[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[Almacov]

I think we have different senses of humor. As I have already explained, my post began rather facetiously and became more serious. I don't really think that WotC "hates" old-timers, but that they have lost sight of certain elements of what makes D&D a unique experience (see mattcolville's excellent post a few before this one which I will respond to in this post).

Okay. I think the largest source of confusion in this thread is probably the use of the term "recent" in the subject line. It means different things to different people, so without any elaboration on what the "insanity" in the subject line entailed, it's hard to tell what timeframe you're looking at.

If you're looking at the advent of 4e to now as one big lump of "recent", then the topic makes a bit more sense. I'm just not sure it makes sense to analyse it in that way now. (Because WotC and the rest of the community has continued to iterate in their analysis of what has been smart and what hasn't.)

I think they're starting to figure it out. There's always a bit of fumbling, but they're getting there in my eyes. (While screwing a bunch of other stuff up over in column B, but that's besides the point. )
And if they start failing miserably, sales will crash and they'll scramble to smarten up.

(And if all else fails... I have other RPGs to play. I'd rather be emotionally invested in the hobby than the game. Besides, that puts more pressure on WotC to earn my interest and cash. )

 

[Shazman]

And you know what, WotC? We need you. Most of us don't have the time or energy to write our own Fantasy Heartbreaker. And even if we do it somehow isn't the same, just as self-publishing your novel isn't the same as getting picked up by a Big Publisher (or at least a publisher that isn't Lulu or your friend with the fancy word processor), if only because there is a feeling of being part of something, of community, that we get from playing D&D, from playing the Official Version.

Actually, I don't really need WotC. They do need us or at least enough of us buying their products to keep them in business. I don't need WotC at all. I like Pathfinder a lot, but, in the end, I don't actually need Paizo anymore either. There are enough supplements and adventures (though regettably the 4E adventures are horrible) for 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder to play for the rest of my lifetime with no new material. The RPG companies definitely need us, but we don't really need them. Do we want them to survive? Yes, so they can keep making new stuff. We like new stuff. Who doesn't? It's also good for the hobby as a whole for the big RPG companies to stay in business. It is easier to get new players to play a game that is supported, and that has rules in print that are easy to obtain. The thing is during the lead up to 4E, WotC gave the impression to a lot of us that they really didn't want or need us. They strongly implied that the way a lot of us played the game was badwrongfun, and slaughtered so many sacred cows that the game became barely recognizable as D&D. Paizo on the other hand seems to "get it" more. They understand that they do need us and clearly communicate that. Their staff is friendly and available. They actively seek out opinions and input from fans on new and upcoming products. One way produces a lot of good will, and makes you want to support the company. The other way makes want to boycott the company. Which one do you think will work in the long run?

 

[BryonD]

Powers are cool. Stats are dumb. There's a long way to go yet toward optimizing the game for fun.

But I think 4E is the most fun game we've seen from D&D yet and is the most game-like.

Strength isn't fun. Having a 17 Strength isn't fun. It's meaningless. You can't play a 17 Strength. It's not a game.

But powers are fun. They're not simple, I never said anything about simple, that's your issue. Powers are the MOST complex part of D&D, and the best part, because they're cool and fun.

It is hard to even start presenting a point of view because there are so many loaded terms and preconceived notions to contend with. (Not from Matt, just in general)

I don't think the design of D&D is micromanaged from above at all. But, I DO think it is aimed(in the grossest of terms) from above. The designers in the weeds know that while their day to day choices are theirs to make, without concern of being micromanaged, the big picture must still fall within the aim set from above. They don't care how you get there, but if Mearls and friends don't drive some route toward the established goal, they will be replaced by someone who will. The crew is most certainly choosing a scenic route that includes great sites of editions past, but the destination is frequently limiting the quality of those visits.

Nobody at any level hates old players. They want every single player they can get.

However, they look at the number of WoW players and the number of tabletop players doesn't seem like a meaningful base to get hung up over. We used to be the center of attention, now we are just part of a very large crowd. It isn’t remotely hate, but going from “love” to “indifference” may certainly feel a lot like hate. And even “indifferent” may be a bit strong of a word. They want you very much, but they just don’t want you any more than anyone else. And for every one of you, there are more than fifty WoW players who have never played tabletop. If they replace you with any random two out of the crowd of you plus fifty WoW players, they have doubled their audience. It makes total business sense. But the odds are that you are not one of the two. So you feel tossed aside. But, they still LOVE to have their new two PLUS you. They can’t help it that the choice that doubled their fan base caused you to be the one that actually elected to end the relationship.

But here is the problem. They DIDN’T double the fan base. Not even close. I know I’ll get all the gripes about how I don’t know how well they are doing. But I do know that I know a hell of a lot less people who play D&D than I used to. And circumstantial evidence after circumstantial evidence unrelentingly supports the view that my experience is consistent with the larger scale reality. I don’t doubt that pockets of exceptions exist. And I am also not claiming that 4E is anywhere close to dead, it is bringing in a steady flow of cash. But, it isn’t growing the base. Rather than gaining 2 for every 1 they lost, I think they have lost 4 or 5 for every 2 or 3 they gained. It started off way better than that, but the decline has been rapid.
And this ties back to the quotes I copied above. 4E is a game. The buzzword “gamist” has been tied to it from before release. Yes, Mearls loves old editions. But Mearls himself also said that if you love wordl building this probably wouldn’t be the game for you.

4E is NOT WoW. I don’t claim it is. There are some elements in common, but there are huge differences as well. BUT, 4E clearly IS a tabletop game designed to try to appeal to MMO players who were not tabletop players.
MMOs are not about world-building. They are about being a game and having powers.

The problem is, a huge chunk of the tabletop fan base loves the hobby because it isn’t *just* a game. Just as many 4E fans love that 4E is, as Matt said “the most game-like”, many fans of prior editions love that they don’t get hung up on being overly game-like. It is all a matter of degrees. There is a ton of GAME in all prior editions, and without the slightest question, you can roleplay to your heart’s content in a 4E session. But great RPGs are about where the Mechanics and the Roleplay intersect. And, for many of us, 4E is much too “game-like”. The balance between “roleplaying” and “game” is out of whack.

Str of 17 is not a game. But it is one of a virtually infinite number of dots. And those dots all combine to make the picture.

Powers are not cool or dumb. Stats are not cool or dumb. They are just ingredients. And it takes the right mix of ingredients to make a good product. But what is good depends on who is playing. And taking the ingredients of a good cake (MMO) and trying to make a good pie (tabletop) may make a decent pie, and you will find some people who think it is awesome pie. But if you want the most broadly popular pie you can make, then you need to keep the fact that it is a pie in mind when you make it.

At the end of the day 4E is probably the absolute best *game* of any D&D and is also the most appealing to otherwise non –tabletop gamers. There are a lot of different dimensions of fun, and on that particular axis they have made great progress toward optimization. But, tabletop will never come close to what MMOs can achieve on that axis. And in the meantime, the “game” optimization has significantly detracted from other dimensions that some of us value for “fun”.

 

[MrMyth]

So WotC, you need us and we need you and, in the end, we still love you. But please, don't forget about us, don't deny our existence, don't focus your entire energy on trying to do something that simply can't and won't be done, and most of all, please don't transform D&D from being a pen-and-paper RPG.

I find this sort of post bizarre alongside your comments about Essentials. Essentials seems to have specific elements aimed at drawing back in players of earlier editions - complaining about WotC making that sort of gesture, and then turning around and ranting about how they hate their customer base, especially older fans, just seems like nonsense to me.

Look, WotC can't cater to everyone. And even trying to cover as many audiences as they can means they will still alienate plenty of people.

Many fans will still want their products. Many others won't. That isn't a result of WotC specifically choosing one group to favor over others, and certainly has nothing to do with WotC being sick of its fanbase.

And, similarly, I don't think we actually 'need' them. Many people are quite happy continuing to play older editions. Or play the current edition with just the core rulebooks. They don't need constant updates and products to enjoy the game they already have.

Now, many of us do like those updates and new products - I'm one of them. But this talk about gamers needing the company and the company needing the gamers...

...it's a good sentiment, but I'm not sure how much truth there is to it. I certainly don't think there is anything resembling truth amongst the rest of the post. It just reads as a series of rants about the company, the gaming community, 'today's kids'... not really a pleasant series of statements, no matter how much you may have intended it as humor.

Again, I appreciate the sentiment: "We're all in this together!" But building that hypothesis on a pile of angry stereotypes and assumptions? Just doesn't quiet work for me.

But I would focus on making D&D the RPG the best possible tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG that it can be, and for all of the frills--DDI, miniatures, and all the other doodads--to remain just that, frills, and thus optional and secondary to the tabletop game itself. And I would also create secondary products like boardgames and even video games to try to draw kids in.

Look, here's where I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective. Do you really think that, at any point, the designers at WotC have sat down and said, "Ok, let's not make this the best possible RPG we can? What can we do that will hurt our game?"

No, of course not - as far as they are concerned, they are producing the best game they can. Hence why they do keep making changes and adjustments to fix problems, adding elements to appeal to different crowds, etc. Efforts they put towards stuff like DDI and miniatures are because they feel those elements are of use to players of the game.

Now, will everyone want those products? Will their vision of the 'best RPG evar' match that held by every gamer in existence? Of course not - everyone has different tastes. And some experiments and changes they make will be considered great successes, others will be seen as foolish choices, and the vast majority will have both those it appeals to and those it displeases. That's pretty much inevitable.

And, yes, I'm sure there are elements behind the scene encouraging products that will sell more stuff, sure. But this idea that they hate the people playing the game, that they are intentionally producing subpar product...

...I think part of the problem is this. I think there is, for you, a perfect version of the game that you'd like to see. And I get the sense you feel that your perfect version will be one that will also be perfect for every other player. And that's just not true. No matter how awesome your vision is, other players have other tastes. You mention a grand vision of a modular D&D system, and I can see potential there - but also know people who would turn away from such a system, not wanting to deal with making choices over what elements to include. Or I could see it falling into ruin as WotC tries to support too many different styles, and each product becomes useful only for a niche of a niche. Your system may work for you - but it won't work for everyone.

In the end, WotC is trying to appeal to as many people as they can. New gamers, old gamers, existing gamers... and yeah, they've certainly made their share of misteps along the way. And I'm sure there are plenty of issues passed down by legal and upper management that haven't helped - the PDF fiascor, piracy concerns, etc.

But I think it's silly to assume that at any point they have intentionally tried to drive away any specific group, to 'fire' any existing players. Or that they have put in crappy stuff just to appeal to the 'shiny video game crowd' - anything they put in the rules or changes made to the story, I'm confident they did because they genuinely felt it was a good addition to the game.

Now, they may well have been wrong.

But in the end, it is easy to declare, "Hey, stop making bad choices, and start making ones that everyone will like." Actually doing that, though? That's not an easy task. It may not even be a possible one.

 

[MrMyth]

Witness the Virtual Tabletop.

Look at D&D Encounters. Look at Essentials, where Rituals have evaporated.

I can't really speak much towards D&D Encounters. But I'm not sure how on target the other two examples are. The points about the Virtual Tabletop are good ones, but... I'm more inclined to blame its limitations on WotC's programming resources (or lack thereof) than any overarching design philosophy.

As for Essentials, Rituals may be absent for reasons of complexity. But out of combat abilities are certainly present. Ranger and Druid wilderness tricks. A Thief's skill mastery benefits. A Hexblade's Lesser Planar Ally. Etc. All elements previously the domain of rituals that they instead built directly into these classes.

What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. That's the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have ambition regardless of what that ambition is.

D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it.

I'm not so sure about that. Epic Destinies seems a very direct reflection of this viewpoint. But they are, admittedly, very late game. Paragon Paths too, in theory, though I think they have become more diluted than they needed to. If they had the same sort of focus as Epic Destinies then I think that would address your concerns directly.

But as it is, the Tiers are a very clear recognition of how characters, and their effect on the world, grows over the course of a campaign. And Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies give specific story hooks for characters to attach their ambition to and work towards.

I may agree that more could be done in this vein, but certainly don't think you can claim that 4E is completely lacking in this sphere.

But what seems to have happened is that the all-powerful Combat Encounter has become a kind of massive attractor, a vortex into which everything gets sucked. Of course we have the power to break out of it, to run our games as we want to, but it would be nice for WotC to provide more tools to help us along the way, or at least diversify a bit.

Have you read the DMG2? It offers quite a few tools on 'diversifying a bit'. Xp rewards for quests, the skill challenge system, xp based on pure roleplaying alone - all of these elements are in the game. We've got an upcoming book that may be bringing back crafting elements and similar secondary skils. We've got a ton more background and story potential alongside our monsters and classes in the most recent products. Our upcoming magic item book sounds like it will be much the same. Dragon is currently under heavy criticism for having too much focus on flavor and background and RP advice.

Every indication I can see is that since the release of 4E, WotC has put more and more focus on the things you are asking for. If it is an issue with the game, it seems to be one they have been attempting to address.

In summary, I think you are right: D&D is in danger of jettisoning what makes it (as a tabletop RPG) unique, which is the play of imagination within fantasy worlds. This is the factor that should be explored and nourished. The bifurcated concepts of "crunch" and "fluff" exemplify this: "fluff" is what the DM reads at home so that he can offer flavor text between encounters, while "crunch" is what we do within the game session.

I don't think those are the standard definitions of fluff and crunch.

You say that 'the play of imagination within fantasy worlds' is the factor to be 'explored and nourished'. How? WotC have been adding more and more flavor and background to content in the last year. Is this what you are looking for? The recent content in Dragon magazine, the Essentials line - if they aren't what you are looking for, then what is? A book full of alternate approaches to running the game, innovative RP encounters, and similar elements? That's basically the DMG2, right?

 

[BryonD]

But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.

I think there is truth to that, and I also think that, depending on play style, this position could be challenged.

Again, if we talk about appealing to as large a group as possible, without getting hung up on individual tastes, then this is certainly a problem.

But, moving on to my personal taste, I think you give too much credit to solving the killing of monsters. And I do think my taste represents a significant portion of prior fan base.

Yes, the mechanical resolution of killing monsters in a mechanically consistent and predictably balanced manner is well achieved. But, to me, the monsters have no substance. Or at least, far too little substance.

I had a debate here quite a few months ago about how 4E handles AC for a L12 pirate vs a L12 black knight. They will be different. But only a little bit. Because 4E FIRST looks at them as L12 challenges to be mechanically represented in a manner that makes a good game.

To me, in order to be fun, the system MUST first look at the pirate as a pirate and a black knight as a knight. It then should try to come as close as possible to being a good game. But I will readily sacrifice perfection in game for perfection in capturing the nature of an entity.

You think they need to view the fourth dimension, time.
I think they still need to resolve the third - depth. And then they will still need time.

 

[Jack Daniel]

It's a simple and innocuous construct of the game, a mechanic so subtle that one almost doesn't notice when it's gone, but I think D&D really started to stray when 3.0 came out... and they got rid of the game turn.

Let's just set aside for the moment AD&D's ludicrous one-minute combat round. Let's look at how time and player actions were measured in classic D&D. Combat encounters were handled via the ten-second combat round; dungeon exploration with the ten-minute game turn; and wilderness travel by the day. Each of these units of time, the first two being pure artifice, do their respective jobs of structuring gameplay very well.

Combat in classic D&D was based on the round, just as it is now. The main difference was that back then, there was a specific sequence of actions (rather than the cyclical initiative, with each player deciding their actions when their turn comes up). For those of you who haven't played the auld game, this is how it worked:
1) Taking into account the aims and relative intelligence of the monsters encountered, the DM secretly decides what the monsters' actions will be (this happens first as a matter of fairness, so that the DM isn't just reacting to the players' tactics).
2) All of the players declare their intended actions.
3) Initiative is rolled, 1d6 for each side in the battle. High roll goes first; ties indicate simultaneous actions.
4) The combat sequence is followed: Movement > Missiles > Magic > Melee > Miscellaneous. The side that won the initiative goes through all the steps first (e.g. if the players won, all the PCs who are moving move, all the PCs who are shooting shot, etc.), then the other side goes. If the initiative was simultaneous, everybody acts at once, one step in the combat sequence at a time.
This might seem really, really strange to players who are used to the d20 system's cyclical initiative mechanics, but in practice (and in the hands of a DM who isn't daunted by several actions all happening at once) the old way turns out to be extremely efficient, such that battles in the old rules are resolved very quickly.

Initiative mechanics, though, are really just a matter of taste. I happen to prefer the old system, since there isn't a lot of "waiting for your turn to come back around," but whether you play classic D&D with its ten-second round and group initiative or 3rd/4th edition with its six-second round and cyclic initiative, it all comes out the same: hit, miss, roll damage, repeat until the monsters are dead. Combat is not the centerpiece of the game (or at least, it shouldn't be); it's an afterthought, a delay-of-game, an obstacle that the players must overcome to get back to the good part (dungeon exploration)! The dungeon-crawl, though, has been completely unstructured from 3.0 onward.

In classic D&D (and I believe AD&D as well, but don't quote me on that), there was a dungeon-crawling sequence as well as a combat sequence. In one ten-minute game turn, the players could be expected to move their full speed, thoroughly search a small room, conduct a battle and clean up its aftermath, or take any other action that might reasonably happen in under ten minutes. The game turn structured wandering monster checks, reaction rolls, and simple things like spell durations and how long torches stayed lit. "Game turns" might be just another way of saying "tens of minutes," but as a mechanic it's astonishingly handy to have in the toolkit.

So why did WotC kill it? I guess they didn't want "turn" to be used as a potentially confusing rules term. (Oh, that rambunctious WotC, always killing things off to avoid confusion. They killed off basic D&D to avoid confusion between the D&D and AD&D game lines, and they killed off the game turn to avoid confusion with having "your turn" come up during a combat round!) Fine, maybe they could've called it an "exploration period" or a "dungeon crawl action unit" or something, but it shouldn't have been done away with.

The game day, too, was more structured back then. There was a algorithm for wilderness travel. At the beginning of the game day, the DM rolled to see if the party would get lost, if so rolled for the direction, rolled to see if there would be a random monster encounter that day, etc. Then the players could travel and explore up to their wilderness movement rate (slowest character's full speed divided by five; so that a typical unencumbered human, with a speed of 120' per turn, could move 24 miles per day). And since most hex maps were conveniently drawn at the 1 hex = 24 miles scale, a typical party would crawl one hex per game day. Overland travel thus has game mechanical structure comparable to a dungeon crawl. Whether that accords with your personal tastes or not, it's useful.

These are the kinds of things that should probably exist in the rules of a game that purports to be about looting dungeons and slaying dragons. Just sayin'.

 

[Korgoth]

I mean the same "next" that guys like Jim Ward and Rob Knutz talk about when they talk about the D&D endgame. I mean the stuff that's littered all throughout the AD&D PHB and DMG. Becoming a Lord, getting a Stronghold, attracting Followers.

I mean the stuff they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide for back in D&D3.

What you have no memory or awareness of is the idea of a Temporal World. Meaning, a world that changes over time and is affected by the choices the players make. That's the world outside the Encounter. The Temporal World, where characters have influence. Where characters can have ambition regardless of what that ambition is.

D&D4 is the first edition of the game that completely lacks that, has no awareness of it. Never raises the question, and I think I know why. But I disagree with WotC's reasoning. I think D&D4 is fun, more fun than any other edition of the game.

But it's time for them to admit, talk about, embrace, the idea of the Temporal World. It's the only thing separating D&D from a boardgame.

OK, I see what you're aiming at. I tend to agree, then: if there are any books left to publish, they are books about taking the already ample body of game materials and making something interesting out of them. My favorite book from 3E (my least favorite edition) was Lords of Madness; I haven't really read the crunch in it. Probably never will. But there are a lot of good ideas in there... things I can use to make my actual games actually more interesting.

So yes. Strongholds, science fantasy, fantasy warfare, planar/multiversal conveyances, Ragnarok, the Far Realm, alternate universes... things to do, or things some folks haven't really thought about yet. Things that take the rules we've got and make something outrageously cool out of them. I think that's generally what you're driving at? Then yes, those are books I'd be very interested in buying.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I had a debate here quite a few months ago about how 4E handles AC for a L12 pirate vs a L12 black knight. They will be different. But only a little bit. Because 4E FIRST looks at them as L12 challenges to be mechanically represented in a manner that makes a good game.

To me, in order to be fun, the system MUST first look at the pirate as a pirate and a black knight as a knight. It then should try to come as close as possible to being a good game. But I will readily sacrifice perfection in game for perfection in capturing the nature of an entity.

This doesn't make sense.

What mechanics are needed to set a pirate apart from a knight. Before 3e, there weren't any - a pirate and a knight had differences only in AC, HP, and THAC0/Hit/whatever the system used. Instead, there mere label of "pirate" was enough.

Then in 3e, there was only barebones difference. The pirate had sneak attack and...what? Skill points in profession that never saw use in actual gameplay? Mechanics that served no purpose at all? It was still functionally the same as 2e - the differences were in it's AC, HP, it's stats, and attack bonus. That one had "Profession (Never will be used)" and the other had "Knowledge (Will never be rolled)" made no fundamental difference.

Now in 4e you can have a pirate actively use powers to set himself up as being distinct and pirate-y, and you're upset he's not enough of a pirate? He's more of a pirate then he's ever been before!

Mechanics where they are needed.

This whole discussion is the most hilarious thing in the world if you were around for the 3e transition. "Too many rules!" they cried! "When you try to codify roleplaying you turn it into a video game!" Now it seems if you don't codify roleplaying enough, you turn it into a video game. They actively go back to a few old school styles of gaming, and they're attacked for not being old school enough!

Look. I enjoy 3e! I think it's a fun game - hell, way more fun then 2e! But 3.x is not old school.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

When 3e came out "they turned D&D into Diablo"

When 4e came out "they turned D&D into World of Warcraft"

Based on this evidence we have several years to go until 5e is released as there currently is not a new Blizzard franchise to insultingly refer to.