Quote from: Spinachcat;257941The current potential audience for RPG sales are teenagers and young adults who play WoW and other video games.  

And 4E will offer them the same experience as WoW. But slower, uglier, and with more hassle. Ultimately what does 4E offer those teenagers and young adults that WoW doesn't?

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941The mass of these people have not been drawn to any games built on the old presumptions of gameplay.   Thus, WotC changed gameplay presumptions to increase their sales.

Absolutely. So why did WotC and its fans jump down the throats of any old-school players who said they didn't think 4E would be their cup of tea? Why couldn't they just admit that 4E was a new game with new presumptions?

Quote from: MearlsThe funny thing, to me, is that on EN World you have people saying that H1 is too deadly, and on TheRPGSite you have a crowd that’s enraged that the game is too easy. You truly can never make every gamer happy.

Hm, slightly embarassing to see Mearls resort to that type of strawman. EnWorld posters complained about a single elite being too tough (Irontooth), and Jeff Rients (of all people) said the same in his blog. But there was no question that the rest of H1 was a walk in the park. Individual encounters were predicabtly easy for new players to pick up the system without having to do too much brainwork. The linearity of the module ensured that they didn`t have to think inbetween encounters either.

However, lest this turns into (another?) "WotC hates RPGSite!!!!" thread - thanks for the thread title, Sett - here`s a more recent post in which Mearls addresses the lack of linearity in 4E and praises Melan`s "excellent" thoughts on D&D.

http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/09/borderlands-style-adventures.html

Interesting enough, Mearls praises the Borderland module in terms of its encounter design (lots of options, little overall linearity), and yet has no problem confessing he`s only designing linear modules in 4E, H1 being first in line. So either Mearls` love for non-linear module design is tongue in cheek, or he doesn`t actually enjoy the level of creative freedom often assumed by outside people.

Quote from: Windjammer;257956Interesting enough, Mearls praises the Borderland module in terms of its encounter design (lots of options, little overall linearity), and yet has no problem confessing he`s only designing linear modules in 4E. So either the whole post is not honest (unlikely) or Mearls doesn`t actually enjoy the level of creative freedom often assumed by outside people.

Or else 4E is best suited to linear designs, and Mearls' modules showcase the way 4E is meant to be played.

Quote from: Haffrung;257971Or else 4E is best suited to linear designs, and Mearls' modules showcase the way 4E is meant to be played.

You know, just having read the two discussions in Pundit`s blog which are linked in the OP here, I conclude that there are many people who would disagree with you here and think 4E is best when it`s not linear.

No, WotC` love for linear module design isn`t inherent in the ruleset, it comes from elsewhere. There are three posts, one by Andy Collins, one by Mearls, and one by Chris Mortika on Paizo I could dig up to make the following point. Linear module design comes from the delve format WotC used for convention play. They then imported convention standards to home standards. WotC effectively wants to cater for DMs with 15 minutes of prep time, meaning, the module cannot be written in such a way that, upon glancing it through quickly before you run it, you don`t get all the potential connections between core events in the game. I can attest that you can run the H-series modules in exactly that way.

I could link these posts individually, but feel kind of lazy. So here is a post of mine in German which at least gives you the quotes in English (ignore non-boxed text). Look at the excerpt from Kobold Quarterly especially.

http://forum.dnd-gate.de/index.php/topic,20776.msg343074.html#msg343074

I am currently preparing for an RPGA event (called "Weekend in the Realms") and do my prep reading. The module contains the same sentence I`ve seen in previous RPGA 4E modules (e.g. SKyfire Waste). "The adventure has several decision points, but mostly consists of linear encounters". You thought this type of thing would get old pretty soon after Kobold Hall (intro module in 4E DMG), but it has a way of reappearing everywhere, with the first bit of the sentence varying to little effect ("This adventure has no decision points", "is low on decision points", ...). After 15 minutes I put the module down, confident that I could run it as is next weekend.

Quote from: StormBringer;257949I thought you opened this argument by stating that levels have nothing to do with heroics.  Now you are saying that working up from low level is an impediment to heroics.

Heroics have nothing to do with level.   Levels are about power.
 
Most gamers have much more interest in power than heroics.   Thus they are drawn to games that give them more power earlier and more power more often during gameplay.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;257951But the analysis that 4e misses a lot of playstyles sounds a lot like a well received analysis of 4e that you put up here in the past.

4e does not "miss" any playstyles, because it never aimed for them.  Unlike
OD&D and AD&D that were open designs, 4e is targeted to focus almost exclusively to the playstyle preferred by the majority of game players.   Fortunately, it is flexible enough that DMs who wish to bend the game to another playstyle can do so...with varying results.

4e was not designed organically like OD&D or even AD&D.   Not unlike 2e and 3e, this edition was a corporate initiative to launch a new product into the marketplace.  Unlike 2e and 3e, this edition was launched by a public company.   That aspect alone changes everything.

Quote from: Haffrung;257955Ultimately what does 4E offer those teenagers and young adults that WoW doesn't?

In WoW, their character can never change WoW.  The Alliance or Horde will never win.   The dungeon will never be cleared out and the BBEG will never be defeated for more than an instance.  

The hope of WotC is that these aspects will draw in some WoW players.  With RPGA, the players actions can change the course of even a world spanning campaign such as Living Forgotten Realms.

Remember, all WotC needs is 1/10th of WoW players to buy PHBs and 4e will be a runaway success beyond anything seen in gaming since AD&D arrived.

And unless DDI becomes something amazing, I doubt they will see 1/1000th of the WoW audience covert to 4e.

Quote from: Haffrung;257955So why did WotC and its fans jump down the throats of any old-school players who said they didn't think 4E would be their cup of tea?

Because the mass of gamers have no understanding what "old school" means.   Mearls does know and that makes his "brain damage" comment even less acceptable.

Most gamers remember AD&D as either slow crawls to power or Monty Haul games.   Those of us who played (or play) Old School games as adventures in exploration and high risk are the minority.   And most of us broke from the D&D crowd in 2000 when 3e came out.

Quote from: Haffrung;257955Why couldn't they just admit that 4E was a new game with new presumptions?

Poor marketing.   4e is a new game with new presumptions.   Any attempt by WotC to deny or hide that fact was completely foolish.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941I am sorry WotC came to your house and took your old games away.

This argument always bothers me.  Of course the old edition of the game didn't get taken away.  It's the players who got taken away by being split between competing editions.

As far as half of us being brain damaged goes, as long as I'm on the undamaged half, I have no problem with it.  I'm throwing the rest of you under the bus.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;257984This argument always bothers me.  Of course the old edition of the game didn't get taken away.  It's the players who got taken away by being split between competing editions.

Wouldn't that be an arguement that the "old" version is not the one the players actually wanted to play?

I like gaming. Unfortunately, this site ain't about that no mo'.

I saw my bookmark a few days ago and wondered 'why haven't I been there lately?" Thanks for reminding me.

Quote from: James McMurray;258011I like gaming. Unfortunately, this site ain't about that no mo'.

I saw my bookmark a few days ago and wondered 'why haven't I been there lately?" Thanks for reminding me.

Thank God you breezed in to remind us that you are too cool for school.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257981Poor marketing.   4e is a new game with new presumptions.   Any attempt by WotC to deny or hide that fact was completely foolish.

"Ze game will remain ze same!"

As embarrassing soundbites go, its up there with "Read my lips--no new taxes!!"

Quote from: Settembrini;257846Read for yourselves:


SOURCE

I think mearls totally misses the boat in regards of what Melan actually wrote. But he is the main driving force behind 4e, so that´s not too unexpected.

What hit me as weird is the language he uses there.

What strikes me is that he even feels the need to bring it up in order to dismiss it. After all, it's crazy moon language from the loony fringe.

Quote from: Spinachcat;2579814e does not "miss" any playstyles, because it never aimed for them.

So you're blaming on intent what I am blaming on poor/narrow design? I'm willing to accept that as a valid alternative explanation, but doesn't make my view of WotC any less dim at this point.

QuoteFrankly, if people think the game is too deadly and too easy, we probably hit the right middleground.

That's not the middle ground, Mearls. That's the space between a rock and a hard place.

Regards,
David R

I struggle to take offence, and I try to, it makes these threads more fun.

Anyway, he says I note:

QuoteYou take what is a pretty reasonable starting point:
"I want a game where the PCs are relatively weak, where their rewards are beyond their control, and where death is random and frequent."[\quote]

So he's fine with old school, hardly a surprise given some time back he wrote up in a very positive way an OD&D game he ran.

He's also cool with 4e, hardly surprising, it would be an epic fail if he didn't enjoy it given how much of a hand he had in it.

Eh, he's basically defending 4e against what he regards as a mischaracterisation.  4e isn't to my taste, but I've browsed the rpg.net D&D forum from time to time and most of those guys seem just to be playing the same old shit I played back in the day so it looks like it's an rpg after all.  Who'da thunk it?

For context, Balb:

AFAIK you never really did play, or like, D&D all that much, yes? You've always been more of a RQ kinda person?

Detached impartiality is one thing. Indifference, and the ignorance that comes with it, is another.

If you want to be impartial, at a minimum read Melan's actual post.