|
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
Soooo...over on WotC's site, there's a recent post in a column called Rule of Three that piqued my interest. That column is currently being written by Richard Baker, one of the few remaining designers who was heavily involved in the development of D&D4E (and D&D3.x, IIRC). It's normally a bit of a question and answer piece, reminiscent of the old Sage Advice column, but a recent post differs in a rather peculiar way.
Basically, the column starts off with the "question" as follows:
Rich Baker wrote: With skill challenges and highly codified combat, some say 4E favors PC skill over player skill. Intentional or coincidental?
I've put that question in BGG quote tags as coming from Rich Baker himself, even though it's presented as a question from some "fan" of the game writing in for an answer. The reason being that I think it's a fairly deliberate choice to present a question that verges on, "Hey, is it true that your product kinda sucks?" in a Q&A column on the product's website.
Now, you probably think I'm loopy, equating such a seemingly innocuous question with a negative view of the game. Before passing final judgement, let's look at the other two "questions" dealt with in the article:
Rich Baker wrote: Did MMOs influence design in things like encounter powers and roles, or did this come more as a natural evolution?
...and...
Rich Baker wrote: What's the single biggest lesson you've learned about D&D's design and development since the start of 4e, and how are you applying that info?
Hmmm...I think we need to see a bit of the answer to the third question to get where I'm going with this:
Rich Baker wrote: I chatted with some of my coworkers, and opinions vary. But here's one that I think about a lot, and my colleagues generally agree with me: We have too many powers that are too similar. Listing powers under specific classes might have helped organize the Player's Handbook for the specific task of character creation, but it launched us on a design and development path where we created many similar powers whose only substantive difference is the class those powers appear under. If I told you "I'm thinking of a 2[W] power that dazes for 1 round; which class does that power belong to?" you couldn't begin to guess. Almost anybody might have that power.
Anybody see where I'm going with this, yet? Still think I'm making about as much sense as a gerbil on helium? The reason I think these three "questions" (and their answers) are about D&D4E sucking is because they are basically re-statements of some of the top criticisms the games' detractors have been pushing for a long time. And Rich appears to be agreeing that these are true. The last time I remember that happening was the transition from D&D3.5 to D&D4E. Uh-oh...something wicked this way comes...
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
Do you have a link for the actual article to which you are referring? I would like to read it if I am going to comment on it.
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
CRAP! Copy/paste screwup. Can you please remove that link from your post, ASAP? Thanks! The original post is fixed.
-
MSV Burns
United States
Olympia
Washington
-
Bobloblah wrote: CRAP! Copy/paste screwup. Can you please remove that link from your post, ASAP? Thanks! The original post is fixed.
Hehe... I dunno. The original botched link is so hilariously not what you intended that it made me giggle uncontrolably...
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
Marqos wrote: Hehe... I dunno. The original botched link is so hilariously not what you intended that it made me giggle uncontrolably...
Me too, frankly, but there are obviously privacy issues.
-
-
Wait, they're still on 4th ed.? I thought we were already on 6th...
(And I do agree with your interpretation.)
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
Bobloblah wrote:
That link won't load for me with the trailing '/' but this works:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20111107
-
Anthony Friedman
United States
Long Beach
California
-
Personally, I find the recent Legends & Lore columns to be more indicative of a shift in WotC regarding how they feel about 4th Edition. Someone over at the D&D forums said it best...
[paraphrase]"What company would write front page articles that don't reference their current product at all, and instead act like some 'yet-to-be-developed' game system does it better?"
Talk about terrible marketing!
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
The link still doesn't work - I get "Article or Content Not Found".
Edit - Thanks Dave!
Having read the whole article, I'm not sure I would make much out of it. The last paragraph is crucial and doesn't really support your interpretation:
Quote: That ship's sailed, but we are looking at ways to be more conservative with the creation of new powers (or classes requiring entire power sets) in the current environment. Certainly the Essentials versions of the fighter, rogue, and ranger offered different ways to play functional characters with fewer powers. Introducing builds instead of classes is another way to create greater overlap in power selection. Upcoming products showcase more examples of both these approaches, which we now think are a little better for the game as a whole.
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
wavemotion wrote:
MJ Harnish wrote: The link still doesn't work - I get "Article or Content Not Found"
Grrr! OP edited again! Hopefully it actually works now!
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
MJ Harnish wrote: The link still doesn't work - I get "Article or Content Not Found". Edit - Thanks Dave! Having read the whole article, I'm not sure I would make much out of it. The last paragraph is crucial and doesn't really support your interpretation: Quote: That ship's sailed, but we are looking at ways to be more conservative with the creation of new powers (or classes requiring entire power sets) in the current environment. Certainly the Essentials versions of the fighter, rogue, and ranger offered different ways to play functional characters with fewer powers. Introducing builds instead of classes is another way to create greater overlap in power selection. Upcoming products showcase more examples of both these approaches, which we now think are a little better for the game as a whole.
Curses! Foiled again!
...
..
.
Ok, just kidding. I saw that, but...well...it's perfectly possible for someone to say something that's not literally true. While Rich plays lip service to the notion of doing this within the context of D&D4E, looking over the rest of that article, it's unclear to me how that would function. Simply tacking on new material (...oh, we know those other books are crap, but look at this new one! Shiny!) doesn't really seem to actually solve the problem, although that's great billing for upcoming splats (New! Improved! Fixes 4E!). Moreover, after looking through a number of other recent Rule of Three columns in the archive, there's a lot of similar talk about other areas of D&D4E and how to get it right "next time."
Plus, I think Stix Remix hit the nail on the head:
Stix_Remix wrote: [paraphrase]"What company would write front page articles that don't reference their current product at all, and instead act like some 'yet-to-be-developed' game system does it better?"
Talk about terrible marketing!
But perhaps that's nothing new from WotC these days...
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
Sorry - didn't mean to post a link with personal/sensitive info on it - I didn't actually read the site, just saw that it didn't take me to the article in question and copied the link. Thanks for fixing it Dave!
--
As to the original question - I don't know... My personal feeling is that they will not move on to an "official" new/next version of D&D for a long time (2-5 years).
I think WotC learned its lesson and therefore won't say they are working on or going to release a new edition - instead, they will just release it little by little, as piecemeal changes to the current 4e, supported by the digital content which only displays and allows access to the most recent version of any rule or change.
So... Instead of announcing and implementing a new edition, what they will do is treat 4e as if it is evergreen, but make small (and large) changes to the content via DDi and the website, while producing relatively fewer print products (they have already shown that this works for them this year).
Future releases will be heavily supported by online content behind a paywall and the edition will continue to evolve that way for a few years. The next edition they release will be mostly digital and mostly behind a paywall, with very very few paper products - even fewer than what they put out now (which is already 75% smaller than the first 2 years of 4e). Perhaps they will only release the core rules as paper products and everything else will be behind a digital paywall.
The responses to fan questions in the recent Rule-of-Three articles (specifically Oct and Nov) are about as close as WotC can come to being transparent about the thought process of the designers and producers for D&D - and that is something that the fans have asked for since 3.5 came out. I applaud their efforts to be more forthcoming and honest about the game and where it is going, but it may be a case of too-little-too-late for many fans.
edited for clarity.
-
Tim Mayse-Lillig
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Its easy to talk about how your product is not so good when you never really tried to put out a high quality product in the first place. What was the last version of D&D that was made to be an excellent game and not just a new product? Maybe Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, but that might just be nostalgia.
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
timlillig wrote: Its easy to talk about how your product is not so good when you never really tried to put out a high quality product in the first place. What was the last version of D&D that was made to be an excellent game and not just a new product? Maybe Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, but that might just be nostalgia.
Really? Don't get me wrong, I loved the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, but that seems overly harsh...I would've thought that both Dungeons & Dragons (3rd Edition) and Dungeons & Dragons (4th Edition) would qualify. I might not personally like the latter, and believe it had serious problems, but, played for the kind of game it is, it can be tons of fun (and obviously is to it's many fans).
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
timlillig wrote: Its easy to talk about how your product is not so good when you never really tried to put out a high quality product in the first place. What was the last version of D&D that was made to be an excellent game and not just a new product? Maybe Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, but that might just be nostalgia.
To be fair, the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia was a rewriting of the BECMI boxes and not a new version - so it was made to be just a new product.
To answer your question, you have to go back further, maybe to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition) or Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (First Edition). Some may say that the initial days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition) was really meant to be an improvement on 1e and was "to make an excellent game" as you say.
I'll point out that these are the types of comments that start edition wars, and I have no interest in rehashing that.
I will also point out that if you were to ask any designer - one that worked for TSR or WotC and had a major hand in producing things for those games... if you were to ask them if they thought the games they were working on were good, they would say that they attempted to make the best game they could, the best products they could, and that they intended to make an excellent game...
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
timlillig wrote: What was the last version of D&D that was made to be an excellent game and not just a new product? Maybe Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, but that might just be nostalgia.
RC is an edited update with some cleanups to the Mentzer rule-set. It was just a new packaging of a 10 year old product with a new coat of paint.
D&D 3rd was done lovingly - remaking the core of the game while keeping the spirit of the AD&D rulesets alive. Sure, it had problems and power creep eventually caused more problems (which, thankfully, Pathfinder has curbed a bit) but is quite an excellent game which has stood tall for more than a decade now. When WotC bought TSR in the late 90s, TSR was in a serious cash crunch. They were hemorrhaging cash due to large volumes of books being sent back to the publisher (both RPGs and novels) and they simply didn't have enough cash left to operate properly. WotC buying them was a risk by them that they could revitalize the game. Slapping a new coat of paint on 2nd edition would have left D&D as the dusty black books spinning in poor metal racks at B&N (where they had been languishing from 1995 onwards). Instead they breathed new life into the game. It's okay not to like 3e, but it was done with love. Sure it was also an attempt to be profitable - all companies want/need to be profitable so you can take common denominator out of the equation and see what's left (in some cases, there is nothing left in which case you get shoddy products in an attempt for a cash grab).
-Dave
-
-
lorddillon wrote:
Without wanting to wade into edition-bashing either, from what I understand the main impetus behind the creation of 2nd edition wasn't purely to make an excellent game.
On a more general note, I do think all the designers working on these games were doing their very best to make them shine. Some more successfully than others, obviously, but I don't think you can deny that they all tried. However, I also think that when games are launched for reasons that go beyond pure game design, it does tend to show.
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
E Decker wrote: However, I also think that when games are launched for reasons that go beyond pure game design, it does tend to show.
There's a reason I mentioned neither Dungeons & Dragons (3.5 Edition) nor Essentials.
However, I actually played a lot of, and enjoyed, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition).
...even thought it was better than Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition)...
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
E Decker wrote: lorddillon wrote: Without wanting to wade into edition-bashing either, from what I understand the main impetus behind the creation of 2nd edition wasn't purely to make an excellent game.
True - but games published by large companies rarely are. I would go so far as to say they never are.
Only very small companies produce them purely for love and not for profit. Since we are talking about TSR and then WotC, then I think it is understood that, as a business, they have to pay attention to the bottom line and so it matters how much money an edition/game makes.
-
Anthony Friedman
United States
Long Beach
California
-
I think the root of the problem is simple. When something already exists, do you improve it or replace it?
Think about it for a second. We're on our 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons (any arguing about what constitutes an edition can kindly sit in the stage left wings). That means that any future edition is not only competing with the current market, but also the previous iterations of its own branding.
In a perfect world, gamers would like their game developers to spend their efforts improving a game to perfection, rather than replacing it. Unfortunately, this isn't as lucrative as a choice for game companies. Why is that?
 Any refining is largely optional, unless books are reprinted. This is a two-edged sword. If you reprint books, some gamers may feel forced to re-buy product and be upset (look at what happened with 3.5). If you don't reprint books, some gamers may simply stop buying the new books because they don't agree with the changes.
 It's hard to refine things objectively. Not all groups will want the same changes, so making changes (especially forced changes) may put off current subscribers. Some people play 4th edition without any errata because they like it that way, despite the numerous pages of changes WotC have made.
 Refining can cause market confusion. Do I buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands or the Player's Handbook? Do I buy the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Dungeon Master's Kit? Are these books compatible?
 Refining may not attract new buyers. If you didn't like 3.0 D&D before, now you can buy 3.5 D&D! This is also linked to market confusion. I didn't like 4th Edition. Is Heroes of the Fallen Lands different enough?
 Significant refinements can split the fan base. Does your group play 3.0 or 3.5? Does your group play 4th Edition or Essentials or Essentials+?
On the flip side, a replacement game often gives the developers better returns for their continued investments. There are a few new problems that replacements however, though you can also substitute "replacement" in the previous five problems and they are still valid concerns.
 A replacement is competing against itself. Why play a "return to form" version of D&D, when you can literally return to form and play an older edition?
 A replacement is entering a saturated market. There are a lot more RPGs today then there were twenty years ago.
 A replacement can stretch a brand too thin. WotC has recently put out 4th Edition, Essentials, Fortune "cards", boxed sets, miniatures, and board games. Some people don't want D&D to feel like Magic: the Gathering, and some fans have fervent opinions about what D&D is and should be.
 A replacement can allow a third party to continue supporting a previous edition. This is similar to what Paizo did, though they substantively created their own edition rather than merely putting 3.5 on life support.
 A significant replacement can drive away fans.
-
Merric Blackman
Australia
Waubra
Victoria
Ramping up my reviewing.
Happily playing games for many, many years.
-
D&D is unusual in that it's a game made to appeal to the current generation of fantasy gamers. It actively tries to reach out to those who don't currently play it, and it's the gateway game for many, many people.
It's unusual in that each new edition pays attention to what is going on with advances in game design technology. Its designers are rarely afraid to try something.
But not everything works. Both 3E and 4E were massive restructurings of the game that threw up a lot of unexpected issues. 3E was trying to give players more options using a much better framework than the 2E system. 4E dealt with some of the big problems of 3E (like the burden on DMs).
What's unusual now is that the designers are actually talking about the problems. I find this a hell of a lot better than them putting their heads in the sand and saying that nothing's wrong with the system.
How many RPGs are doing well that were around 10 years ago?
Cheers,
Merric
-
Robert Loblah
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
MerricB wrote: What's unusual now is that the designers are actually talking about the problems. I find this a hell of a lot better than them putting their heads in the sand and saying that nothing's wrong with the system.
Hear, hear! It's actually refreshing to hear a discussion of the perceived problems of the current edition being discussed by the designers, particularly when there are a lot of other things happening that suggest a significant shift is underway; whether that's literally a new edition (something WotC is wary of) or enough new rule material to be one in all but name, only time will tell. Having said that, if I had to put money on it, I'd bet on a near-term 5E.
Stix_Remix wrote: I think the root of the problem is simple. When something already exists, do you improve it or replace it?
Think about it for a second. We're on our 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons (any arguing about what constitutes an edition can kindly sit in the stage left wings). That means that any future edition is not only competing with the current market, but also the previous iterations of its own branding.
I'm not sure I agree with a lot of this...not least because there are significant examples that don't fit your mould. The changes between D&D0E and AD&D1E, followed by AD&D2E to D&D3E, both carried very large portions of the player community with them, and brought in large numbers of new players. That would suggest that doing so is not impossible. Another example of avoiding the problems you mention is Call of Cthulhu 2nd through 6th edition, which basically include errata and minor tweeks, but aren't revamps that expect the player base to repurchase everything. It's early yet, but I suspect Pathfinder will follow the Chaosium example, based on their reprints to date.
Something else that has only been touched on so far is WotC's profit imperative as demanded by Hasborg. I think much of what has happened (and this is pure conjecture based on my own corporate experiences) since the early days of D&D3E have been driven by this. Usually I hear a response of, "So what? Every company wants to make money..." when I bring this up, but the reality of the expectations that a corporate behemoth like Hasborg has are going to be at odds with the scale of the RPG industry, even for a top player like WotC. That, as much as anything else, seems likely to drive a 5E.
-
Merric Blackman
Australia
Waubra
Victoria
Ramping up my reviewing.
Happily playing games for many, many years.
-
Call of Cthulhu is a really interesting because it's very good example of a game where "system doesn't matter". In fact, I think CoC's system is mostly junk - it's got one inspired mechanic in Sanity, and a lot of obsolete mechanics. However, because CoC is all about telling horror stories where the PCs' abilities don't matter much, the system itself doesn't matter very much.
Pathfinder is still new. Let's look at it in ten years time and see what they've got to do. System *does* matter with PF, and there's no doubt that PF's system has issues, especially at higher levels.
Cheers,
Merric
-
-
MerricB wrote: Call of Cthulhu is a really interesting because it's very good example of a game where "system doesn't matter". In fact, I think CoC's system is mostly junk ...
I think that if a system is so unobtrusive that it convinces you that system doesn't matter, then it's a great system.
To see how much system matters in Call of Cthulhu, just look at reactions to the d20 version. The harsh criticism it received was all about system.
-
SJ Benoist
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
-
E Decker wrote: MerricB wrote: Call of Cthulhu is a really interesting because it's very good example of a game where "system doesn't matter". In fact, I think CoC's system is mostly junk ... I think that if a system is so unobtrusive that it convinces you that system doesn't matter, then it's a great system. To see how much system matters in Call of Cthulhu, just look at reactions to the d20 version. The harsh criticism it received was all about system.
I agree with Decker 100% on this one.
The "low profile" of BRP is a big part of what makes CoC work as well as it does.
-
|
|
|
Posted Thu Dec 1, 2011 6:53 pm
