GM indicated that he was pressing on with 4E anyway, the pit could not have been darker...