If it failed at all (remember it probably remained profitable, even if WotC decided it wasn't profitable *enough*).
Now, it's known that 4e probably lost those pre-3e players who grudgingly played 3e because it was close enough and others played. 4e was pretty well not "close enough" any more, but it's hard to say what percent of 3e players were holdovers from previous editions at the time of 4e's launch.
And it also lost some 3e players for various reasons, many of whom migrated to Pathfinder. Again, it's hard to say what percent of 3e players decided not to make the switch. It's also hard to say whether they never made the switch, as opposed to switching back after Pathfinder was published.
Finally, we don't know how many people 4e managed to bring in. Which is kind of important, going forward. Because it means there is a population who has played nothing else, who will either be pleased or neglected by a 5th edition.
For those who never even played 3rd, and just stuck with their favorite system through it all... well they hardly contributed to the end of the edition. I can't imagine WotC expected them to come back.
But there are also external factors outside of audience. Outside of Pathfinder, even though Pathfinder might be seen as legitimate competition (since they're operating in a similar niche of both rules and genre, so they might actually take sales away).
...
I'm wondering if the DDI contributed to hurt book sales. The first thing any of my friends and I thought with the release of 4e was that we might subscribe to DDI instead of buying books in order to access all the rules, potentially more cheaply. This was back when we thought we'd be playing 4e. Anyway, I'm sure others might have had a similar thought.
Commonly brought up in 4e threads is that it is more minis-dependent than most editions, so I'm wondering if part of the plan was to offer the rules more cheaply through the DDI, while selling the toys as the focus of physical product.
So what if 4e was as widely played as any edition, but it was disappointing minis sales (or low profits on the minis) that ultimately hurt it most? It would also partially explain the frequent returns to boxed sets as a move towards selling physical components some other way.
Of course, this is all speculation on my part. If anyone has concrete data to either support or contradict my point I'd appreciate it.
Why did it fail? Because it's a SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARDGAME.
Also, I didn't get into 3e, but I am ready to come back . . . so long as they give me a combat system a la TSR D&D.
While I think it did not succeed the way that Wizards wanted it to, I do have this to say:
Many new editions are "successes" by virtue of successfully marketing to the existing fan base - especially the hard-core grognards. By retaining this core of their old customers, they have a guaranteed market and make money by selling them a boatload of new books. However, by marketing to the grognards, it is inevitably a shrinking guaranteed market with each new edition - because pleasing the grognards is less likely to please new, younger players.
4th edition D&D was a risky move where they changed some very major aspects of the game, presumably in the hope of attracting new players. I don't think it worked out the way they hoped. However, I think it is fine and even a good thing that they did not design it to please the grognards. The problem was that it didn't please enough new players.
Quote from: jhkim;507276While I think it did not succeed the way that Wizards wanted it to, I do have this to say:
Many new editions are "successes" by virtue of successfully marketing to the existing fan base - especially the hard-core grognards. By retaining this core of their old customers, they have a guaranteed market and make money by selling them a boatload of new books. However, by marketing to the grognards, it is inevitably a shrinking guaranteed market with each new edition - because pleasing the grognards is less likely to please new, younger players.
4th edition D&D was a risky move where they changed some very major aspects of the game, presumably in the hope of attracting new players. I don't think it worked out the way they hoped. However, I think it is fine and even a good thing that they did not design it to please the grognards. The problem was that it didn't please enough new players.
I would agree that marketing to grognards wouldn't have been the way to go with 4e, and that their marketing towards new players sucked pretty badly (the MMO was more visible, ad-wise).
But I also feel that new players tend not to make purchasing decisions based on rules. They really have no basis for comparison.
And the RPGA might have mitigated the bad marketing and (unverifiable) reduction of new inductees at home tables.
You don't think the DDI would have hurt book sales? Or that WotC might have pinned its hopes on minis sales that didn't materialize?
I think it was a few things, but mainly too many changes to the core game (particularly magic). Also agree with Justin Alexander's take that the disassociative mechanics drove away some people (I was all for 4E until I read the PHB and had my first few lay sessions). Really they focused on pleasing a narrow band of the player base and did so at the expense of those with different preferences. So I think then game quite simply lacks broad appeal as a result.
I don't think it completely failed. They wanted to make a "not your daddy's D&D" with some organized play, and they did. A lot of kids love it. It didn't meet what was probably an unreasonable expectation at Hasbro.
It wanted to have a more comprehensive online component. It failed at that.
Whether the idea of a "not your daddy's D&D" was or wasn't worthwhile can be debated. Being one of the daddys, I don't especially think it was necessary. But then--my dad told me stories of having to sneak out of the house to listen to Johnny Cash records. So I guess it's a generational thing.
The handwriting was on the wall for 4e with "Essentials". Remember, the ad push for 4e was practically tailor-made to destroy any goodwill anyone felt towards Wizards. The whole savings worth of said goodwill that they'd spent the introductory years of 3e building up went away in a flash. An ad campaign that said "Your games sucked and you're stupid for having played them this way"...
4e sales were beaten out by an OGL product that people could essentially (no pun intended) have had for free. OSRIC and other games ate into their profit margins - and yes, they did - in a way that couldn't be ignored.
Gleemax was an instantly mocked joke that NOBODY liked. Nobody. No-body. "Facebook for gamers!" - dumbasses. Facebook is the Facebook For Gamers. Why didn't they push that in a major way?
The DDI...oh boy, don't even get me started on this. D&D was successfully wed to electronic products through the 80s and 90s and yet Wizards couldn't hire a competent programming team for this effort? Good lord. That was another nail in 4e's coffin. Hasbro saw all this money circling the drain and couldn't do a thing to stop it.
So after flipping the bird to about half their customer base, they immediately scrambled to get that base back. A "tour bus" covered with old-school D&D art. A week, flaccid attempt to garner "our" attention. Then came Essentials. Put in the pink Mentzer box, and 4e rules shoehorned into 3e paradigms...you could smell the stink of desperation as soon as the box was opened.
The already anorexic release schedule for 4e began to wither, and then...bam, 5e announced. Every card they've played for 5e has been "A return to old school D&D!". I'm not kidding myself; 5e isn't going to be like..."HA! It was AD&D all along!" But they're clearly looking at older playstyles as the way forward. Not 4e's "superhero boardgame" as 1989 put it.
4e failed when it threw the baby out with the bathwater - Most folks didn't want "D&D but in name only". We want D&D. They get it now. 5e might not be perfect but as I've said before if it's a good 2nd game for me, that's enough to win back my gaming dollars.
It has it's own fans, topped sales charts as much as we can tell and tried to update the game completely rather than tinker with the games mechanics as previous editions did, so I'm of the opinion that the only way it 'failed' is by not sucking in previous edition players and selling a mountain more books (and 'failed' by not rendering Pathfinder obsolete thus killing that game off). Proof of that is that it's easy to find plenty of pristine/like new 2nd hand 4e books for sale on forums and ebay, usually starting at 99p when the books are still for sale new.
That's how I bought mine (all three books for less than £20 delivered, look like they've hardly been used, if at all) but I never played the game so in that respect it failed to suck me in as well. I flicked through it, saw a load of terms and abbreviations I didn't understand, and put it down again. If I want to play a Fantasy RPG I'll run houseruled BECMI, Tunnels and Trolls, give the Mongoose Legend/Runequest a try or even dust off and houserule MERP (or maybe look at HARP), because that was fun when you figured out how it actually worked.
I don't think single fights last 30 mins-2 hours in any of those games either, which is another thing that put me off 4e. I have the 4e Starter set, but it's still sealed, waiting for me to unwrap and try it.
I dunno. There was just something missing for me. It didn't suck me in, I had no mad desire or rush to try it, just had a flick through and thought "I'll read that and GM it." and it's still there, with dust now, on the shelf, waiting. Whether that's down to mechanics, having to learn an all new system, the sluggish (come on, how long to run a fight?) combat system with powers that recharge or simply burnout from Fantasy RPGs, I don't know. I'll read plenty of reviews before I decide whether to bother with 5e.
For me:
Too many changes from previous editions.
Too much focus on combat abilities, while seemingly ignoring everything else. (I've since changed a bit about this, so if 4e came out right now, I doubt this would bother me).
Too much dependence on mats and minis.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507286(I was all for 4E until I read the PHB and had my first few lay sessions).
Dude why be hatin on 4E if it got you laid? :p
It failed because it wasn't D&D.
The primary reason it failed was because of presentation issues not design.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;507298Dude why be hatin on 4E if it got you laid? :p
Lol. I've got to stop posting by iphone.
Quote from: estar;507299It failed because it wasn't D&D.
The primary reason it failed was because of presentation issues not design.
I agree that the presentation was a big factor. When I first opened it up the text layout looked way too business-like for my taste.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507301I agree that the presentation was a big factor. When I first opened it up the text layout looked way too business-like for my taste.
I can see that being an issue but what I was referring to was how they choose to implement the design in terms of the mix of classes , powers, Items, monsters, and adventures.
It was high powered heroic fantasy pushed to the max. And the initial adventure designs more like Battletech scenarios than the modules of older editions.
They had a great setup with Nentil's Vale and Fallcrest in the 4e DMG. But the follow up failed to do it justice.
In fact I consider the 4e DMG the second best after AD&D 1st. But the rest of the initial product line failed to live up to it.
Quote from: beejazz;507285You don't think the DDI would have hurt book sales? Or that WotC might have pinned its hopes on minis sales that didn't materialize?
Was this towards me? I think the lack of minis sales seems like a symptom of not getting enough new players. I would note, though, that the new D&D boardgames - Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, and Legend of Drizzt - seem to be doing extremely well. The latter was for a time selling better than Monopoly on Amazon, though it has since dropped back in ranking to currently the #90 board game.
It seems to me that using players DDI instead of books was part of the plan. The idea was to attract some fraction of the people into World of Warcraft and other online games, as well as games like Magic: The Gathering. The books themselves are too complicated to be a mass market success - but DDI was intended to be the main item to sell to players, while the books are for DMs and grognards.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507286I think it was a few things, but mainly too many changes to the core game (particularly magic). Also agree with Justin Alexander's take that the disassociative mechanics drove away some people (I was all for 4E until I read the PHB and had my first few lay sessions). Really they focused on pleasing a narrow band of the player base and did so at the expense of those with different preferences. So I think then game quite simply lacks broad appeal as a result.
While it was a narrow band of the existing player base, I don't think the intent was to appeal to specifically those players - but rather to make a play for a fraction of the much larger set of players of games like World of Warcraft.
Quote from: estar;507302In fact I consider the 4e DMG the second best after AD&D 1st.
I can't agree on this point due to the tyranny of fun.
Quote from: jhkimWas this towards me? I think the lack of minis sales seems like a symptom of not getting enough new players. I would note, though, that the new D&D boardgames - Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, and Legend of Drizzt - seem to be doing extremely well. The latter was for a time selling better than Monopoly on Amazon, though it has since dropped back in ranking to currently the #90 board game.
That's interesting. I haven't much followed the boardgame side of things.
According to Dancey there was a significant digital initiative, including an online gametable, that was planned as part of the 4E launch. Hasbro yanked funding/support for it at the last minute. I'm sure that gimping one of the core elements of the marketing strategy right out of the gate hurt the product.
Oh yeah, moving errata and most other articles online behind a paywall was an incredibly stupid decision. I refuse to pay money for online services like that. I'm betting a lot of other people were the same way.
Quote from: daniel_ream;507316According to Dancey there was a significant digital initiative, including an online gametable, that was planned as part of the 4E launch. Hasbro yanked funding/support for it at the last minute. I'm sure that gimping one of the core elements of the marketing strategy right out of the gate hurt the product.
I thought according to Dancey that an important member of the DDI team was the perpetrator of a murder-suicide and
that gimped the launch.
Quote from: two_fishes;507320I thought according to Dancey that an important member of the DDI team was the perpetrator of a murder-suicide and that gimped the launch.
Source?
Or am I missing a joke?
Quote from: beejazz;507321Source?
Or am I missing a joke?
http://kotaku.com/5032443/xbox-developer-dead-in-murder+suicide
Both of them were working on the DDI in key ways, IIRC.
I'm clearly confusing it with something else, then. Regardless of my gap-ridden memory, that surely didn't help.
Something I haven't seen mentioned before: IMO the core of the D&D game since 1978 is the Player's Handbook. That's what potential new players buy; that's what hooks them or drives them away.
WoTC released the PHB before it was ready. It's boring, badly presented, and errated to hell. The Essentials books just mucked things up further by confusing new players - IMO new players are still arriving at my Meetup with PHBs, never "Heroes of...".
So: get the PHB right this time.
Certainly, a flipping off of "old school" gamers hurt (even if this insult wasn't intentional, it was perceived, so it IS a failure on the part of their PR).
Blowing the online component in a huge way hurt. Having messed up rules that required extensive errata hurt. Even though it was D&D in name only, we all still played, doing our best to figure out how to fix a magnificently broken system.
The final nail in the coffin: Essentials. That's when the game ended for my group. Now to bring new players in, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Sometimes they have Essentials, sometimes Red Box, sometimes the (obsolete) books, and just to 'create a character' is a mess. My higher level campaign players had no idea what to do with it...these were guys that obsessively bought every book, even after I announced a moratorium at PHB3. But after Essentials, that was the end.
Essentials was fine, but the issue of side-by-side rulesets was just too much, in a game where so much of the books were already obsolete.
Quote from: Doom;507336The final nail in the coffin: Essentials. That's when the game ended for my group. Now to bring new players in, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Sometimes they have Essentials, sometimes Red Box, sometimes the (obsolete) books, and just to 'create a character' is a mess. My higher level campaign players had no idea what to do with it...these were guys that obsessively bought every book, even after I announced a moratorium at PHB3. But after Essentials, that was the end.
Essentials was fine, but the issue of side-by-side rulesets was just too much, in a game where so much of the books were already obsolete.
This is why I really hope 5e doesn't split the line as a way of introducing modularity (as others have suggested). Loss of clarity regarding the intro product is potentially a very bad thing.
Quote from: beejazz;507337This is why I really hope 5e doesn't split the line as a way of introducing modularity (as others have suggested). Loss of clarity regarding the intro product is potentially a very bad thing.
I think the whole multiple rule book thing has been putting them at a disadvantage for a while. Most games have one book our an easy to identify set of core books that you need to play. If it is built with expansion in mind, I think a lot of people will just go with other games.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507338I think the whole multiple rule book thing has been putting them at a disadvantage for a while. Most games have one book our an easy to identify set of core books that you need to play. If it is built with expansion in mind, I think a lot of people will just go with other games.
while i would love to see a "one volume" d&d, isn't the 3 volume model part of the product identity? not counting stuff like moldvay basic, the RC, etc. still, i think a one core book product would be a good modernizing step, easier to bring in new folks.
Quote from: beeber;507341while i would love to see a "one volume" d&d, isn't the 3 volume model part of the product identity? not counting stuff like moldvay basic, the RC, etc. still, i think a one core book product would be a good modernizing step, easier to bring in new folks.
The PHB, DMG, MM trio is fine. I am talking about multiple players handbooks and just the general unchecked expansion of the mechanics. I think for new customers it is a bit dizzying.
You know, I think we're overlooking the BIGGEST reason 4e failed:
not enough 4vengers
If only there'd been more people at every turn on open RPG forums telling people who enjoyed 3.5, 3.0, AD&D 2e, AD&D, original and basic of all its various stripes that they were dumb, that their opinions were dumb, that 4e was the pinnacle of game design, questioning the mindset and intelligence of people who didn't want to "evolve" or even worse people who'd go back and non-ironically play those earlier versions, 4e would have lived.
That's what my time here on theRPGsite and reading other forums has taught me. At least that's what I take away from it. Those poor guys :( they were being so screechy and hateful in an attempt to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive as it were.
Quote from: danbuter;507317Oh yeah, moving errata and most other articles online behind a paywall was an incredibly stupid decision. I refuse to pay money for online services like that. I'm betting a lot of other people were the same way.
I sort of forgot to address this, but they could have gone the "freemium" route, using a little free content to hook new users on the subscription. It might have been a balancing act to both make the free version solid and the upgrade worthwhile though.
I think that Bill Slaviscek and Scott Rouse promised waaay more than could be delivered, and all of the decisions and dropped balls followed from that. 4th edition is a good game. I think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic. I also would like to say I think Scott Rouse is a pretty nice guy. I don't know Bill. I do know that anytime I as an RPGA person tried to interact with Wizards about fairly simple and legitimate concerns I was treated pretty sternly.
That said, beyond the DDI meltdown, here's why it really failed: It's written to support roleplayers, presented to support boardgamers, and then errata'd to support powergamers.
The assumptions of D&D4 are the first since AD&D to strongly support multiple battles with multiple opponents, each doing interesting things, great quest rules, and really good DM advice. They "fixed" the 15 minute adventuring day..
AND THEN...
Then they put out adventures and the adventure is just the delve format strung together, with no assumption of actual human interaction whatsoever. And made sure they never showed an adventure where anyone ever did an extended rest or thought of other things to do during the adventure. Because they thought they were "designing" the experience of play as well as the rules. Some of the better adventures are the RPGA ones, they don't really follow the delve format. Although they are still railroady as heck, because.. well, they are convention adventures. That's the approved concept, and has been since Raven's Bluff's Living City campaign from AD&D2e.
AND THEN.. to top it all off,
They spent way too much time trying to cater to the jackoffs who like to analyze rules so that they can prove how to outsmart them. Thus ensuring a continuously evolving set of errata, with nobody ever truly getting a handle on how anything worked, "invalidating" the books for new players, and then instead of letting some sleeping dogs lie, they would actually change some rules just to make room for new rules. They probably thought they were being responsive to the community. Actually I know this one. They thought they were being responsive to the community and being expert game designers. This was pure hubris.
FINALLY, by this time, they had no idea who their community was. Everyone was on the defensive because everyone was under attack at all times. Mike was put in charge, and he was trying to consolidate the whole thing with a beginners supplement that somehow brought the different pieces and goals all back together. That was Essentials. I'm not a fan of Essentials, although I can understand why people like it. The thing that was broken was how they interact with the fans and players. But when people try to say "Oh Essentials is the right direction, unlike "Heinsoo D&D" I think they are wrong. Heinsoo wrote a great game, and it was managed by people who were under a lot of pressure to make some guys look good, and by that time, there was no way to win.
I don't have any inside information, by the way, that's just how I see it.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw4th edition is a good game. I think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic.
Honestly, I'd rather we all just assume that people like or dislike games genuinely.
For myself, I just wasn't enthused. And neither were the less casual friends I play online with. We all gave it a shot and went back to the stuff we preferred. If my online friends had run a game in the system longer I might have played it, it might even have grown on me, and I might have run it for the more casual gamers I play with in person. As it was, that didn't happen. And learning a system that bored me for no one in particular's benefit seemed like a waste of time.
I like the focus on tactical as opposed to strategic character resources (as you put it, killing the 15-minute adventuring day), but it nixed most of my favorite content with the release, and a lot of the content it did have just felt too samey. This was before the "dissociated" thing became the most widely discussed sticking point, but even then I would have preferred no dailies to fighter dailies.
QuoteI also would like to say I think Scott Rouse is a pretty nice guy. I don't know Bill. I do know that anytime I as an RPGA person tried to interact with Wizards about fairly simple and legitimate concerns I was treated pretty sternly.
It's unfortunate that they treated you badly. Really, the RPGA is one of the better things WotC has going for it. I don't think there's any major competition for them in terms of organized play, and it seems like a great way to get players who would otherwise have a hard time finding or organizing a game.
QuoteThat said, beyond the DDI meltdown, here's why it really failed: It's written to support roleplayers, presented to support boardgamers, and then errata'd to support powergamers.
That's a point you're going to want to expand on. Especially the first and third points.
Are you saying because you can do more cool stuff in a fight it's more roleplay, or because stuff outside of combat is relatively handwaved, or what?
QuoteThen they put out adventures and the adventure is just the delve format strung together, with no assumption of actual human interaction whatsoever. And made sure they never showed an adventure where anyone ever did an extended rest or thought of other things to do during the adventure. Because they thought they were "designing" the experience of play as well as the rules. Some of the better adventures are the RPGA ones, they don't really follow the delve format. Although they are still railroady as heck, because.. well, they are convention adventures. That's the approved concept, and has been since Raven's Bluff's Living City campaign from AD&D2e.
I'd like to hear more about the RPGA adventures, and maybe who wrote them. Typically, the mantra goes "settings don't sell," but they seem potentially important for boxed sets (if WotC wants to both keep the subscription model and sell physical product).
QuoteThey spent way too much time trying to cater to the jackoffs who like to analyze rules so that they can prove how to outsmart them. Thus ensuring a continuously evolving set of errata, with nobody ever truly getting a handle on how anything worked, "invalidating" the books for new players, and then instead of letting some sleeping dogs lie, they would actually change some rules just to make room for new rules. They probably thought they were being responsive to the community. Actually I know this one. They thought they were being responsive to the community and being expert game designers. This was pure hubris.
If they were designing for people who "outsmart" the rules, they weren't even catering to those guys. People don't figure out Pun-Pun or how to play as a sandwich with the psi rules in the hopes of actually playing as Pun-Pun (or a sandwich). They do it more as an exercise that's fun in its own right.
QuoteFINALLY, by this time, they had no idea who their community was. Everyone was on the defensive because everyone was under attack at all times. Mike was put in charge, and he was trying to consolidate the whole thing with a beginners supplement that somehow brought the different pieces and goals all back together. That was Essentials. I'm not a fan of Essentials, although I can understand why people like it. The thing that was broken was how they interact with the fans and players. But when people try to say "Oh Essentials is the right direction, unlike "Heinsoo D&D" I think they are wrong. Heinsoo wrote a great game, and it was managed by people who were under a lot of pressure to make some guys look good, and by that time, there was no way to win.
It at least looked as if they were going for new customers, so I'm not sure how the edition wars could have directly hurt the edition. Unless you're saying that the designers designed around the complaints, or that the new players 4e garnered were more forum-active (which, given the importance of the DDI, they may have been).
QuoteI don't have any inside information, by the way, that's just how I see it.
There's little enough concrete info to be found; I think we're all just speculating at this point.
I'm assuming that this is an unsubtle troll attempt, but I'll bite anyway. The main reason that 4e failed was because it wasn't enough like 3e. People can handle incremental change; they can't handle excremental change. So when 4e decided that classes needed roles and that fighters needed weird powers and that spellcasters worked the same as everyone else and the game completely ditched any attempts at verisimilitude in favor of gamism--well, people weren't ready for that. In two editions, maybe. But people still liked and enjoyed 3e, and they were emotionally attached to it. They were ready for change, but not that much.
Then there was the marketing campaign. Given how gamers get attached to their hobby, changing things up and telling them they were playing the game wrong the whole time and not actually having fun will piss them off. Along with the arrogant attitude of the 4e developers ("We're not going to show you anything but trust us, you're going to love it!"), the failure to address any concerns that 3e players had about their game compounded this issue.
On top of this, 4e was written to push tactical combat. The majority of powers were designed with an emphasis on moving enemies around the board and activating status effects. With their format, poor fluff, and dissociated mechanics, this resulted in really boring abilities. X[W] + Y + status effect is not intriguing. It does not pique my interest. It does not make me want to play that class.
Finally, the galvanized 4vengers were another issue. When popular online RPG venues are edition warrior territory, where any questions or criticisms of 4e are drowned out in a shitflood, where blatant favoritism is shown to those on the side of 4e, and you have a mess. A horrendous, embittering mess that soured a number of people (myself included) on 4e.
Altogether, these things are the crux of 4e's problem. Players can ignore bad mechanics. They can even love bad mechanics. 2e/3e's mechanics were a disaster, but people loved those games. Despite the shitty math, despite the dozens of pages of errata, despite Mearls admitting that they didn't know what they were doing with the wizard and that solo encounters were junk, despite skill challenges not functioning after three or four years of rules tweaks--despite all of that, people could still love 4e. But they didn't for the above reasons.
P.S. Did you get the joke about incremental vs. excremental? OY MY TALENTS ARE WASTED ON YOU LOT.
EDIT:
QuoteI think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. "If you don't love 4e, you're not smart enough to understand why it's so great." Go fuck yourself, AM.
I can tell you why I didn't buy it: it was too far removed from what I think of as D&D. It was a different game with the same name. It's not what I wanted when I wanted to play "D&D."
Quote from: beejazz;507392If they were designing for people who "outsmart" the rules, they weren't even catering to those guys. People don't figure out Pun-Pun or how to play as a sandwich with the psi rules in the hopes of actually playing as Pun-Pun (or a sandwich). They do it more as an exercise that's fun in its own right.
.
I'm sure there's some people who do play it. For every character optimizer who insists that everything is all theoretical, there's still someone who will want to try it. Maybe not Pun-Pun, but I'm sure plenty of less extreme combinations to see play.
The problem with the Eratta is they were so busy playing catch up with power gamers that they have failed to fix problems with genuinely flavourful and popular game elements such as the Beastmaster Ranger which has never worked properly and wouldn't even be that hard to fix (at least for non-optimized groups).
They have also created new problems with overnerfing. They nerfed the Hide Armor Expertise Feat because it allowed for ridiculously high Barbarian AC at Epic levels, and in the process made the Swarm Druid build completely unviable. They over-errated the Ranger At-Will Throw and Stab and in the process pretty much gutted the Marauder Ranger build a mere few months after releasing it.
As a product, it failed commercially to meet its expectations. It failed to deliver WotC' 2005 objective of creating a D&D brand that would make 50 mio. in profits independently of licensed properties. That was the gist of the Dancey post at Enworld earlier this month.
Personally I'm actually not confident that any other post-3.5 edition could have met that objective. I remain curious whether 5E can meet it.
As to 4E's other failings, Abyssal Maw's posting is the best I've read so far, and in a very, very long time (by him or others) on 4E.
It was the monotony that killed the product's potential for enthusiastic play at home. Yes, Heinsoo indeed created a brilliant game, DDM 2.0, perhaps really the best ever base engine for a simple RPG like D&D. That base engine could have served to promote a variety of campaign styles, a math so simple, so transparent, so customizable, it should have been the wet dream for a next generation of time-pressed kitbashers.
Instead, WotC chained the product to one particular view of what to do with that engine, and tried to create an homogenized play style which I guess D&D has not seen since the very earliest days of the hobby. Why on earth this was attempted is anyone's guess. The attempt failed miserably, and the hobby is the richer for that.
Quote from: S'mon;507334Something I haven't seen mentioned before: IMO the core of the D&D game since 1978 is the Player's Handbook. That's what potential new players buy; that's what hooks them or drives them away.
WoTC released the PHB before it was ready. It's boring, badly presented, and errated to hell. The Essentials books just mucked things up further by confusing new players - IMO new players are still arriving at my Meetup with PHBs, never "Heroes of...".
So: get the PHB right this time.
Except that the PHB was
right, out of the gate. Unlike monster damage or monster defense scores, the PHB errata are mostly just a pile of steaming shit trying desperately to sell later classes ('Forget about the STR-cleric, here's our Runepriest (tm)!!!').
The fighter and cleric class are very clearly, and utterly unambiguously, not just among the two best classes in the game; they are arguably the best designs these classes have received in D&D's history, ever. This is never clearer than when comparing these Heinsoo designs to the crap in the DDI 'Class Compendium': apart from the opening flavour text, there's an impressive display of people at work
who can't design. If I have one early grudge against 5E, it's that the people with the most talent got fired, while second rate hacks remained behind. But I get carried away.
So, the PHB was a stunning success by a lot of counts. While the presentation was hardly endearing on a first read, its functionality in play was undeniable. Also, it featured ritual magic (again, Essentials left that out, because
Encounters-play-in-store wouldn't need it), and moreover, the most important rituals that the game needed were right there, out of the gate.
So, brilliant class design, brilliant base engine (see post above), and ritual magic... what could go wrong?
Very little, and it went a long way.
The big failings of the PHB was to leave out bards, gnomes, and half-orcs - 20 extra pages, I kid you not.
Point the second: had they used parched paper artwork instead of blank white, I bet you the book would have been received a lot better. Try to print Paizo PDFs after removing their parchment page design, and you'll see their layout is uglier than 4E stuff.
(http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20080529/Floral-Paper-Parchment-751000.jpg)
Yes, this.However, the biggie is the wizard class. The wizard class failed to be a
wizard class (in D&D terms), failed to be a controller class (in 4E) term, and failed to appease the 3.x hold-outs who frankly wanted a class which is a) insanely overpowered and b) takes months of in depth study time to figure out. It's a class that failed as a design in 3 editions all at once, and that's no small thing.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;507380I think that Bill Slaviscek and Scott Rouse promised waaay more than could be delivered, and all of the decisions and dropped balls followed from that. 4th edition is a good game. I think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic. I also would like to say I think Scott Rouse is a pretty nice guy. I don't know Bill. I do know that anytime I as an RPGA person tried to interact with Wizards about fairly simple and legitimate concerns I was treated pretty sternly.
That said, beyond the DDI meltdown, here's why it really failed: It's written to support roleplayers, presented to support boardgamers, and then errata'd to support powergamers.
The assumptions of D&D4 are the first since AD&D to strongly support multiple battles with multiple opponents, each doing interesting things, great quest rules, and really good DM advice. They "fixed" the 15 minute adventuring day..
AND THEN...
Then they put out adventures and the adventure is just the delve format strung together, with no assumption of actual human interaction whatsoever. And made sure they never showed an adventure where anyone ever did an extended rest or thought of other things to do during the adventure. Because they thought they were "designing" the experience of play as well as the rules. Some of the better adventures are the RPGA ones, they don't really follow the delve format. Although they are still railroady as heck, because.. well, they are convention adventures. That's the approved concept, and has been since Raven's Bluff's Living City campaign from AD&D2e.
AND THEN.. to top it all off,
They spent way too much time trying to cater to the jackoffs who like to analyze rules so that they can prove how to outsmart them. Thus ensuring a continuously evolving set of errata, with nobody ever truly getting a handle on how anything worked, "invalidating" the books for new players, and then instead of letting some sleeping dogs lie, they would actually change some rules just to make room for new rules. They probably thought they were being responsive to the community. Actually I know this one. They thought they were being responsive to the community and being expert game designers. This was pure hubris.
FINALLY, by this time, they had no idea who their community was. Everyone was on the defensive because everyone was under attack at all times. Mike was put in charge, and he was trying to consolidate the whole thing with a beginners supplement that somehow brought the different pieces and goals all back together. That was Essentials. I'm not a fan of Essentials, although I can understand why people like it. The thing that was broken was how they interact with the fans and players. But when people try to say "Oh Essentials is the right direction, unlike "Heinsoo D&D" I think they are wrong. Heinsoo wrote a great game, and it was managed by people who were under a lot of pressure to make some guys look good, and by that time, there was no way to win.
I don't have any inside information, by the way, that's just how I see it.
. . . or it's just a SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARDGAME
. . . which is NOT WHAT WE WANTED.
It wasn't "written to support roleplayers". It was written as a miniatures boardgame. The damn game IS a miniatures boardgame. Period.
You are reading too much into this. The WotC people have already told us why it failed, and what they did wrong. There's no need to read between the lines. 4e is worst edition of D&D ever. It's a pile of steaming shit. It's buried. The end.
Quote from: Windjammer;507402However, the biggie is the wizard class. The wizard class failed to be a wizard class (in D&D terms), failed to be a controller class (in 4E) term, and failed to appease the 3.x hold-outs who frankly wanted a class which is a) insanely overpowered and b) takes months of in depth study time to figure out. It's a class that failed as a design in 3 editions all at once, and that's no small thing.
I think you're missing the narrowness of much of the design. Many people simply didn't want to play a Wizard the way the game was telling them to play one. For a wizard character I much prefer the Artificer class that was released later, it fits much better with how I like to play Wizards. The same for Rangers, just two narrow. Mearls later said on Rpgnet that the two Ranger builds were basically based off Drizzt and Legolas respectively. There was a kind of hubris in thinking that players were going to be happy with choosing between these two narrow options.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;507380I think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic.
Whatever.
I think it's the worst version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess that it is the best version of D&D, can't actually conceive of why enough people hated it--it is being shelved because it isn't D&D enough for the marketplace. I think everyone has a good idea on why that may be. But WOTC shelving 4e? That is not tragic; it is capitalism.
You have your game and books that they cannot take away, and Mearls has said they will not take away the DDI tools. The only thing you may lose out on are updates and errata if they choose to stop supporting 4e.
For me and the gamers I more identify with, they are reprinting the three core 1e books. Thanks to the OGL I have Swords & Wizardry and Labyrinth Lords to point new players to if need be.
I think we all win.
EDIT: The rest of your analysis seems spot on though.
Quote from: 1989;507272Why did it fail? Because it's a SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARDGAME.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507286Really they focused on pleasing a narrow band of the player base and did so at the expense of those with different preferences. So I think then game quite simply lacks broad appeal as a result.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507294The handwriting was on the wall for 4e with "Essentials". Remember, the ad push for 4e was practically tailor-made to destroy any goodwill anyone felt towards Wizards. The whole savings worth of said goodwill that they'd spent the introductory years of 3e building up went away in a flash. An ad campaign that said "Your games sucked and you're stupid for having played them this way"...
So after flipping the bird to about half their customer base, they immediately scrambled to get that base back.
Quote from: danbuter;507297Too many changes from previous editions.
Too much focus on combat abilities, while seemingly ignoring everything else. (I've since changed a bit about this, so if 4e came out right now, I doubt this would bother me).
Too much dependence on mats and minis.
Quote from: estar;507299It failed because it wasn't D&D.
The primary reason it failed was because of presentation issues not design.
Quote from: Doom;507336Certainly, a flipping off of "old school" gamers hurt (even if this insult wasn't intentional, it was perceived, so it IS a failure on the part of their PR).
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507367You know, I think we're overlooking the BIGGEST reason 4e failed:
not enough 4vengers
If only there'd been more people at every turn on open RPG forums telling people who enjoyed 3.5, 3.0, AD&D 2e, AD&D, original and basic of all its various stripes that they were dumb, that their opinions were dumb, that 4e was the pinnacle of game design, questioning the mindset and intelligence of people who didn't want to "evolve" or even worse people who'd go back and non-ironically play those earlier versions, 4e would have lived.
That's what my time here on theRPGsite and reading other forums has taught me. At least that's what I take away from it. Those poor guys :( they were being so screechy and hateful in an attempt to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive as it were.
Quote from: B.T.;507396Then there was the marketing campaign. Given how gamers get attached to their hobby, changing things up and telling them they were playing the game wrong the whole time and not actually having fun will piss them off. Along with the arrogant attitude of the 4e developers ("We're not going to show you anything but trust us, you're going to love it!"), the failure to address any concerns that 3e players had about their game compounded this issue.
On top of this, 4e was written to push tactical combat. The majority of powers were designed with an emphasis on moving enemies around the board and activating status effects. With their format, poor fluff, and dissociated mechanics, this resulted in really boring abilities. X[W] + Y + status effect is not intriguing. It does not pique my interest. It does not make me want to play that class.
Finally, the galvanized 4vengers were another issue. When popular online RPG venues are edition warrior territory, where any questions or criticisms of 4e are drowned out in a shitflood, where blatant favoritism is shown to those on the side of 4e, and you have a mess. A horrendous, embittering mess that soured a number of people (myself included) on 4e.
Altogether, these things are the crux of 4e's problem. EDIT:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. "If you don't love 4e, you're not smart enough to understand why it's so great." Go fuck yourself, AM.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;507397I can tell you why I didn't buy it: it was too far removed from what I think of as D&D. It was a different game with the same name. It's not what I wanted when I wanted to play "D&D."
Quote from: Windjammer;507401It was the monotony that killed the product's potential for enthusiastic play at home. Yes, Heinsoo indeed created a brilliant game, DDM 2.0, perhaps really the best ever base engine for a simple RPG like D&D. That base engine could have served to promote a variety of campaign styles, a math so simple, so transparent, so customizable, it should have been the wet dream for a next generation of time-pressed kitbashers.
Instead, WotC chained the product to one particular view of what to do with that engine, and tried to create an homogenized play style which I guess D&D has not seen since the very earliest days of the hobby. Why on earth this was attempted is anyone's guess. The attempt failed miserably, and the hobby is the richer for that.
Quote from: JasperAK;507408I think it's the worst version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess that it is the best version of D&D, can't actually conceive of why enough people hated it--it is being shelved because it isn't D&D enough for the marketplace. I think everyone has a good idea on why that may be. But WOTC shelving 4e? That is not tragic; it is capitalism.
All of the above.
4E just wasn't what I want out of D&D.
However, the fucking 4vengers and their support by WotC marketting were what drove me away from the game. Why? I play RPGs to have fun and escape the Real World for awhile. Having a brainwashed corporate schill tell me I am "lost in nostalgia" because I do not want to play a piss poor RPG simulation of an MMO just makes me want to kick those same schills in their crotches because it is an unneccessary load of bullshit drama to dump on a hobby that I unashemedly love.
Quote from: jeff37923;507440However, the fucking 4vengers and their support by WotC marketting were what drove me away from the game.
Were the 4vengers online or offline?
I don't think I've met anybody offline who was a 4venger. If they were, they largely kept it to themselves offline.
Quote from: ggroy;507442Were the 4vengers online or offline?
I don't think I've met anybody offline who was a 4venger. If they were, they largely kept it to themselves offline.
Both. I originally thought it was just online, but I actually ran into a few 4venging RPGA members who schilled the WotC hype. One worked at a local Nord's Games.
Actually, that one deserves mentioning. I had gone into Nord's Games to buy some 3E items that had been discounted. I had about $50 worth of stuff at the counter and was about to pay when this 4venging shit behind the register began teling me how I was an idiot to be buying that and not 4E - so I just agreed with him and left the store without purchasing anything. Haven't been back since. Way to make a sale, 4venging fucktard!
QuoteOriginally Posted by Abyssal Maw
I think it's the best version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess to hate it, don't actually know that much about it other than "what they heard", which is tragic.
QuoteWhatever.
I think it's the worst version of D&D ever published. Most people who profess that it is the best version of D&D, can't actually conceive of why enough people hated it--it is being shelved because it isn't D&D enough for the marketplace. I think everyone has a good idea on why that may be. But WOTC shelving 4e? That is not tragic; it is capitalism.
Sheeeeeeeeesh, talk about extremism. It is just a game, fellas, just a game.
QuoteOriginally Posted by jeff37923
However, the fucking 4vengers and their support by WotC marketting were what drove me away from the game.
Can you say, NERD RAGE????
QuoteWere the 4vengers online or offline?
I don't think I've met anybody offline who was a 4venger. If they were, they largely kept it to themselves offline.
I have not either. I suspect it is one of those lame conspiracy theorists spouting off as usual.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;507445Can you say, NERD RAGE????
No, what I can say is that insulting your customer base who have supported your product for 35+ years is a really stupid way to make money. It would seem that current events have proven this to be correct.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;507445I have not either. I suspect it is one of those lame conspiracy theorists spouting off as usual.
Yeah, I know! Just like those lame fuckers who claim that they always play RAW with no problems! Both are just all fucked up! :D
Ancientgamer is the worst troll.
Quote from: jeff37923;507440I do not want to play a piss poor RPG simulation of an MMO
Well hey, I don't want CRPGs to be piss-poor simulations of tabletop ones, and yet I've had to deal with crappy baggage brought over from tabletop for years rather than getting games like Deus Ex: HR or Skyrim that understand the strengths of the medium.
Quote from: Peregrin;507451Well hey, I don't want CRPGs to be piss-poor simulations of tabletop ones, and yet I've had to deal with crappy baggage brought over from tabletop for years rather than getting games like Deus Ex: HR or Skyrim that understand the strengths of the medium.
I hate to point out the obvious here, but
you could always just not play the games that you think suck.I mean, it works for me.
Quote from: Windjammer;507402Except that the PHB was right, out of the gate. Unlike monster damage or monster defense scores, the PHB errata are mostly just a pile of steaming shit trying desperately to sell later classes ('Forget about the STR-cleric, here's our Runepriest (tm)!!!').
I agree with you that the 4e PHB classes are well designed. I love the 4e Fighter. But the presentation is terrible, especially the core class abilities, like the Fighter's battlefield-control abilities (the presentation of the Powers is mostly ok). I found it indecipherable. In 2008 I tried and failed to create 4e PCs, gave up for a year until the free character generator software enabled me to do it.
Also, more generally, the whole 'business briefing' style and over-fussy combat-centric artwork does not work. The 3e PHB was too dry too, but at least it made creating a 1st level PC very easy, with the default starting packages. Nothing like that in 4e PHB.
Quote from: Windjammer;507402So, the PHB was a stunning success by a lot of counts. While the presentation was hardly endearing on a first read, its functionality in play was undeniable.
But that's my point - the PHB is the first point of contact with the game for potential new players. Its in-play functionality (which is good, and it's the one book I bring to every game) is irrelevant if people never actually get as far as playing the game.
Quote from: B.T.;507396P.S. Did you get the joke about incremental vs. excremental? OY MY TALENTS ARE WASTED ON YOU LOT.
I got it, and thought it was very funny.
I think you've pretty much nailed it,
but you didn't go far enough; there's a sizeable chunk of the roleplaying market that just
hates change, and the internet gives them an opportunity to lash out even more, rather than just accepting "this is not for me, so I will let it's fans go and do it's own thing".
Those 4e flamewars weren't just 4vengers lashing out, after all, although Wizards fanning the flames before launch certainly didn't help. Both sides had some shitheads.
Actually, I wonder how well D&D4 would have been accepted if the initial communications hadn't been so antagonistic from WotC. Certainly there's plenty to dislike if you read the books, but I tought there was plenty to like, too (The game itself just wasn't a good fit for our group, so I got rid of my books years ago).
I'm still pissed we never got a D&D4 Tactics computer game, though.
Quote from: S'mon;507463I agree with you that the 4e PHB classes are well designed. I love the 4e Fighter. But the presentation is terrible, especially the core class abilities, like the Fighter's battlefield-control abilities (the presentation of the Powers is mostly ok). I found it indecipherable. In 2008 I tried and failed to create 4e PCs, gave up for a year until the free character generator software enabled me to do it.
Also, more generally, the whole 'business briefing' style and over-fussy combat-centric artwork does not work. The 3e PHB was too dry too, but at least it made creating a 1st level PC very easy, with the default starting packages. Nothing like that in 4e PHB.
This is one of the things I can't personally relate to or understand. For me it was the other way round - without the Dummies book, I'd have never been able to make my first 3.x character (try to understand what feats and skills are (for) on a first read through). But 4E had something very similar to 'default starting packages', by offering default power and feat choices for each class build, and giving clear indications how to arrange your stats. I agree, they left out automatizing gear, but that's as far as I understand the only thing the CB helped.
Quote from: 4E PHB, p.76Great Weapon Fighter
You’re interested in dealing out the most damage
you can. You prefer big two-handed weapons such as
the greatsword or greataxe. You’re more interested
in fighting hard than fighting smart. Your best ability
score is definitely Strength. A good Constitution
improves your ability to use high damage weapons,
such as axes and hammers. Plus, extra hit points
always help. Select powers that work well with two-handed
weapons to make the most of this build.
Suggested Feat: Power Attack (Human feat:
Action Surge)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Intimidate
Suggested At-Will Powers: cleave, reaping strike
Suggested Encounter Power: spinning sweep
Suggested Daily Power: brute strike
And what about the rules on char-gen on pp.14-18 + 30-31 was unclear?
I agree there were quite a number of details that took time to understand. Like the famous "[W]" abbreviation; the way that armor type interacted with magic armor bonuses to AC, and so on. But these were details of the sort that you might have missed a couple of bonuses here and there, nothing that meant you wouldn't have a playable character on hand after 40 minutes (20, if doing it for a third or fourth time).
I don't mean to write one of these 'you can't be right because your experiences don't match mine' posts, but I'd appreciate hearing a bit more from you (to the extent you recall) where and how you failed at 4E char-gen. I'm especially interested because I recall recently reading a post pretty much like yours by Abyssal Maw, and he was an LFR admin from the first minute.
I recall running into some issues on my first read through as well. It was all easily overcome through re-reading and conjecture but I think the clarity issues I encountered in the 4E PHB had to do with the succinct natue of the writing. As a writer myself I appreciate the art of phrasing things concisely. However with something as technical as an RPG system, it really helps to leave room for clarity. A few more examples, or restating the basic principle in other ways really helps. So the issue I noticed was if a passage was unclear, I was stuck trying to figure out what they meant from that one small passage alone (no follow up elaborations). Going by memory of course, so take it with a grain of salt (last time I read the 4E PHB was December 2010.
Quote from: jeff37923;507452I hate to point out the obvious here, but you could always just not play the games that you think suck.
I mean, it works for me.
Its not that they suck, its just that they could've been so much better.
Quote from: JeffAll of the above.
4E just wasn't what I want out of D&D.
Jeff stringing together all those quotes was similar to where I was an am. Because they all touch on my opinion, but none of them quite mirror it.
RPGs are written with a play style and a setting style they are optimized for. When we talk about class or role balance, we are talking about the the critical rules fulcrum; where did the designers balance the game and how broad is that fulcrum?
I have spent time in other forums describing this from the point of design for 5e. For 4w, my translation of many of the earlier explanations is that they moved the fulcrum of player-role balance to combat. The 4e rules were actually very well done in accomplishing what they wanted to do. They just moved the fulcrum from where it used to be to combat.
Earlier versions of the game had role balance based mainly on exploration, and then later on the fulcrum moved over from pure exploration, to a bit of a widening of the fulcrum adding the longer adventure then adding the campaign to the fulcrum, with more and more emphasis being put on balancing the game in the long-term campaign. (you really have to look at the experience charts, stronghold building, tithes, men at arms and taxes, as well as the RAW with spell components in the older books to relly get a handle on the care that was put inot this balance)
4e's biggest failure, in my estimation, is making a radical change to the fulcrum of rules balance to combat. I have heard others make the same comment about it being an 'encounter-centric' game, but one needs to see where it changed from to understand how radical the change. Striker? Defender? It was obvious from the first that the role balance had shiften this way. In earler games, you accepted that your thief was going to shoot a lot of arrows and be second class in combat; but if you were smart and had a good GM, you were climbing walls, or hiding and scouting alot; or using your in-town abilities like picking pockets, and you had areas of you own you excelled in. the same was true in every class. yes, every notes that a high-level mage is a tough opponent in earlier games, but they get their stronghold
much later, it's a lot smaller and provides less revenue....all part of where rules balanced the game.
Or, if you prefer, as viewed from a different lens; it went from being a game whose rules-fulcrum was in an area where a cpg could not match to a fulcrum where the tabletop game had a severe visceral disadvantage to a MMORPG.
Quote from: beejazz;507392That's a point you're going to want to expand on. Especially the first and third points.
On this I agreed with Abyssal Maw opinions. When you look at the 4e DM's Guide it has very good advice about roleplaying and give useful information to use when starting out with 4e. Nentil's Vale, Fallcrest, the math behind the system and so on. The combination in my opinion makes it the second best DMG in the history of D&D.
They had an adventure in there that was OK. Not good but not bad largely a set piece to illustrate how a adventure site looked in 4e. At the time I chalked it up to space limitations. I didn't think that was how the larger adventures were going to be.
But in the end that how the published adventures turned out. Which made them feel like elaborate Battletech, Star Fleet Battles, or any other plot heavy wargame scenario. In shore they were treating D&D as a board game.
Part of the problem is that the Wizard's team feel into a common trap. Back in the day many gamers in my area were unhappy with the abstract nature of AD&D. So they switched to Runequest, and other more detailed systems. And trap was that some referee's, myself included, let combat dominate the game to the point that it was a more a board game than a roleplaying game.
This happen because the game was new and shiny and you wanted to play with all the bits that made it different than AD&D. Combined with the fact that tactically detailed combat took longer to resolve meant that combat dominated the actual playing time. And it was very easy for us to wind up focusing on that.
This is what happened with the fans and designers of 4e. They didn't apply the correct techniques and didn't give the right advice to make sure that tactically detailed combat didn't overshadow the other vital aspect of a roleplaying game.
Quote from: jeff37923;507444Actually, that one deserves mentioning. I had gone into Nord's Games to buy some 3E items that had been discounted. I had about $50 worth of stuff at the counter and was about to pay when this 4venging shit behind the register began teling me how I was an idiot to be buying that and not 4E - so I just agreed with him and left the store without purchasing anything. Haven't been back since. Way to make a sale, 4venging fucktard!
Ah yes, I remember you telling us that story before.
They don't even realize, do they? I don't think they do.
Quote from: Windjammer;507477And what about the rules on char-gen on pp.14-18 + 30-31 was unclear?
.
Hey, it's great, and it works (although, damn, I must have read that combat superiority rules a 100 times).
The initial PHB is not why 4e failed. It was all the new stuff, including all the new chargen ways, that hurt.
Put the PHB down, go pay $20 or whatever it nowadays to use their online character builder to make that particular fighter. It's a mess, I had no idea how bad it was until I was making level 1 characters for some friends that wanted to try 4e a few months back.
My GF insisted on the character builder, while I just wanted to use the PHB. Anyway, you should have *seen* the struggling to just make that simple character using their online rules. You could make *a* character, but if you've a Luddite GM that wants to actually look it up in the books to see where it all comes from (this was also a problem with Red Box, where there was some chargen stuff that someone with only the PHB could never figure out), no way.
QuoteYou're interested in dealing out the most damage
you can. You prefer big two-handed weapons such as
the greatsword or greataxe. You're more interested
in fighting hard than fighting smart. Your best ability
score is definitely Strength. A good Constitution
improves your ability to use high damage weapons,
such as axes and hammers. Plus, extra hit points
always help. Select powers that work well with two-handed
weapons to make the most of this build.
Suggested Feat: Power Attack (Human feat:
Action Surge)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Intimidate
Suggested At-Will Powers: cleave, reaping strike
Suggested Encounter Power: spinning sweep
Suggested Daily Power: brute strike
This is just fucking terrible writing. There's nothing in here to capture the imagination at all. It's as if the writer isn't even having fun with it. "You're more interested in fighting hard than fighting smart?" Jesus fuck would you even pretend to step outside the cubicle for a minute. It's like a Powerpoint presentation aimed at stupid 9-year-olds. If you're one of those piggy twits who sees the word D&D and that's all you need for your dreams to take off, more power to your brand loyalty I guess, but this shit is redundant, boring, and witless. You're better off saying "do you want a guy that looks like this?", having the picture of your fighter, and cutting to the suggested powers. If you're not going to bother writing shit, may as well not have the text in there taking up space!
Quote from: Imp;507526This is just fucking terrible writing. There's nothing in here to capture the imagination at all. It's as if the writer isn't even having fun with it. "You're more interested in fighting hard than fighting smart?" Jesus fuck would you even pretend to step outside the cubicle for a minute. It's like a Powerpoint presentation aimed at stupid 9-year-olds. If you're one of those piggy twits who sees the word D&D and that's all you need for your dreams to take off, more power to your brand loyalty I guess, but this shit is redundant, boring, and witless. You're better off saying "do you want a guy that looks like this?", having the picture of your fighter, and cutting to the suggested powers. If you're not going to bother writing shit, may as well not have the text in there taking up space!
I agree that the writing isn't terribly evocative or clever. Flavor matters and I think WOTC underestimated its importance when designing 4E.
Quote from: Doom;507502Hey, it's great, and it works (although, damn, I must have read that combat superiority rules a 100 times).
I found the description of combat superiority et al terrible, but I persevered and finally understood it. With Wizards & other classes I have to confess I *still* don't really understand how they work! It takes so much effort to understand 4e classes, the only ones I grok are two I've played - Fighter & Essentials Thief. I also played a Barbarian but maybe I didn't understand it, since my PC sucked.
The good thing about 4e is that I can still run a successful campaign without understanding the rules for PCs. Running 1e again recently, I do like how everything in the PHB seems comprehensible, even all the stuff I choose to discard.
Edit: I'm planning to play a 4e Paladin soon, feeling pretty nervous! *eek* :)
QuoteI agree that the writing isn't terribly evocative or clever.
I think the main virtue of "Gygaxian" prose is not so much its quality (because he's not that great of a writer) but that it conveys a great deal of enthusiasm for the game being presented. You're reading somebody who's getting lost in the worlds he's presenting to you.
It doesn't have to look like Gygax-writing, but it does have to look like the writer's having fun.
Quote from: Ladybird;507468Those 4e flamewars weren't just 4vengers lashing out, after all, although Wizards fanning the flames before launch certainly didn't help. Both sides had some shitheads.
Actually, I wonder how well D&D4 would have been accepted if the initial communications hadn't been so antagonistic from WotC.
4E still would not have been the D&D I like to play, but I really think that WotC's antagonistic marketting approach and their encouragement of this antagonism in fans made 4E a far more bitter pill to swallow than it had to be.
Quote from: Imp;507531I think the main virtue of "Gygaxian" prose is not so much its quality (because he's not that great of a writer) but that it conveys a great deal of enthusiasm for the game being presented. You're reading somebody who's getting lost in the worlds he's presenting to you.
It doesn't have to look like Gygax-writing, but it does have to look like the writer's having fun.
Enthusiasm goes a long way. The 1E DMG is a pleasure to read because Gygax clealy likes writing about the topic. As a writer Gygax did have a some strengths though. The big one for me is his ability to fill in the nooks and crannies of the page. He can just keep going on an idea where another writer might leave it as a single paragraph or two.
Quote from: jhkim;507276While I think it did not succeed the way that Wizards wanted it to, I do have this to say:
Many new editions are "successes" by virtue of successfully marketing to the existing fan base - especially the hard-core grognards. By retaining this core of their old customers, they have a guaranteed market and make money by selling them a boatload of new books. However, by marketing to the grognards, it is inevitably a shrinking guaranteed market with each new edition - because pleasing the grognards is less likely to please new, younger players.
Ryan Dancey claims that 3e at its peak outsold 2e circa 1989.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Imp;507526This is just fucking terrible writing.
How 4E awful writing is almost never considered in these debates never fails to amaze me.
3E had an interesting, evocative style that just made you want to play - or even just to buy the book for the sheer pleasure of reading it.
I remember how the very first thing I ever read in 3.5E PH was the intro to the Cleric. It delved into what a fantasy cleric was, their importance in various cultures, "faith" and different interpretations of this concept in D&D world and so on.
In short, it already made this whole "cleric" thinghie an interesting concept to explore on multiple fronts
before even giving a single rule about it. At that point the natural reaction was "Wow! Now gimme the rules!"
The same happened, for example, with the feats, a concept similar to GURPS' "advantages" mechanism: you could still choose an archetype for your character, but then feats gave you the opportunity to personalize him in a narrative way ("tough"... "diligent"...) before even starting to consider what the feats mechanically did.
And, as I often said, this almost uniform level of quality in the fluff across 3.X made me buy more supplements than I actually needed, just because I liked to read them and to let my imagination run wild. I can honestly say that, fluff-wise, 3.XE seldom disappointed me.
Now, let's see what happened with 4E. That the system was going to
stink hard was a given, after reading the previews. However, system and fluff not always are of the same quality (just look at MERP) so I bought the 4E Forgotten Realms books...
...And I had to roll for disbelief. No, really: had anyone with any kind of FR experience ever considered what 4E FR said about 4E as a whole?? Well, someone did (http://nitessine.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/a-rant-and-a-review-forgotten-realms-campaign-guide/).
At the end, there is a reason why I have almost all MERP supplements ever published even if I never liked "Role Master-lite" as a system... I still have to find a single reason to own a single 4E book. The only thing 4E related I like and use is some of its very evocative art, and it is available for free on the web.
4e Failed because it made an enemy of me.
If 5e succeeds, it will because it has me as a friend.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;5075454e Failed because it made an enemy of me.
If 5e succeeds, it will because it has me as a friend.
RPGPundit
:rotfl:
Quote from: RPGPundit;5075454e Failed because it made an enemy of me.
If 5e succeeds, it will because it has me as a friend.
RPGPundit
Careful, pundit! You'll dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back like that! :D
I think people are vastly underestimating (or depending on your view, overestimating) WotC.
They fired their old customers through an aggressive marketing campaign.
They pulled all support for older editons.
They designed a game specifically to bring in the young MMOG generation.
They created a MMOG on paper (and as such, it is a very good tabletop MMOG simulator), however, as Lord Vreeg said, they completely moved D&D away from what D&D was originally focused on.
They wrote a PHB that looks and reads like a Brady Guide to a MMOG.
Every single point here, all of this, was intentional. It was by design. The mistake wasn't in execution, it was in heading down this road to begin with.
Quote from: Imp;507526This is just fucking terrible writing. There's nothing in here to capture the imagination at all. It's as if the writer isn't even having fun with it. "You’re more interested in fighting hard than fighting smart?" Jesus fuck would you even pretend to step outside the cubicle for a minute. It's like a Powerpoint presentation aimed at stupid 9-year-olds. If you're one of those piggy twits who sees the word D&D and that's all you need for your dreams to take off, more power to your brand loyalty I guess, but this shit is redundant, boring, and witless. You're better off saying "do you want a guy that looks like this?", having the picture of your fighter, and cutting to the suggested powers. If you're not going to bother writing shit, may as well not have the text in there taking up space!
Dude, that's hardly the entirety of the class description, let alone the introductory 'sell me on this class' flavour text. It's a
pretty straight forward instruction, appearing much later in the class' entry,
on how to build your first great weapon fighter, and I offered it in
exactly that spirit to people who claimed they had a hard time to follow these instructions, while they had no issue deciphering more terse entries in the 3.x PHBs.
I concur that the text I cited won't win any prices for flavourful, evocative writing, but to peg a whole edition's merits in flavour on the grounds of that text can't be taken seriously either.
Here's the opening paragraph of the class's entry in the Compendium:
QuoteFighters are among the world’s greatest warriors, having earned their status through hours upon hours of training and perfecting their fighting techniques. In battle, fighters hold the front line by slashing and striking in all directions, deflecting blows with shield or armor, and bashing anyone who dares take their focus from them. Fighters might be mercenaries, chasing after gold, thrill-seekers craving glory, nobles fighting for duty or honor, or brawlers throwing themselves into battle to experience the joy of combat.
Here for rogue:
QuoteThat rogues have a dubious reputation is no secret. They are a varied breed, after all, and include all manner of unsavory types. They are the cutpurses and footpads prowling the city’s seediest districts. They are infamous pirates whose daring is the stuff of legends. They are the bandits in the wilderness who prey on travelers. They are the tomb robbers, the archeologists, the fallen nobles, the dashing knaves, the bold heroes who fight injustice whatever way they can. They are all these things and more. And for every rogue who embraces crime, there’s another who uses his or her talents for good ends.
These are no match for S&W Complete's ranger entry, but I still find them rather accomplished. As for 4E showing some bad writing throughout, I've been rather verbose on that myself in the past. All I'm asking is that we align the goal posts and the exhibits in a fair minded spirit.
I have unfortunately read the whole thing, and the majority of the 4e PHB reads like the first bit you quoted about the heavy weapons fighter. Good lord, the powers section. I can't say enough bad things about it. A few decent perfunctory opening paragraphs aren't enough to make the whole book readable or look like it's a fun game, because that's not how books work, you can't say "here's a fun thing to read, now here's a bunch of boring things" and expect the reader to think they have read something fun about something that is fun.
That's why I hate the idea of "fluff" and "crunch" that has permeated RPGs for years. You can do both at the same time! You should do both at the same time! The most famously immortal part of the AD&D DMG is the table of city encounters! "Brazen strumpet!" "Haughty courtesan!"
Quote from: Imp;507569I have unfortunately read the whole thing, and the majority of the 4e PHB reads like the first bit you quoted about the heavy weapons fighter. Good lord, the powers section. I can't say enough bad things about it. A few decent perfunctory opening paragraphs aren't enough to make the whole book readable or look like it's a fun game, because that's not how books work, you can't say "here's a fun thing to read, now here's a bunch of boring things" and expect the reader to think they have read something fun about something that is fun.
Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement? 4e plays a lot more enjoyably than it reads. And since when is reading rules the fun part of any game? I didn't swear off Ticket to Ride because reading the rules was dry and charmless.
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement?
Doubtful.
Quote from: two_fishes;507572I didn't swear off Ticket to Ride because reading the rules was dry and charmless.
One of these things is not like the other, Ticket to Ride is a role-playing game like 4E?
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement? 4e plays a lot more enjoyably than it reads. And since when is reading rules the fun part of any game? I didn't swear off Ticket to Ride because reading the rules was dry and charmless.
If by entitlement you mean they feel entitled to play a game they enjoy, then yes. But I think this attitude is part of the reason 4E failed to succeed. Designers were too busy telling gamers what they should like, instead of listening to what we wanted from them. There is nothing unusual about gamers in this respect. If any other company puts out a product that turns off half or more of its customer base, then they will have issues with sales. The basic problem to me is WOTC failed to understand its customers.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507574Designers were too busy telling gamers what they should like, instead of listening to what we wanted from them.
This.
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement? 4e plays a lot more enjoyably than it reads.
Until your piggy little whore kind begins to understand that is a
problem, you'll never get anywhere. Probably you should just go hang yourself immediately.
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement?
Even if this was true, they would have failed in creating a product for whiners with a huge sense of entitlement.
You write Olivier for Olivier and Chris Rock for Chris Rock. Doing the opposite seldom ends well.
Quote from: BBThe basic problem to me is WOTC failed to understand its customers.
ah, yes. here we go.
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement? 4e plays a lot more enjoyably than it reads. And since when is reading rules the fun part of any game? I didn't swear off Ticket to Ride because reading the rules was dry and charmless.
Hahaha, oh man, this is
amazing. When confronted with the failure of his beloved, the 4rry lashes out at those who might oppose his precious new edition. He unwittingly provides for the masses in a single paragraph an encapsulation of the 4venger mindset: bitter, zealous, thoughtless, stupid.
WotC made an underwhelming product that I didn't want to buy because it was a terrible system full of terrible rules changes and jingoistically endorsed by terrible people. Now, because I didn't go and drop $250 on a new edition and a handful of splatbooks,
I am the reason that 4e failed.And really, because I don't want to spend my money on a bad product, I'm the entitled one. Not the corporate profiteers at WotC--no, me, as the consumer,
I am entitled.
Actually, Ticket to Ride's rules really turned me on to the game...2 pages, and I seem to recall some fun notes in them.
Avalon Hill's Wizards also had a fun rulebook--they literally wrote it as though the players were going to make the world a better place by playing it.
Sometimes, yeah, reading the rules IS a good part of the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507574If by entitlement you mean they feel entitled to play a game they enjoy, then yes.
No one should play a game they don't enjoy, but this wasn't about enjoyment of the game. The poster was complaining because reading the rules was a little dull, a thing apart from actual play of the game. There has been some good and insightful criticism of WOTC and 4e on this thread but this one just made me roll my eyes.
Quote from: Imp;507582Until your piggy little whore kind begins to understand that is a problem, you'll never get anywhere. Probably you should just go hang yourself immediately.
Your masterful rhetoric has driven me to suicide.
Quote from: B.T.;507591Hahaha, oh man, this is amazing. When confronted with the failure of his beloved, the 4rry lashes out at those who might oppose his precious new edition. He unwittingly provides for the masses in a single paragraph an encapsulation of the 4venger mindset: bitter, zealous, thoughtless, stupid.
WotC made an underwhelming product that I didn't want to buy because it was a terrible system full of terrible rules changes and jingoistically endorsed by terrible people. Now, because I didn't go and drop $250 on a new edition and a handful of splatbooks, I am the reason that 4e failed.
And really, because I don't want to spend my money on a bad product, I'm the entitled one. Not the corporate profiteers at WotC--no, me, as the consumer, I am entitled.
:rolleyes: You're an idiot.
Quote from: B.T.;507591WotC made an underwhelming product that I didn't want to buy because it was a terrible system full of terrible rules changes and jingoistically endorsed by terrible people. Now, because I didn't go and drop $250 on a new edition and a handful of splatbooks, I am the reason that 4e failed.
You killed 4e with your "high standards" and "requirement that a product does what you want before you buy it".
You.
Personally.
I hope you're bloody happy. I hope you TAKE your DAMN $250 and BUY SOMETHING YOU LIKE WITH IT.
Quote from: two_fishes;507603No one should play a game they don't enjoy, but this wasn't about enjoyment of the game. The poster was complaining because reading the rules was a little dull, a thing apart from actual play of the game. There has been some good and insightful criticism of WOTC and 4e on this thread but this one just made me roll my eyest.
Why? RPG rule books are lengthy, so it is important for them to be fun to read. They also need to get you excited about playing the game. RPG rulebooks are different from board game rule booklets. There is an expectation of good writing and flavor. WOTC, as the biggest fish in the pond should have no problem hiring writers who can make a rule book that isn't dull. It is also important because the writing shapes how people use the game in practice.
Besides the criticism wasn't just that it was dull, but that is it was dull and unclear.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507607Why? RPG rule books are lengthy, so it is important for them to be fun to read.
This, this, and this times a thousand. Polish RPG Neuroshima (Post - Apocalyptic USA) has rather bad mechanics - but I'd say it's worth to buy every single supplement they get out, because they are written in the language, and often from the standpoint of characters that live in the world.
For example, a character creation chapter in the main corebook is basically set to a tune of talking with a die - hard Mexican bandit.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507607Why? RPG rule books are lengthy, so it is important for them to be fun to read. They also need to get you excited about playing the game.
I don't think these are both the same thing. I think game rules should make you
excited to play and show you the fun things that can be done with the setting and rules, but I don't think the rules
themselves have to be an entertaining read. They're a reference, and the priority with the rules section should be clarity and functionality; can I get what I need from the book, in a hurry.
I'd certainly prefer an entertaining and functional rule book to one that was just functional, but I'd rather have either of those than a poorly-functioning rulebook.
I think WotC hamstrung themselves a bit with the "everything is core!" mentality, because it meant that all their write-ups had to be applicable to
any conceivable D&D world, so they couldn't include much flavour. It's much easier to write that for a game with it's own defined setting (PoLand not
quite being that, but more of a fallback location).
So you can see where I'm coming from, rule books that are both functional and entertaining, my picks would be
Reign,
WFRP1 and any of FFG's WH40K games; entertaining but non-functional would be
Apocalypse World and
Nephilim; non-entertaining but functional would be
D&D4 and
Victoriana 2e, and I don't have any poorly written and non-functional books.
Quote from: two_fishes;507603Your masterful rhetoric has driven me to suicide.
If only we were so lucky.
Quote from: two_fishes;507603:rolleyes: You're an idiot.
It's the snappy repartee and absolutely iron-clad logic of the 4Venger that make 4e so damn attractive to me.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507625It's the snappy repartee and absolutely iron-clad logic of the 4Venger that make 4e so damn attractive to me.
But you are just not loving it enough.
It's like inversion of a hippie.
The real problem is that 4e replaced a big tent with a little one and everyone left on the outside feels slighted while the guys in the tent can't figure why all those other guys are standing out in the rain yelling. Not only that the guys in the tent don't want to end up out in the rain themselves.
The trick for 5e will be creating a new big tent instead of a field full of little tents, each an armed camp hating and loathing their neighbours. Really I've got no faith in WotC's ability to do this.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507574If by entitlement you mean they feel entitled to play a game they enjoy, then yes. But I think this attitude is part of the reason 4E failed to succeed. Designers were too busy telling gamers what they should like, instead of listening to what we wanted from them. There is nothing unusual about gamers in this respect. If any other company puts out a product that turns off half or more of its customer base, then they will have issues with sales. The basic problem to me is WOTC failed to understand its customers.
I agree that the charge of "entitlement" is nonsense.
However, the pitfall that I was talking to earlier is that "listening to customers" often means listening to the most vocal of current players - i.e. the hard-core grognards like us who discuss the games on forums, attend conventions, and so forth. I think that designing to this core results in moderately successful products that sell well to a shrinking core market.
While I personally enjoy it when a game is made for my demographic, I think it is also a good thing when games are made for other groups.
Quote from: jhkim;507646I agree that the charge of "entitlement" is nonsense.
However, the pitfall that I was talking to earlier is that "listening to customers" often means listening to the most vocal of current players - i.e. the hard-core grognards like us who discuss the games on forums, attend conventions, and so forth. I think that designing to this core results in moderately successful products that sell well to a shrinking core market.
While I personally enjoy it when a game is made for my demographic, I think it is also a good thing when games are made for other groups.
Except that WotC didn't listen to the entire market demographic when they designed 4E. They listened to the RPGA and what we got with 4E is RPGA D&D with the volume turned up to eleven.
What's more ironic is that 4e caters to entitled players more than any other edition of D&D. Whereas in older editions the DM was encouraged to give players a nice "fuck you" with permanent stat and level drain, 4e removed any sort of longterm consequences from the mechanics, instead substituting it with a "you must say yes to the players" mindset. You wouldn't believe the tantrums thrown on the 4e forums when I innocuously (lolno) suggested banning dragonborn, tieflings, eladrin, and warlords from my game because I didn't like them.
Even with the hardcore 3e players, I think the entitlement mindset wasn't this bad. You'd get the occasional manchildren ranting about WHY DON'T YOU ALLOW THIS--particularly with Tome of Battle and, to a lesser extent, the Expanded Psionics Handbook--but I think that if I suggested banning half-orcs and elves, most people wouldn't throw a shitfit.
Even things like "paladins and clerics can't lose their powers" reinforces just what a watered-down "the DM is just one of the players" edition 4e is.
Quote from: jhkim;507646However, the pitfall that I was talking to earlier is that "listening to customers" often means listening to the most vocal of current players - i.e. the hard-core grognards like us who discuss the games on forums, attend conventions, and so forth. I think that designing to this core results in moderately successful products that sell well to a shrinking core market.
It results in new editions of
D&D for people who don't like
D&D and want it to be something else.
People should really stop throwing "entitled" around.
Most of the time it means "people who want something I don't like".
If both sides of a debate feel confident they can label the other side as "entitled" then the term is never going get anyone very far.
Quote from: RPGPundit;5075454e Failed because it made an enemy of me.
If 5e succeeds, it will because it has me as a friend.
RPGPundit
Funniest thing you have said ever. :D
Quote from: two_fishes;507572Could it be that 4e failed because role-plays are whiners with a huge sense of entitlement?
Could it be that 4e failed in the marketplace because twits like you couldn't spend enough money on it? While the rest of us played the games we liked.
Sort of tangential, but someone's going to have to explain why the 4e fighter is so amazing. I mean, I found it to be the driest, most tedious thing I've had to scratch up for play -- ever. I tried to tinker with a CHA fighter, buying various weapons to have spares and deal with different situations, save some money for nice clothes and roleplay... nada. (And that accursed Challenge Rating/Encounter Level of 3e/4e still gets on my nerves. There's this supposed "weight" you're expected to carry and in 4e Adventures if you're not optimized you start to become dead weight or something. Whatever, I just had a horrible experience with these things.)
See, once I ran a few char-gen write ups with the book or a free online char-generator, I became sooo bored. It quickly became: Choose Class, Check Powers -- note At-Wills attribute mods, prime check abilities that do multiple hits, life bloat/super defense, or field control (in that order), plan out your Power progression tree, and then go back and point buy your Attributes to your "theme." However each and every time it fell back to "Drop an 18 (or higher) in STR" and work from there. Then dump the rest of the stats, cherry pick the available Feats that munchkin out your build, pick gear, then work terrain as you would in any Turn Based Strat.
It was dirt easy and too boring for me. I felt no flavor. I felt creatively hamstrung by such obvious optimization. At some point I was asking myself "how could I not munchkin?"
So, I therefore must be doing something wrong. Because others have found this version of the fighter the coolest version yet, and I just cannot see it. So I'm open to being schooled, because I'm willing to discover where I overlooked the beautiful details.
PS: Sorry for the derailment. By the way, I do think D&D Tactics is pleasing on its own merits. But from my perspective it really needs to be clearly differentiated from regular RPG D&D. That was a huge stumbling block for me, and likely for others as well.
Quote from: JasperAK;507667Could it be that 4e failed in the marketplace because twits like you couldn't spend enough money on it?
4vengers confirmed for poors.
Quote from: beejazz;507270If it failed at all (remember it probably remained profitable, even if WotC decided it wasn't profitable *enough*).
(1) In the history of the industry, no "reboot edition" (as opposed to an "errata edition" like those produced for CoC) has ever succeeded without a clear, deep dissatisfaction with the current edition. (IMO, this is probably because of the deep investments of time, passion, experience, and expertise people make in their RPGs.)
It's clear that there was no deep dissatisfaction with 3E outside of, possibly, a vocal fringe. And the severity of the 4E reboot was almost absurd, producing a game that completely abandoned the core gameplay of D&D that had existed from 1974 to 2008.
The particular, flawed details of the reboot (little tent vs. big tent, screwing up core mechanics that needed to be completely redesigned within weeks of release, abandoning strategic play, etc.) almost don't matter. Any reboot -- no matter how well-targeted or well-designed -- would have been almost equally problematic.
(2) Couple this with a disastrous marketing plan (designed to insult the time, passion, experience, and expertise people had with previous editions of the game) and a plethora of bone-headed PR moves that alienated their fanbase before the new game even came out.
(3) Finally, toss in the OGL: It made 3E the best-supported RPG in the history of the industry by an order of magnitude. All of that support funneled back to the sales of WotC's core/official rulebooks. WotC vacated the top of that pyramid, but since they couldn't actually yank all of that support from the market it simply left a huge void.
(4) Even if Pathfinder hadn't filled that void,
somebody (or several somebodies) would have. The fact that it was Paizo -- with a pre-existing imprimatur of "official material"; a rock solid relationship with their customers; a massive database of customer contact information; and amazing production values -- just made it much, much worse for WotC.
Note, too, that Paizo's decision to produce Pathfinder was a direct result of almost all of WotC's mistakes: A reboot edition created the void that could be filled. Yanking Paizo's existing licenses (one of the PR moves that alienated their fans). Abandoning the OGL, fumbling the release of the GSL, and eventually revealing a GSL that made it impossible for Paizo to support 4E while remaining a viable, long-term business.
(5) Finally, WotC's nearly complete failure to deliver the online tools they've been promising since 1999, despite having a business plan for 4E centered around those online tools, further compounded their problems. (The only tools they did deliver were the ones that would suffer from the exact same supplement burn-out that the digital subscriptions were supposed to side-step. Their effort to fix this by trying to add subscription-mandating DRM to the DDI after-the-fact only resulted in another PR blunder.)
(6) Lackluster adventure material probably also contributed in a very minor way. (The degree to which the 4E rule system encourages bad adventure design may have contributed in a much larger way, however.)
(7) Essentials was obviously a hail mary attempt to save 4E. But the actual product line was a complete disaster (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4050/roleplaying-games/essentials-starter-set) -- adding confusion to the general marketplace, increasing the cost of entry to the game, and further schisming the customer-base. I don't know if Essentials ever had a chance at being successful. But if it did, the botched execution of the line sealed 4E's failure.
Seriously, though, there were a ridiculous cascade of errors, massive massive errors that made 4e fail. The fundamental one, however, was the game itself: it was an exercise in Forgist design of a "gamist" game, a field test of GNS theory; failing completely to take into account that this was a theory made by people who despised D&D, imagined it to be a stupid game of worthless mechanical obsession where roleplaying didn't matter, a kind of skirmish wargame with delusions of grandeur. And WoTC set out to actually make D&D, for the first time ever, into everything the Swine had always accused it of being. In making it fit the "G" of the GNS model, the utterly predictable result occurred: D&D lost two-thirds or more of its fandom, and the edition was a disaster.
It certainly looks as if they've got every intention of learning from their errors.
RPGPundit
What proof is there that it was a field-test of Forge theory? Only one person from the dev team I'm aware of even really bothered to post about GNS before 4e's release (and even then, relatively rare from what I can tell), and that was Mearls. Even then, it was more of a "I've looked at it, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all of design models, even if it has useful bits." Even within that post, Mearls was talking about a blend of game and world-emulation priorities and how they serve eachother, rather than making a "pure" gamist/whatever-gamey-thing game.
Second, the Forge hardly has a unified opinion on how good D&D is. Clinton Nixon loved d20 and the OGL AFAICT, and Edwards, among others considered Basic D&D to be a relatively well-made game.
The problem is with D&D R&D itself. They're not the worst designers or concepters in the history of gaming (certainly better than other RPG design-houses), but I don't think they're particularly amazing, at least judging their output past the core of 4e. Compared to Magic R&D/design, they're even pretty mediocre. I think blaming their "failure" (however that's defined) on external forces is giving them a pass. We have a case of dudes who could've gone a bit further and made a better game, not guys who were hoodwinked by an amateur theory that doesn't even involve actual game design.
Quote from: B.T.;507655You wouldn't believe the tantrums thrown on the 4e forums when I innocuously (lolno) suggested banning dragonborn, tieflings, eladrin, and warlords from my game because I didn't like them.
I didn't allow Eladrin in my game, due to a setting reason the players would find out in play.
(I told my players this before they started character generation. One player created an Eladrin, and then threw a tantrum when I reminded him that I had clearly stated "no Eladrins".)
When I posted saying this on RPG.net, one guy literally stalked me for a couple of months, claiming in every thread that I was a horrible GM and a bad person.
Quote from: Ladybird;507702I didn't allow Eladrin in my game, due to a setting reason the players would find out in play.
(I told my players this before they started character generation. One player created an Eladrin, and then threw a tantrum when I reminded him that I had clearly stated "no Eladrins".)
When I posted saying this on RPG.net, one guy literally stalked me for a couple of months, claiming in every thread that I was a horrible GM and a bad person.
Yeah I got dogpiled because I suggested that I probably wouldn't allow Ardents in my game because they didn't fit my setting.
That somewhat stunned me, I had never before encountered the expectation that psionics must be allowed in a game.
Quote from: two_fishes;507603No one should play a game they don't enjoy, but this wasn't about enjoyment of the game. The poster was complaining because reading the rules was a little dull, a thing apart from actual play of the game. There has been some good and insightful criticism of WOTC and 4e on this thread but this one just made me roll my eyes.
As a practical matter, when game manuals are hundreds of pages long, they need to be fun to read, or many people (whiny, self-entitled people, if you like) will not read them.
I agree that 4e plays better than it reads. Maybe WoTC is morally entitled to put out RPG books that suck to read, and maybe potential players are not morally entitled to be put off play by the difficulty of reading them.
As a practical matter though, it does and did hurt the success of the game.
Quote from: Peregrin;507694What proof is there that it was a field-test of Forge theory? Only one person from the dev team I'm aware of even really bothered to post about GNS before 4e's release (and even then, relatively rare from what I can tell), and that was Mearls. Even then, it was more of a "I've looked at it, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all of design models, even if it has useful bits." Even within that post, Mearls was talking about a blend of game and world-emulation priorities and how they serve eachother, rather than making a "pure" gamist/whatever-gamey-thing game..
All we can do is conjecture on this one. But to me 4E's connection to gamism as described on the forge is pretty obvious (and it is also obvious to many of the folks who praise 4e and embrace GNS (just check out EN World and you see posts to this effect). 4E is probably the most focused around "agenda" than any edition of the game.
I think what it shows is that the forge's original premise (my understanding is it has been revised overtime) is flawed. The three agendas they focused on are not in conflict and most gamers want games that provide a balance of design. Yes mechanics are important, but so is a little realism and flavor. 4E is visibly a mechanics/game first design, to the point that some people have trouble with suspension of disbelief.
Quote from: jhkim;507646I agree that the charge of "entitlement" is nonsense.
However, the pitfall that I was talking to earlier is that "listening to customers" often means listening to the most vocal of current players - i.e. the hard-core grognards like us who discuss the games on forums, attend conventions, and so forth. I think that designing to this core results in moderately successful products that sell well to a shrinking core market.
While I personally enjoy it when a game is made for my demographic, I think it is also a good thing when games are made for other groups.
But this goes back to not understanding or listening to your customers. If they only heed the grogards (which I don't think they are planning to do), then they will make the same mistake they made before. 4E was designed for the segment of players that always had major issues with the core game and particularly around balance and spell casters. Those people were real customers with real complaints, but they weren't the majority. Most people wanted some tweaking because there were balance issues in 3E. However none of us wanted a fundamental redesign of the classes. To a lot of people, the classic spell list is half the game. By removing that and making wizards function like oter classes, they turned off tons of people.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507714To a lot of people, the classic spell list is half the game. By removing that and making wizards function like oter classes, they turned off tons of people.
The problem of removing the core spells is manyfold, of which the wizard class is the least of problems (though it's already a big one). The problem is rather that a lot of canonical D&D magic items or, on occasion, even monster abilities simply copied off spell effects.
I tried converting Raggi's Death Frost Doom for my 4E home game and gave up after a couple of pages - every monster and every item had to be hand waved or written up from scratch, into its own distinct entity. (Should it be a ritual? A consumable?) That's a major bummer, because that means that mechanically the game didn't interact with its 30 years of history. Of course I could take any AD&D adventure and copy its story line and then readymade 4E monsters and traps as I saw fit. But that's exactly not the point - I might as well take a MERP or Earthdawn adventure and do the same. The point is that cross-edition adaptability was lost, and that's a huge bummer.
Let me preface my remarks by saying these are my opinion, an educated opinion perhaps, knowing and working for over fifteen years in a corporate environment.
So having read the posts in this thread I see that a lot of emotions are involved with D&D, and rightly so in my opinion (I know I have powerful positive emotions with the game over the years). But I don't think the game failed. It was fun for many, many gamers. Now I didn't like the game as presented in 4e as "D&D" cause it wasn't D&D to me. It may have carried the name but it wasn't the play experience I knew as D&D. I could spout off about what I didn't like about 4e but that would just be my experiences, anecdotes, and rose colored glasses.
Here's why I believe a new edition is coming out. It's not about the fractured player base, D&D has had that for years. What it is about is the corporate mentality. I think, IMO mind you, that 4e just wasn't performing to a budgetary dollar amount that some executive pulled outta his ass to "meet shareholder value".
I really feel bad for the good people at WotC who love the game but are at the mercy of the type 'A' results driven personality that most executives have. They have to meet the demands placed upon them or face the consequences, whatever they may be.
The really sad part of this is that the D&D brand no longer belongs to an adventure role-playing company. It belongs to a corporation that only see's it as dollar signs (what revenue it may generate) and not a pastime of sitting around the dinner table, playing in the basement listening to rock music, eating junk food and being with friends thing it needs to be again.
Quote from: jeff37923;507647Except that WotC didn't listen to the entire market demographic when they designed 4E. They listened to the RPGA and what we got with 4E is RPGA D&D with the volume turned up to eleven.
Fair enough. To the extent that 4E came from listening mainly to the RPGA, and the RPGA were not representative of the larger market, then yeah, that was a big mistake. I don't know how the RPGA compares to online sites like theRPGSite, ENWorld, or RPGnet in representing the whole market of potential D&D players - so that's qualified agreement.
To go over my point again: Yes, 4th edition was a mistake and failed to bring in the players it hoped to do, for many reasons. However, I don't think that the only correct thing to do would have been to design it to please grognard players like us.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;507684(1) In the history of the industry, no "reboot edition" (as opposed to an "errata edition" like those produced for CoC) has ever succeeded without a clear, deep dissatisfaction with the current edition. (IMO, this is probably because of the deep investments of time, passion, experience, and expertise people make in their RPGs.)
I'm not an expert in the history here, but my impression has been that OD&D was quite popular as a small game despite it's obvious problems. Yet AD&D had quite major differences from OD&D, and could not be described as an "erratta edition" in my opinion. Note that from Hasbro's point of view - the entire history of the RPG industry is a history of failure - with the sole exception of 1st edition AD&D and possibly Vampire: the Masquerade.
In retrospect, people were pleased with AD&D1 and it was a runaway success. However, that's hindsight talking. The decision to make turn the popular tiny staple-bound booklets into a massive set of three hardbound volumes was a risky departure from what was working.
As a business, I think Hasbro would prefer to take a chance at pulling in some fraction of a larger market like World of Warcraft as new players, rather than play it safe and make an edition that the shrinking base of current grognard players like.
Quote from: jhkim;507792I'm not an expert in the history here, but my impression has been that OD&D was quite popular as a small game despite it's obvious problems. Yet AD&D had quite major differences from OD&D, and could not be described as an "erratta edition" in my opinion.
AD&D in its rules content is virtually identical to OD&D (1974) + Supplements + Dragon magazine elements. There wasn't so much of a "break" or "reboot" of the game with AD&D as much as a restatement of all the different, separated, yet already existing elements into a single "advanced" version of the game.
Yeah, 1e was a consolidation of a lot of house rules in Dragon and the supplements. It also added some brand new tweaks of it's own (like percentile strength). In addition, Gary was trying to purge some of the influence of Dave Arneson, since they were not getting along.
Quote from: danbuter;507795Yeah, 1e was a consolidation of a lot of house rules in Dragon and the supplements. It also added some brand new tweaks of it's own (like percentile strength). In addition, Gary was trying to purge some of the influence of Dave Arneson, since they were not getting along.
Percentile Strength was in OD&D, Supplement 1 Greyhawk yo.
If you start with OD&D, and add from
The Strategic Review the following items:
Bards, Rangers, 9 Alignments + languages
and add the supplements and items therefrom:
Supplement I: Greyhawk - thieves, % strength, races
with classes as opposed to races
as classes, different HD per class, new HD for monsters, the bulk of the spells as written, the bulk of the new magic items,
Supplement II: Blackmoor - Druids, Assassins, the bulk of new magic items,
Supplement III: Demons, Devils, Psionics, the bulk of the new magic items,
Supplement IV: some artifacts
...you essentially have AD&D's core. However, you have AD&D's core messily spread out over seven booklets and many loose pages of T.S.R. issues.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507712All we can do is conjecture on this one. But to me 4E's connection to gamism as described on the forge is pretty obvious (and it is also obvious to many of the folks who praise 4e and embrace GNS (just check out EN World and you see posts to this effect). 4E is probably the most focused around "agenda" than any edition of the game.
I think the folks who are heavily invested in GNS and the Forge as a means of identity rather than practical application would claim such a thing because they believe it would increase their importance. It's been done before with other games.
QuoteI think what it shows is that the forge's original premise (my understanding is it has been revised overtime) is flawed. The three agendas they focused on are not in conflict and most gamers want games that provide a balance of design. Yes mechanics are important, but so is a little realism and flavor. 4E is visibly a mechanics/game first design, to the point that some people have trouble with suspension of disbelief.
Whether or not a game is "gamist" has nothing to do with how much the rules reflect reality. RIFTS and BD&D are just as "gamist" by Forge standards as 4e. In fact some bits of 4e don't really gel with later discussions by Forge folk.
Quote from: Peregrin;507803I .
Whether or not a game is "gamist" has nothing to do with how much the rules reflect reality. RIFTS and BD&D are just as "gamist" by Forge standards as 4e. In fact some bits of 4e don't really gel with later discussions by Forge folk.
I noted that the theories have been updated, but Edwards was pretty clear in his initial essays that he felt the three agendas were somewhat mutually exclusive. The idea that a game could be Gamist and simulationsist without being "incoherent" was something he appeared to reject. Of course he eventually retooled the definition of simulationism so much that it had less to do with realism (which is what most people think of with the term) and more to do with "exploration". So you may be right that current forge ideology supports multi agenda games, but this is not how the forge began, and it is not its legacy. 4E is clearly embracing the idea that you have to choose an "agenda" and it chose Gamism. And I think this is a direct result of adopting Edward's philosophy.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507817I noted that the theories have been updated, but Edwards was pretty clear in his initial essays that he felt the three agendas were somewhat mutually exclusive. The idea that a game could be Gamist and simulationsist without being "incoherent" was something he appeared to reject. Of course he eventually retooled the definition of simulationism so much that it had less to do with realism (which is what most people think of with the term) and more to do with "exploration". So you may be right that current forge ideology supports multi agenda games, but this is not how the forge began, and it is not its legacy. 4E is clearly embracing the idea that you have to choose an "agenda" and it chose Gamism. And I think this is a direct result of adopting Edward's philosophy.
Couldn't agree more.
QuoteThe idea that a game could be Gamist and simulationsist without being "incoherent" was something he appeared to reject.
Which, anyone who played 3e with just PM, DMM and MM, knows is a load of bollocks.
Actually, the original "System Matters" essay lists RIFTS and Shadowrun as examples of good games for people who enjoy "gamist" play -- it wasn't about explicitly invoking metagame.
"Realism" is something else entirely when it comes to design which has its own discourse. See: AD&D vs RuneQuest arguments.
As for what "clearly" happened, I prefer actual accounts to speculation in order to further my own biases for or against something. I think blaming Forge theory is stupid, and again, gives the designers a pass by having a convenient scapegoat made up of niche designers that people around here tend to dislike.
Quote from: Peregrin;507803I think the folks who are heavily invested in GNS and the Forge as a means of identity rather than practical application would claim such a thing because they believe it would increase their importance. It's been done before with other games.
Still, one of the things that Edwards decried about D&D was, of course, one of its strengths: every group played the game in a different way, so a game that needed house-rules was obviously "broken". I thus always found funny Forgites' support for a game who needed one errata set every day from when it was published until it sank.
Quote from: Reckall;507823Still, one of the things that Edwards decried about D&D was, of course, one of its strengths: every group played the game in a different way, so a game that needed house-rules was obviously "broken". I thus always found funny Forgites' support for a game who needed one errata set every day from when it was published until it sank.
Good gods, don't get me started on the "System Matters" essay, and the Cult of Raw.
Erm - what system are you talking about though, Reckall?
Quote from: Reckall;507823Still, one of the things that Edwards decried about D&D was, of course, one of its strengths: every group played the game in a different way, so a game that needed house-rules was obviously "broken". I thus always found funny Forgites' support for a game who needed one errata set every day from when it was published until it sank.
IIRC, he decried AD&D for trying to homogenize those different playstyles under one particular textual authority which was "official", because D&D as a baseline game concept had grown so out of control as a subcultural phenomenon that anything Gygax wrote would be inconsistent with what many groups were doing at the table.
Quote from: Opaopajr;507668Sort of tangential, but someone's going to have to explain why the 4e fighter is so amazing. I mean, I found it to be the driest, most tedious thing I've had to scratch up for play -- ever. I tried to tinker with a CHA fighter, buying various weapons to have spares and deal with different situations, save some money for nice clothes and roleplay... nada. (And that accursed Challenge Rating/Encounter Level of 3e/4e still gets on my nerves. There's this supposed "weight" you're expected to carry and in 4e Adventures if you're not optimized you start to become dead weight or something. Whatever, I just had a horrible experience with these things.)
See, once I ran a few char-gen write ups with the book or a free online char-generator, I became sooo bored. It quickly became: Choose Class, Check Powers -- note At-Wills attribute mods, prime check abilities that do multiple hits, life bloat/super defense, or field control (in that order), plan out your Power progression tree, and then go back and point buy your Attributes to your "theme." However each and every time it fell back to "Drop an 18 (or higher) in STR" and work from there. Then dump the rest of the stats, cherry pick the available Feats that munchkin out your build, pick gear, then work terrain as you would in any Turn Based Strat.
It was dirt easy and too boring for me. I felt no flavor. I felt creatively hamstrung by such obvious optimization. At some point I was asking myself "how could I not munchkin?"
So, I therefore must be doing something wrong. Because others have found this version of the fighter the coolest version yet, and I just cannot see it. So I'm open to being schooled, because I'm willing to discover where I overlooked the beautiful details.
PS: Sorry for the derailment. By the way, I do think D&D Tactics is pleasing on its own merits. But from my perspective it really needs to be clearly differentiated from regular RPG D&D. That was a huge stumbling block for me, and likely for others as well.
Not to pull a LogicNinja, but I'm confused about what you found boring, exactly. In 3e, your choices as a fighter were less varied (Power Attack), and in 2e, there was no customization whatsoever. Was it just the character generation process that bored you?
QuoteHere's why I believe a new edition is coming out. It's not about the fractured player base, D&D has had that for years. What it is about is the corporate mentality. I think, IMO mind you, that 4e just wasn't performing to a budgetary dollar amount that some executive pulled outta his ass to "meet shareholder value".
Not to snark, but what do you think the fractured base resulted in? Less revenue.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507800Percentile Strength was in OD&D, Supplement 1 Greyhawk yo.
If you start with OD&D, and add from The Strategic Review the following items:
Bards, Rangers, 9 Alignments + languages
and add the supplements and items therefrom:
Supplement I: Greyhawk - thieves, % strength, races with classes as opposed to races as classes, different HD per class, new HD for monsters, the bulk of the spells as written, the bulk of the new magic items,
Supplement II: Blackmoor - Druids, Assassins, the bulk of new magic items,
Supplement III: Demons, Devils, Psionics, the bulk of the new magic items,
Supplement IV: some artifacts
...you essentially have AD&D's core. However, you have AD&D's core messily spread out over seven booklets and many loose pages of T.S.R. issues.
Interesting. I hadn't known about some of these. So it sounds like AD&D1 was a complete overhaul compared to the original books, and still a significant overhaul compared to the books + supplements, but less of an overhaul than D&D4 was.
On the other hand, I suspect that in the late 70s, most OD&D players were not playing with the full set of Supplements I - IV and Strategic Review items. For those people, AD&D would have come across as a more major change.
I suspect that some of the old school vibe they're going for now, is as much an attempt to find new players, by looking back to what may have made the game a success in the first place, as it is appealing to the OSR.
A fractured base is also bad for growing the hobby. The kid who gets Essentials for Christmas and then goes to his local game store eager to play a game and then gets a rant about 4E (or vice versa) may well just give up.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;507817The idea that a game could be Gamist and simulationsist without being "incoherent" was something he appeared to reject. Of course he eventually retooled the definition of simulationism so much that it had less to do with realism (which is what most people think of with the term) and more to do with "exploration".
He borrowed the basic Threefold from rec.games.frp.advocacy (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html) and I don't think he ever actually understood what simulation meant (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24) (note: that thread was written after the GNS was already in use) in that model or elsewhere. In framing role-playing as having a "creative agenda", Forge theory entirely misses that plenty of people don't play to create but to experience, which is not the same thing. If you assume people are working toward a creative goal rather than looking for an experience with no particular goal, then all sorts of wrong ideas will flow from that assumption.
Quote from: John Morrow;507884In framing role-playing as having a "creative agenda", Forge theory entirely misses that plenty of people don't play to create but to experience, which is not the same thing. If you assume people are working toward a creative goal rather than looking for an experience with no particular goal, then all sorts of wrong ideas will flow from that assumption.
Quoted for truth. The experience being what I talk about when saying I don't want story, but actuality in my game, and what the Pundit refers to as emulation in his own way. See also "immersion".
All campaigns have goals, though. In-game goals are an expression of player and GM desires.
Even the Rules Cyclopedia (and maybe some other corebooks) tell you the best campaigns have clear goals and objectives for the players to pursue.
Quote from: Peregrin;507890All campaigns have goals, though. In-game goals are an expression of player and GM desires.
Even the Rules Cyclopedia (and maybe some other corebooks) tell you the best campaigns have clear goals and objectives for the players to pursue.
You haven't checked the link in John's post, have you (the one about "simulationism" and their lack of understanding thereof)? This is not the same type of goals you are talking about. Ron is speaking of creative goals that would give the players purpose in playing the game, not of in-game goals or scenario objectives.
Might want to check out that thread as well (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21799), Peregrin: I talk about our disconnect there as well.
Quote from: jhkim;507792I'm not an expert in the history here, but my impression has been that OD&D was quite popular as a small game despite it's obvious problems. Yet AD&D had quite major differences from OD&D, and could not be described as an "erratta edition" in my opinion.
It's difficult to really judge what people were thinking in 1976, but I think there was deep dissatisfaction with certain aspects of OD&D as it existed: The reliance on
Chainmail. The confusing rules. Poorly edited rules. Poor utility factors (like spell lists being spread across multiple volumes; mechanics which had received iterative revisions which progressively "over-wrote" across sequential volumes; et cetera). AD&D fixed those problems and largely left the gameplay of OD&D as it was being played unchanged.
I'm going to quote from a longer essay I wrote on this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2734/roleplaying-games/pathfinder-vs-4th-edition-grrr):
When consumers are faced with an upgrade, there’s always going to be some portion of the customer base that says, “Nah. I’m good with what I’ve got.” (This applies beyond RPGs: Look at the varying success of Windows Vista and Windows 7 at winning over existing Windows customers.) In the case of D&D, the two most effective transitions in the history of the game were the transition from OD&D to AD&D and the transition from AD&D2 to D&D3.
In my opinion, both of those transitions were effective because (a) they addressed perceived shortcomings in the existing rules; (b) they worked to form a bridge of continuity between the old edition and the new edition; and (c) they were effective at reaching out to new customers.
Now, the actual methods by which these goals were accomplished were radically different. AD&D (a) aimed to codify a more “official” version of the game while also expanding the detail of the rules in an era when “more realism” and “more detail” were highly prized. It was launched with a Monster Manual that was (b) designed to be used with the existing OD&D rules (by the time the first PHB came out, a sizable chunk of the customer base was already using AD&D products in their OD&D games). And it was released hand-in-hand with a Basic Set that (b) remained highly compatible with the 1974 ruleset and (c) offered a mainstream, accessible product for attracting new customers.
D&D3, on the other hand, (a) radically revised a game that was perceived as clunky and out-of-date, which allowed them to (c) reach out to a large body of disillusioned ex-customers. They simultaneously (b) released conversion guides and used a massive, public beta testing period to get large numbers of existing players onboard with the changes before the game was even released.
The conversion to D&D4 failed for several reasons.
First, no effort was made form a bridge between the old edition and the new edition. (A crazy French guy screaming “Ze game remains the same!” like some sort of cultic mantra notwithstanding.) In fact, WotC went out of their way to insist that there was no bridge between the editions.
Second, WotC was attempting to reach out to new customers. But I maintain that they made the fundamental mistake of trying to pull customers away from video games by competing with video games on their own turf. That’s just not going to cut it. If RPGs are going to be successful in the future, it will be because they emphasize their unique strengths. Tactical combat and prepackaged My Perfect Encounters(TM) aren’t going to cut it.
Finally, 2008 was misidentified as being another 2000.
In 2000 WotC was dealing with an overwhelmingly dissatisfied fanbase and responded with a new edition that largely addressed that dissatisfaction without overstepping the boundaries of its “mandate”. It wasn’t perfect. Plenty of people remained dissatisfied (or hadn’t been dissatisfied in the first place). But there were also a lot of people saying “3rd Edition looks just like my house rules for AD&D” or “it’s exactly what I’ve always wanted D&D to look like”, and success followed.
In 2008, I think it’s clear that WotC thought they had a similar level of overwhelming dissatisfaction. But either they didn’t or their sweeping and fundamental changes to the game exceeded the “mandate” of that dissatisfaction. Or both. (Personally, I suspect they were misled by the echo chamber of the ‘net and a corporate decision to prevent OGL support for 4th Edition. They tried to solve “problems” that most players weren’t actually experiencing and simultaneously “fixed” them in an unnecessarily excessive fashion.)
In some ways this takes us back to the “New Coke” metaphor: The taste tests for New Coke indicated it would be a huge success. But the taste tests were fundamentally flawed: They were “sip tests”. And in sip tests the smoother, sweeter taste of New Coke won. But nobody buys their soda by the teaspoon; they buy it by the can.
4th Edition radically overhauled D&D’s gameplay in order to respond to complaints driven by CharOp specialists, armchair theorists, and other lovers of spherical cows (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2434/roleplaying-games/on-the-importance-of-spherical-cows). For a lot of people on the ground, the game didn’t have those problems and 4th Edition was a solution in search of a problem.
Quote from: B.T.;507826Not to pull a LogicNinja, but I'm confused about what you found boring, exactly. In 3e, your choices as a fighter were less varied (Power Attack), and in 2e, there was no customization whatsoever. Was it just the character generation process that bored you?
I also didn't like 3e. I felt Feats were "Advantages" without penalty cost, just opportunity cost, and lead to unambiguous optimization. There was no interpretation of the numbers left to me and the table. Setting and optional weapon/battle systems had no bearing. It was a direct shift towards system mastery.
It is the same thing I didn't like about 4e, except worse. The attributes had a very tight relationship to the character build. Higher -- in these specific slots -- equals Better in direct terms. Hence there was nothing left to interpret.
And that issue carries throughout. The bigger damage weapon is clearly better; there's no opportunity costs in terms of size/room to use (I do appreciate 4e's attempts at reach), optional damage types, cultural availability to repair, optional rules for called shot finesse working off of other attributes, etc. Your initial class skills are tied to your prime attributes. Feats again come back to get in the way of char-gen. All these things begin to narrow off my imagination and interpretation because there becomes concrete definitives about what is excellence and what is inadequate.
In 2e, not only could I select a different kit if the GM allowed, I wasn't so desperate to finagle every last (RAW, unambiguous) bonus. All you need as a fighter is 9 strength, the rest was characterization without optimization breathing down my neck. Whether your table uses RAW only and your PC uses setting appropriate fencing swords, while specialize in epee --or-- your table adds Fighter's Handbook and your PC take large group proficiency "Axes" in a dwarven setting, with specialization in Hand Axes (good for throwing), and a penchant to do Called Shots: Stapling to opponents, either fighter design didn't feel "gimped if I didn't drop an 18+ in Strength."
I don't need Core funneling me towards optimizations. Weapon specialization's +1atk/+2dmg bonus roughly compensated with 18+ STR +1atk/+2dmg bonus. Throw in optional rules of differing damage types (P/B/S) and fine/exquisite weapon quality adding bonuses within an equivalently manageable power range, fighters are thus liberated from power inflation confining design into optimized builds, I feel. Setting flavor and in-battle called shot opportunities start to come to the forefront. Whereas in 3e and 4e mechanical character optimization comes to the forefront.
I guess the easiest you can summarize is that
I want to manage the interpretive quality of the data. I don't want the
Core RAW to manage the quality of the data, with me as just the puzzle solver to find the cheesiest build. I don't want to "solve the system" as a puzzle to help me game out the best result of a story; I want to "interpret the system" to help me simulate my roleplay so that I can immerse. Does that make more sense?
QuoteDoes that make more sense?
I think so, but correct me if I'm wrong: you want choices that are equally valid that allow you to build an effective character as you envision, outside of mechanical optimization.
Assuming I get what you're saying: yes. Not strictly equal, as in no real difference. More like egalitarian, as in viable differences -- different paths to similar opportunities.
I want a power range that is tinier but a diverse build option upon construction, thus opening more in-game viability. So design flavor becomes an advantage the player manipulates through contextual interaction, instead of a definitive generation advantage that predominates regardless of context. Basically, I hate "I wins" before the battle even begins, a la many video game RPGs (especially RPG Tactics games like Final Fantasy Tactics).
It's like CCGs where obvious trump cards so outclass other competing options that in effect the other cards were "de facto banned" by the stringent rubric of competitive builds.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;507910Second, WotC was attempting to reach out to new customers. But I maintain that they made the fundamental mistake of trying to pull customers away from video games by competing with video games on their own turf. That's just not going to cut it. If RPGs are going to be successful in the future, it will be because they emphasize their unique strengths. Tactical combat and prepackaged My Perfect Encounters(TM) aren't going to cut it.
Personally, I don't think anyone knows what will make RPGs successful in the future, if they ever will be. I can point to various runaway successes in other fields of games - like Dominion or Rory's Story Cubes. However, I couldn't have said that those strategies were going to be as massively successful prior to their release. I would note that the D&D4 board games are successful in the mass market - when your argument would suggest that they would fail, because they are competing with video games on their own turf.
While I don't know what designs will work, I do think that for RPGs to be successful again, there has to be a lot of trial and error. There have to be a bunch of RPGs that try to reach new audiences and fail before one hits it out of the park.
I think one of the biggest entry barriers for many RPGs is similar to the entry barrier for many multiplayer CCGs: getting enough players to warrant a session. Unlike MtG duels, or video games being solo (but interconnected through the internet), games that require 3+ players to truly savor have a higher barrier to meet a player quorum. When D&D focuses on party roles, complicated char-gen, and dungeoneering survival/continuity to continue the campaign, it just adds greater quorum overhead.
Keep It Stupid Simple really comes into play here, because it helps open tables allow new players to circulate, but not feel obliged to over-invest their time.
Quote from: John Morrow;507884He borrowed the basic Threefold from rec.games.frp.advocacy (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html) and I don't think he ever actually understood what simulation meant (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24) (note: that thread was written after the GNS was already in use) in that model or elsewhere. In framing role-playing as having a "creative agenda", Forge theory entirely misses that plenty of people don't play to create but to experience, which is not the same thing. If you assume people are working toward a creative goal rather than looking for an experience with no particular goal, then all sorts of wrong ideas will flow from that assumption.
I knew about him borrowing the model but this thread on simulationism is new to me. Explains a lot.
Quote from: jhkim;507949I would note that the D&D4 board games are successful in the mass market - when your argument would suggest that they would fail, because they are competing with video games on their own turf.
Board games aren't roleplaying games.
If the D&D roleplaying game supported meaningful solo play, had a 12 page rulebook, and could be played in pick-up sessions of 60 minutes or less, my assessment of what could and could not be successfully marketed in competition with video games would probably be different.
Or, to put that another way: The D&D board games are actually pretty effective at focusing on the unique strengths of board games.
Also: Do you have a source for your implicit claim that these boardgames have sold more copies than 4th Edition? That would shock me, frankly.
I don't think GNS is very relevant to 4e because for years now, D&D designers have had the task of satisfying Game, Narrative, and Simulation all together. The tone of each edition is never perfectly balanced, so there's always some subset of players who feel their needs aren't being met; if they did perfectly balance it it would probably leave everyone feeling neglected.
The single biggest mistake of 4e is that the company was really just learning how to take advantage of online tools and content when they released 4e, and their online tools are still kind of a mess years later. It's hurt 4e's reputation.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508029I don't think GNS is very relevant to 4e because for years now, D&D designers have had the task of satisfying Game, Narrative, and Simulation all together. The tone of each edition is never perfectly balanced, so there's always some subset of players who feel their needs aren't being met; if they did perfectly balance it it would probably leave everyone feeling neglected.
The single biggest mistake of 4e is that the company was really just learning how to take advantage of online tools and content when they released 4e, and their online tools are still kind of a mess years later. It's hurt 4e's reputation.
Single biggest mistake is not online tools.
Single biggest mistake is TURNING D&D INTO A SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARDGAME.
That would have been a big mistake if it had happened. Are you sure you didn't just play Castle Ravenloft and get confused?
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508092That would have been a big mistake if it had happened. Are you sure you didn't just play Castle Ravenloft and get confused?
Even before that they were heading in this direction with the 3E castle Ravenloft module. That module basically showed me that I didn't share WOTC gaming philosophy or vision at all.
Do I sense...
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/ce/ce84a469cfacf8dc5823dda41784131b9c7f5ba8_full.jpg)
4semble
Quote from: Rincewind1;5081044semble
OK, I'm here.
What can I do for you?
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508092That would have been a big mistake if it had happened. Are you sure you didn't just play Castle Ravenloft and get confused?
You know damn well that 4e is the SUPERHERO MINIATURES WARGAME.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508104Do I sense...
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/ce/ce84a469cfacf8dc5823dda41784131b9c7f5ba8_full.jpg)
4semble
Are you scared? It's okay if you're scared.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508141Are you scared? It's okay if you're scared.
Nobody is scared of a bunch of washed-up has-beens/never-weres. Go back to your board wargame ghetto.
So I kinda started this thread to talk about how WotC's business practices contributed to the life and death of the edition. I was kinda hoping things would be cool enough now that we could discuss these things rationally. There's a better time and fuel for edition warring after 5e's launch.
4e's rules might have been a contributing factor, but it was hardly the whole story. And as a topic that's been done to death in the last three or four years, it's hardly the most interesting part of the story anymore.
I would argue the "too soon" factor played nearly as big a role as the rule changes did.
There was already an anti-WotC sentiment rising over the 3.5 releases. Then, much too quickly, they released 4e followed quickly by 4e essentials.
I'm not going to argue over whether or not 3.5 was actually a different edition from 3, or 4 essentials from 4. What matters is that a significant number of people felt they were different editions and were turned off by it.
But like others said, there were a lot of other factors.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508141Are you scared? It's okay if you're scared.
Stupidity only scares me on government - level. On your level, it only amuses me.
Who's a shweet little monkey? You're a shweet little monkey!
Dance.
Quote from: 1989;508142Nobody is scared of a bunch of washed-up has-beens/never-weres. Go back to your board wargame ghetto.
Fuck off from board games, 1989, or I'll end you.
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508111OK, I'm here.
What can I do for you?
Tell me from where your avatar comes from, for starters ;).
Quote from: 1989;508142Nobody is scared of a bunch of washed-up has-beens/never-weres.
Of course not! It's why the "AD&D" under your avatar is so soothing.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;508159Of course not! It's why the "AD&D" under your avatar is so soothing.
Danse Imbecile begins again.
Ah. We have a new monkey I see.
Quote from: Benoist;508162Ah. We have a new monkey I see.
Cute, isn't he?
Quote from: Rincewind1;508167Cute, isn't he?
I'll need to see him dance a little more before having an opinion about that.
Please, he's just acting in accordance with the tone of the thread.
Quote from: Benoist;508171I'll need to see him dance a little more before having an opinion about that.
Do try an keep up, we'll be moving diagonally, so good luck. ;)
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508180Do try an keep up, we'll be moving diagonally, so good luck. ;)
45 degree angles are to D&D what the colour red is to WH40K?
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508180Do try an keep up, we'll be moving diagonally, so good luck. ;)
Being a 4pologist is different then being a 4venger ;).
Quote from: beejazz;508147So I kinda started this thread to talk about how WotC's business practices contributed to the life and death of the edition. I was kinda hoping things would be cool enough now that we could discuss these things rationally. There's a better time and fuel for edition warring after 5e's launch.
4e's rules might have been a contributing factor, but it was hardly the whole story. And as a topic that's been done to death in the last three or four years, it's hardly the most interesting part of the story anymore.
It may have a lot to do with repeating the splatbook treadmill business model. It could well have been that, they would still have failed, even if their rules were different.
From what I understand Paizo releases mostly setting and adventure material?
If you're a customer who has already bought WOTC's splatbooks full of prestige classes and feats for 3.0 and then did the same for 3.5, it was always going to take a huge effort to get you enthused about doing it yet again.
Halloween Jack is both a goon and a Tangencite, and he originally showed up around the time that Darwinism did. His schtick is neither new nor interesting, but I look forward to hearing about my cis privilege nonetheless.
QuoteThat would have been a big mistake if it had happened. Are you sure you didn't just play Castle Ravenloft and get confused?
Such snark! Such wit! I hope this poster will continue to make contributions of this quality in the future.
Quote from: Ladybird;507702I didn't allow Eladrin in my game, due to a setting reason the players would find out in play.
(I told my players this before they started character generation. One player created an Eladrin, and then threw a tantrum when I reminded him that I had clearly stated "no Eladrins".)
When I posted saying this on RPG.net, one guy literally stalked me for a couple of months, claiming in every thread that I was a horrible GM and a bad person.
Holy god, links
please. I got to see this.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508239Holy god, links please. I got to see this.
Here, let me link you to a lot of discussions like those:
http://forum.rpg.net/
What always got me was mechanically 4E was d20 stripped naked and made simple. But then they decided to make all variations on powers whole new powers, defined classes less on fluff and more on a mechanical gimmick, and to put icing on the cake so divorced the mechanics from the descriptive text that I could see the wizard behind the curtain and it ruined the illusion for me.
I now describe the effect as Uncanny Valley in gamer terms. When a system does a really poor job of capturing my imagination as to what to do with it.
It had so much potential though and that bugged the hell out of me.
And this was all before the DDI, endless errata, paywall nonsense.
And to make matters worse? I bought into it in the beginning. Dug the "Everything is Core" nonsense, bought a bunch of mini's and dungeon tiles, etc before after a year of playing it I noticed how mechanical it made my gaming experience. 1989 may sound like a broken record but there is a point to it being a board game. I think it finally sunk home when I got the PHB3 and just sat there trying to wrap my head around the Ardent and Psionic pigeon holed monk. Taking a step back I decided that this really wasn't for me and moved on. (Still use the dungeon tiles and minis, but don't rely on them anymore.)
I don't HATE 4e. It does have some fun elements and a good thought here and there, but the whole package felt flawed. Essentials was the nail into the coffin for my interest though. Even though I felt the classes were a bit better built. Oh well, onward and upward.
Quote from: B.T.;508205Halloween Jack is both a goon and a Tangencite, and he originally showed up around the time that Darwinism did. His schtick is neither new nor interesting, but I look forward to hearing about my cis privilege nonetheless.
Well, you gotta admit, you are objectively a pretty terrible human being
Quote from: B.T.;508205Such snark! Such wit! I hope this poster will continue to make contributions of this quality in the future.
The funny part about this is you still haven't made any contributions of any quality
He's alive!
Oh monkey how we missed you.
not.
Quote from: Mostlyjoe;508320What always got me was mechanically 4E was d20 stripped naked and made simple. But then they decided to make all variations on powers whole new powers, defined classes less on fluff and more on a mechanical gimmick, and to put icing on the cake so divorced the mechanics from the descriptive text that I could see the wizard behind the curtain and it ruined the illusion for me.
I now describe the effect as Uncanny Valley in gamer terms. When a system does a really poor job of capturing my imagination as to what to do with it.
It had so much potential though and that bugged the hell out of me.
And this was all before the DDI, endless errata, paywall nonsense.
Classes should be more about mechanical description rather than fluff description, unless you think it's good to have to make new subclasses for every fluff inclusion possible a la 2E AD&D kits or 3E alternate base classes.
Class, just like rolling a d20 or keeping track of your HP, is something that your character is not aware of. His sheet may say that he's got +12 to hit, 80/140 HP, and is a Fighter, but he's still not aware of any of that except in the vaguest possible manner. He knows he's good at hitting things, is not in top shape, and is good at fighting. What he calls himself because of those things are the fluff concerns.
In my experience 4E encourages roleplaying more; it actively encourages interpreting powers as you want, reflavoring classes, races, and powers, and other aspects that let you use your imagination to get the game you want. I get that people used to the PrC mashfest of 3E are scared by this, but it really is better from a roleplaying standpoint to encourage roleplaying.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508325He's alive!
Oh monkey how we missed you.
not.
Oh, Rincewind, never stop being unoriginal and unfunny!
Quote from: Darwinism;508324Well, you gotta admit, you are objectively a pretty terrible human being
The funny part about this is you still haven't made any contributions of any quality
QuoteQuoteYou seem to come out of lurking to snipe at me in particular. Have I wronged you in some fashion? Are we perhaps separated lovers in a past life?
Hey, nice paranoid delusions you got going! Surely it couldn't be that you're a bad poster, it has to be a personal slight. This obviously makes sense because
So, what happened, you get probated for a week for "veiled misogyny" or "criticizing Obama" or something along those lines?
QuoteIn my experience 4E encourages roleplaying more; it actively encourages interpreting powers as you want, reflavoring classes, races, and powers, and other aspects that let you use your imagination to get the game you want. I get that people used to the PrC mashfest of 3E are scared by this, but it really is better from a roleplaying standpoint to encourage roleplaying.
Forcing people into a permanent cognitive dissonance field is not the mark of good roleplaying. Personally, I think 3e is a bucket of balls and that prestige classes/multiclassing are a nightmare of mechanical failure, so your argument doesn't hold weight.
On a sidenote, the fact that you can freely shitpost here and not TGD is amusing. Although there is a lot more cursing at that site, it seems that TheRPGSite is genuinely a better place in terms of freedom of speech.
Stop abusing your cisgender privilege, dammit.
Quote from: Benoist;508162Ah. We have a new monkey I see.
I don't think a join date of January 2010 really qualifies as "new".
After two weeks of sobbing in a corner and soiling his nappies, Darwinism is back and ready to fight the edition wars all over again!
Sadly, I think Darwin and I would get along quite well in real life.
We know you're a trolling bastard, B.T. That's nothing new to us.
But you are our trolling bastard.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508353We know you're a trolling bastard, B.T. That's nothing new to us.
Says the guy who's been here a month.
I mean, how can you rack up over a thousand posts in a month!
Do you even sleep?
;)
Quote from: One Horse Town;508356Do you even sleep?
;)
10:1 he's a college student, so no.
Quote from: One Horse Town;508356Says the guy who's been here a month.
I mean, how can you rack up over a thousand posts in a month!
Do you even sleep?
;)
Yeah, and even work and study too ;).
I mostly post when watching movies on the internet. I do generally sleep little though, since sleep is such a great waste of life.
And hey, OHT - realising that B.T. is a trolling bastard is something doable in 3 days tops, not even a month :P.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508360I mostly post when watching movies on the internet. I do generally sleep little though, since sleep is such a great waste of life.
wait a few years. Sleep is my favorite part of life these days.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;508361wait a few years. Sleep is my favorite part of life these days.
Once you reach a certain age, sleep is one of life's most neglected pleasures!
Quote from: One Horse Town;508341I don't think a join date of January 2010 really qualifies as "new".
My bad. Returning monkey he is, then. Let the dance. Begin!
B.T. is a racist and a bigot, nuance.
Quote from: Benoist;508372B.T. is a racist and a bigot, nuance.
I'm not even sure that's true. He's just a sniggering child, more like Beavis and Butthead than anything else.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;508361wait a few years. Sleep is my favorite part of life these days.
no way.
I hate wasted time in slumber. and I am... not young.
oh, and back to the OP...
still, mainly a total lack of understanding market segmentation.
Why did OSR and Pathfinder explode during 4e?
Because those market segments (original gamers/early gamers (who are often ringleaders, age has an effect as does experience) and current newer gamers during 3/3.5) were less incorporated into the newer rule designs in favor of new gamers. Some amount did try or buy in, but not enough to avoid creating a need for 5e very soon after the release of 4e. One way of looking at it.
I love dreams. Especially when they're full of crazy monsters and locales you can use later to build modules. :D
I don't see it as 4E failed, but rather this time WotC was quicker on the uptake about a fact that makes RPG sales difficult.
All you need is the Core Books, and a lot of people pride themselves on only running Core Books, and never buy a single other thing.
That made all of the supplements risky.
Then you have tight economic times, which means that every line must be considered productive, or it (rightly) gets cut.
4E was a different design. Was it a wrong design? It depends on who you ask. But it was different.
Now they want to make a new edition.
I don't think 4E failed, any more than I think Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 97, or Windows 7 failed.
Datamining exists for D&D sales and purchases now. Now they can track better what sells and what doesn't.
So 4E wasn't a failure, it's just time for the next system.
I realize they're talking about reaching back to previous editions, but I hope they avoid all the crap that just bogs down the game.
Weapon speed? Really? Ditch that.
Useless warriors and caster supremacy? Ditch that.
Crappy characters with the hopes of getting to a better place? Ditch that Skinner Box crap.
Take an hour to make a character? I don't wanna play Rifts.
Take 6 hours to make an encounter that the players steamroll in 15 minutes? I have a job, thanks.
Let's hope they not only look at what was right with an edition, but what was wrong, and let's hope they don't change things just to make them different.
4E wasn't a failure. Not in sales, not in brand recognition, not in attracting new customers.
Otherwise Hasbro would have dropped them like a hot rock within the first 6 months.
Quote from: T-Willard;508393I don't see it as 4E failed, but rather this time WotC was quicker on the uptake about a fact that makes RPG sales difficult.
All you need is the Core Books, and a lot of people pride themselves on only running Core Books, and never buy a single other thing.
That made all of the supplements risky.
Then you have tight economic times, which means that every line must be considered productive, or it (rightly) gets cut.
4E was a different design. Was it a wrong design? It depends on who you ask. But it was different.
Now they want to make a new edition.
I don't think 4E failed, any more than I think Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 97, or Windows 7 failed.
Datamining exists for D&D sales and purchases now. Now they can track better what sells and what doesn't.
So 4E wasn't a failure, it's just time for the next system.
Given how soon Windows 7 was released after Vista, as compared to how long XP reigned, is actually a pretty legit comparison for 4e's failure.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508395Given how soon Windows 7 was released after Vista, as compared to how long XP reigned, is actually a pretty legit comparison for 4e's failure.
I was thinking, to some degree, the same thing...but also, tech is often a bad example, as the change is made based on different factors. I really think WotC looked at their situation and decided on the new edition to see if they could reboot in time before they lost all the casualties of the edition wars forever.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508395Given how soon Windows 7 was released after Vista, as compared to how long XP reigned, is actually a pretty legit comparison for 4e's failure.
XP's long life were due to a lot of reasons that don't exactly cross, but if you want to claim it's a legit comparison for 4E's failure, then be my guest.
Because if you go by shelf life with fewest amount of changes:
RIFTS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER AND THE PALLADIUM SYSTEM RULES OVER ALL!!!!Then it's a legitimate comparison in the movement of technology and theory behind games. Games have changed, what they have to compete with has changed, and the market has changed. What they are competing with for spare time has changed, how much liquid capital people have has changed.
Not to mention, in business it's just like the old saying: "Expand or die."
Scream all you want that it was a failure, but do you think Hasbro, a multinational toy company, would have kept 4E running for as long as they did if it was a failure? Do you think they still would have produced minatures, kept WotC intact, commissioned artwork, or produced material?
Ask Ford about the Edsel. Check how fast it was dropped.
Quote from: T-Willard;508399Scream all you want that it was a failure, but do you think Hasbro, a multinational toy company, would have kept 4E running for as long as they did if it was a failure? Do you think they still would have produced minatures, kept WotC intact, commissioned artwork, or produced material?
I don't see anyone screaming at the moment. As for whether they would have kept printing books for three years if it were not a success... I can't say. They certainly will keep WotC intact regardless of D&D, as magic will keep selling.
Like I said at the beginning, 4e was almost certainly profitable for its entire run. It just ran below expectations, and WotC has been looking to change direction since at least Essentials.
Quote from: beejazz;508419Like I said at the beginning, 4e was almost certainly profitable for its entire run. It just ran below expectations, and WotC has been looking to change direction since at least Essentials.
I'm not sure that it ran below expectations, since I'm not privy to what the marketing team and R&D had expected, but I've seen a LOT of posts on here referring to 4E as a failure.
I'm not sure it was a failure.
I think the sale of core books might have dropped, and that there were enough recognized problems in the game that a new edition was decided upon, but I really doubt that 4E was a failure.
Quote from: T-Willard;508423I'm not sure that it ran below expectations, since I'm not privy to what the marketing team and R&D had expected, but I've seen a LOT of posts on here referring to 4E as a failure.
I'm not sure it was a failure.
I think the sale of core books might have dropped, and that there were enough recognized problems in the game that a new edition was decided upon, but I really doubt that 4E was a failure.
If it was tied with Pathfinder, it was a failure by dint of having half the players it could have had (barring pretty significant overlap). Remember a huge success for a smaller company like Paizo can still be a failure on the books of a larger company like WotC. Context matters.
Additionally, WotC must have some goal that isn't being served by 4e, otherwise there is no point to releasing a new edition. Unless WotC likes taking risks for risk's sake, or is acting impulsively.
Finally, I would assume they were willing to take a hit in book sales based on the existence of the DDI. Their business plan should have counted on it (hence the conjecture that the hope was to sell accessories at a better profit or something). My whole initial post is about how the edition could fail to live up to expectations financially for reasons outside the rules and fractured player base (the two most frequently blamed factors from what I've seen).
Quote from: T-Willard;508423I'm not sure it was a failure.
That's your prerogative. But now that 5E is on the horizon, WotC insiders (both current and former) are coming out to tell us what we all knew when Essentials was rolled out after just 2 years and then Slavicsek was sacked: 4E was a failure.
For example, Scott Rouse writes (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316069-wizards-coast-seeks-unity-new-edition-7.html#post5769720): "4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away." Add to that Ryan Dancey's recent piece and the Escapist article citing WotC insiders and the New York Times article also citing WotC insiders... There's probably more. I haven't actually been following any of this hubbub very closely.
I'll admit to only having the core books and the essentials line. I'll probably grab a few more bits when 5e comes out and 4e is dropped like a hot potato (i.e. cheap) if only to make something of the game with my own house rules. A little bit of tweaking (costume design it sounds like, and choosing a codename is sometimes tricky) and it should make a decent supers game.
How well supported, year on year was 4e? Anyone have numbers of supplements/modules that were released to see when the tail off started? Are they still churning modules out, or is it 'dead' and they'll sell what they have in the warehouse and reprint back catalogue stuff to stoke the fan boy flames till 5e surfaces?
Quote from: T-Willard;508399Ask Ford about the Edsel. Check how fast it was dropped.
So what you're saying is 4E is the Delorean of RPGS.
Quote from: APN;508491How well supported, year on year was 4e? Anyone have numbers of supplements/modules that were released to see when the tail off started? Are they still churning modules out, or is it 'dead' and they'll sell what they have in the warehouse and reprint back catalogue stuff to stoke the fan boy flames till 5e surfaces?
Print-wise it's been dead since late 2010, when work on 5th edition began. All work was outsourced to free lancers whom WotC at the same time slammed incidentally for producing sub-par work in their e-magazines. Little stuff appeared in 2011, some of it reaching new heights of craptasticness (like Heroes of Shadow).
On the bright side, there's a ton of material that appeared in mid 2008 to mid 2010, and plenty to pick up on in the bargain bins. Here's a complete index:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/294795-4th-edition-collectors-guide.html
Quote from: APN;508491I'll admit to only having the core books and the essentials line. I'll probably grab a few more bits when 5e comes out and 4e is dropped like a hot potato (i.e. cheap)
Don't be sure that this will happen 100%. When I wanted to complete my collection of 3.X books after 4E I found out that the prices had skyrocketed.
[OTOH we are talking about 3.X after buyers realized the relative value of 4E...]
The best deals I got were on Amazon and Noble Knight with the "like new" condition. Often "like new" meant a little smudge on a corner of the book for a price tag of $10, compared with the $50+ asked for the same book in "new" condition.
Quote from: Reckall;508559Don't be sure that this will happen 100%. When I wanted to complete my collection of 3.X books after 4E I found out that the prices had skyrocketed.
Exactly. The best buy-in was in the
pre-release
hype phase, January-March 2008. I still laugh my ass off when I read Massawyrm's old pre-release review from that time, as I imagine part of his readership cart off their books to Half Price at break neck speed to be picked up by more deserving souls like myself. :D
Quote from: Massawyrm, Spring 2008Let me just say this upfront. I. Love. 4E. And I didn’t want to. Much like many of you out there, the 3.5 partial reboot just five years ago pissed me off. But we’ve spent 8 years now with the better part of this system. And hell, even 5 years is a long time. But Massawyrm, you’re thinking you don’t know how much I’ve spent on 3.5. No? Here at the Casa de la Wyrm we don’t have a D&D bookshelf. We have a D&D closet. It’s where I keep my boxes of Dwarven Forge Master Maze, my big plastic bins of D&D Minis, and two long shelves of over $1000 in 3.5 books. But just 2 weeks into playing 4E, I boxed up every non-fluff heavy book I owned, drove down to Half Price Books and sold them for as much cash as I could get. I knew I would never, ever, touch them again. Yes. 4E really is that good. It is the XBOX 360 to your XBOX. And it is time to upgrade my friends.
Massawyrm really was the greatest prick in the entire 4E prerelease hype, and in retrospect his over-confidence in the game's commercial success to haul in the entire fandom stands exposed as the hubris it was at the time:
Quote from: Massawyrm, May 20084E rocks. We’re finally reaching the end of the fighting, the put up or shut up stage of every new game edition relaunch. The old holdouts will still play their older edition and bitch loudly for a few more months while those on the fence will try the game and no doubt slowly adapt even if they don’t fall as in love with it as I did – remembering both the good and the bad of previous editions.
Sources: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776 ; http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36838
Does anyone else find it a little embarrassing for WotC that they are still publishing 4e books (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/356170000) when 5e has been announced?
Also, Massawyrm's review was laughably bad. It boiled down to "my wife is a moron but 4e is so simple that she can play it."
Quote from: B.T.;508565Does anyone else find it a little embarrassing for WotC that they are still publishing 4e books (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/356170000) when 5e has been announced?
I dunno, is it surprising that they've thrown the leftovers together to squeeze a few more dollars out of the game before they put it out to pasture?
(Mixed metaphors ahoy!)
Quote from: MassawyrmEvery decade or so Dungeons & Dragons gets a make over. Not just a facelift, but a complete rebooting of the system. What I’ve always loved about these reboots is that each time the designers make sure to integrate, rather than move away from, the innovations of the previous decade. When 2E came out in ’89, it took all of the math, the charts and the diversity that had emerged in gaming throughout the 80’s and created one of the most complicated systems to date. When 3E hit the shelves in 2000, it took the revolution of the Vampire White Wolf Storyteller system - the notion of complete character individuality and modular options – and gave it a strong, but much more complicated system to work with. Now, with the revolutions in online gaming, Dungeons & Dragons once again finds itself evolving. From Everquest to the World of Warcraft (and the many other imitators in between and after) comes the notion of perfect balance – the idea that every class, every character, every role in the party, has something to do and never, ever, has to sit on the sidelines.
"Complete reboot" every ten years? 2E, "one of the most complicated system to date"? 3E "took the revolution of the Vampire WW ST system"? God, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Quote from: Benoist;508568"Complete reboot" every ten years? 2E, "one of the most complicated system to date"? 3E "took the revolution of the Vampire WW ST system"? God, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, holy shit. That's dumb with the capital D right there.
edit: checked his aicn column AND his twitter - NOT A FUCKIN' PEEP. Maybe someone should remind him.
Quote from: Benoist;508568"Complete reboot" every ten years? 2E, "one of the most complicated system to date"? 3E "took the revolution of the Vampire WW ST system"? God, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, i wouldn't call 2e a complete reboot of 1e. It was pretty backwards compatible with a lot of optional material, but contrary to what he says it wasn't that comlplex at all. I just ran a 2E campaign after playing 3E for a long time, and the former is a lot less complex (particularly in the realm of combat). Even 3E wasn't a complete reboot. The basic structure was there, and conversions to 2E and 1E were feasible. To use a musical anology, 2E is a half step from 1st edition, 3E is a whole step from 2nd edition, and 4E is a whole octave from 3rd.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;508573Yeah, i wouldn't call 2e a complete reboot of 1e. It was pretty backwards compatible with a lot of optional material, but contrary to what he says it wasn't that comlplex at all. I just ran a 2E campaign after playing 3E for a long time, and the former is a lot less complex (particularly in the realm of combat). Even 3E wasn't a complete reboot. The basic structure was there, and conversions to 2E and 1E were feasible. To use a musical anology, 2E is a half step from 1st edition, 3E is a whole step from 2nd edition, and 4E is a whole octave from 3rd.
2e was just a quick de-gygaxing of 1e followed up by a Moral Scrubbing to hide the game from the housefraus - who would otherwise be living in their quiet desperation - that got caught up in the Satanic Panic. Assassins gone (EVIL!), half-orcs (icky icky crossbreeding, well, wait, half elves...), the infamous standards & practices letter, the tarring and feathering of Greyhawk at the outset...
There's a reason Gary called Dave Cook "Zeb the Destroyer"...
Yeah. I mean, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the game can see the guy is full of shit.
Quote from: Windjammer;508562Exactly. The best buy-in was in the pre-release hype phase, January-March 2008.
You put salt on an open wound :( I
knew it was going to end that way, but I was $$$s challenged at the time. When the cash flow resumed (strangely enough the most prosper period in my life is coinciding with the crisis) people had wised up on the relative values of 3.X and 4E
QuoteMassawyrm really was the greatest prick in the entire 4E prerelease hype
I didn't like what I was hearing about 4E, but I hadn't really followed the developments of the new edition. Massawyrm's review was my first real exposition to 4E, and I will thank him for one-thousand years for it - since he really managed to convey how sucky the new iteration was going to be.
It is also worth mentioning the Forge-speak with which he desperately tried to dismiss Pathfinder:
"3.5 had a lot of issues. As I’ve written about numerous times, gaming evolves; and what is cutting edge in the year 2000 may not hold up to the revolutions within the community by 2008. 3.5 didn’t hold up.
Nothing has amused me more than listening to the raving idiots who scream otherwise, backing up their opinions with “No, it works idiot. You just have to houserule it.” When you houserule things, you’re changing the rules. Because they don’t work. Well, PATHFINDER, Paizo’s answer to 4E is finally here. And it is the ultimate in 3.5 houserulings."
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42038
Quote from: B.T.;508565Does anyone else find it a little embarrassing for WotC that they are still publishing 4e books (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/356170000) when 5e has been announced?
Aren't the "Heroes of Adjective Noun" books made with a random 4E book generator? This should keep costs down and still satisfy the 4E crowd.
QuoteAlso, Massawyrm's review was laughably bad. It boiled down to "my wife is a moron but 4e is so simple that she can play it."
The positive thing is that he inspired one of the best 4E marketing hype (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971) parodies ever. :D
Ah, that is a solid parody. It touches on one thing that never worked satisfactorily for me: dailies.
These represented such massive swings of power that a tough encounter turned into a much easier encounter...and every player had them, so I had to make encounters tough just to make them easy. but players would latch onto them like gold, just in case there was a really tough encounter, so by the end of the adventure, that last fight would have half a dozen or more dailies going off.
I'd have to plan for that, so it'd have to be a miserably tough encounter just so it'd be at least a little climactic after all the dailies went off...which in turn meant the players needed to latch onto their dailies all the more bitterly for that big fight at the end.
In short, it didn't work.
I'm hoping 5e will have more of a "winds of fate" type system, so that players can't reliably pick and choose when their best/daily powers go off. That might be more fun...or might have different pitfalls. Hey, "different" can be good all by itself, sometimes.
You know what's sad about that parody? Go read (some) posts at enworld and (most) posts at big throbbing purple.
it's what most of the posters in those want, anyway
Quote from: Doom;508606...which in turn meant the players needed to latch onto their dailies all the more bitterly for that big fight at the end.
Reminds me of my first 4e character, a Warlord with "Lead the Attack" as her first level daily. How this particular power managed to avoid errata for over a year-and-a-half will forever be a mystery. The other party members nicknamed it "Trivialize this Encounter".
On the other end of the spectrum however was the at-will "Commander's Strike" which was an unrelenting fountain of joy for which I will not apologies.
"Yeah, yeah, go ahead an hit him again." *pulls up lawn chair and sips a martini*
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508618Reminds me of my first 4e character, a Warlord with "Lead the Attack" as her first level daily. How this particular power managed to avoid errata for over a year-and-a-half will forever be a mystery. The other party members nicknamed it "Trivialize this Encounter".
On the other end of the spectrum however was the at-will "Commander's Strike" which was an unrelenting fountain of joy for which I will not apologies.
"Yeah, yeah, go ahead an hit him again." *pulls up lawn chair and sips a martini*
For those of us who haven't much followed the rules, details?
Quote from: beejazz;508620For those of us who haven't much followed the rules, details?
'Lead the Attack' is a first level daily which, until the rest of the encounter, gives the whole party on each of their attacks a bonus to their to-hit rolls that equals 1 plus the Warlord's INT-modifier.
Since INT
isn't the main stat of the warlord (otherwise we'd be looking at a +6 by level 12, so +7 for the whole party) it wasn't that impressive actually.
- Contrast the cleric's
Righteous Brand, which did exactly that: it handed out to-hit bonuses equal to the cleric's main stat, so you really are looking at insane bonuses to attacks by mid to late paragon here. Even better, this wasn't a daily, it was an at-will. Of course it was restricted, target and duration wise, but still: it was flexible, it was more powerful, and you could do it as often as you wanted. This contributed to the view in the community that warlords were inferior to clerics.
Righteous Brand got errated eventually too. I'm sure every power that's a bit fun in that Player's Handbook got eventually deleted or altered beyond recognition, because that's progress and (to cite Abyssal Maw) great interaction with your customer.
- There's bard dailys which hand out something similar 'to the end of encounter bonuses for entire party' bonuses which are a lot more appealing, by coupling these bonuses to to-hit rolls with other stuff, like giving Combat Advantage to others all the time against all foes you hit. For the uninitiated: Combat Advantage nets you effectively a +2 to hit and opens up lots of stuff for class abilities like the rogue's sneak attack (which, in 4E, is +2d8 or +3d8 at heroic/paragon).
'Commander's Strike' is a bit of an underwhelming at-will which basically has you give up your attack so someone else can sneak in a base attack of their own (plus your INT-mod in damage - see above). Unless you're playing with people who've optimized their base attacks (Essentials, I'm looking at you) that's... seriously underwhelming.
Hey, before it got errata's/FAQed/clarified, players could hire a dozen level 1 warlords to sit back in town and just 'give up their attack' to the heroes in the dungeon.
Quote from: Windjammer;508625
'Lead the Attack' is a first level daily which, until the rest of the encounter, gives the whole party on each of their attacks a bonus to their to-hit rolls
[snip]
'Commander's Strike' is a bit of an underwhelming at-will which basically has you give up your attack so someone else can sneak in a base attack of their own
Sometimes I wonder if 4E was created by throwing TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org) in a food mixer.
Quote from: Reckall;508638Sometimes I wonder if 4E was created by throwing TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org) in a food mixer.
Naw, just Tomb of Battle.
Viritually every attack power 4e Warlords had got its start in the White Raven maneuver list.
Quote from: Doom;508637Hey, before it got errata's/FAQed/clarified, players could hire a dozen level 1 warlords to sit back in town and just 'give up their attack' to the heroes in the dungeon.
The odd templeting of the PHB Commander's Strike entry lead to a hilarious 2000+ post mega thread on the Wizards forum. In which one faction absolutely insisted it could be used at ranged, while another saying it could only be used when the Warlord also threatened the target. Both believing with perfect certainty their view was supported by RAW, and ignoring any input from customer service or the FAQ.
"Only the mighty Designer can know intent!"
Quote from: Doom;508637Hey, before it got errata's/FAQed/clarified, players could hire a dozen level 1 warlords to sit back in town and just 'give up their attack' to the heroes in the dungeon.
My friends and I did some math. A group of 45~ Warlords could make one poor fighter speed up to MACH 1 in one round of combat.
Quote from: Doom;508637Hey, before it got errata's/FAQed/clarified, players could hire a dozen level 1 warlords to sit back in town and just 'give up their attack' to the heroes in the dungeon.
No, not really. Any character not controlled by the players is by definition a NPC. And warlord NPCs per DMG p. 183 do not have the at-will in question - they only have Inspiring Word. So we need a willing and stupid DM who not only rules the power in a way that ignores LoS/LoE but also ignores the first rule in the game for the PC/NPC divide. In other words, spherical cows.
Edit. Or, in another take - Companion characters, DMG 2, foresees more free selection of NPC at-wills. So, did this discussion arise before the release of DMG 2?
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508646Naw, just Tomb of Battle.
Viritually every attack power 4e Warlords had got its start in the White Raven maneuver list.
Debatable really; one of the preview books for 4E suggests at least a major chunk of Tome of Battle was 4E being refitted back to 3E. (explains why I hated it...).
Quote from: Races and Classes, pg 8
Baker, Donais, and Mearls translated current versions of the Orcus I mechanics into a last-minute revision of
Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It was a natural fit, since Rich Baker had already been treating the Book of Nine Swords as a “powers for fighters” project. The effort required to splice the mechanics into 3rd Edition were a bit extreme, but the experiment was worth it.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LEFT]
Quote from: Mostlyjoe;508652My friends and I did some math. A group of 45~ Warlords could make one poor fighter speed up to MACH 1 in one round of combat.
Is that like in 3e when in darkness you cast darkness so you can see?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;508674Debatable really; one of the preview books for 4E suggests at least a major chunk of Tome of Battle was 4E being refitted back to 3E. (explains why I hated it...).
The more you know.
I do like one feature out TOB over 4e: the recovery mechanic for each of the classes being different. Which served to make them distinct from each other, and different from casters in general.
With the recent discussion over wizards/fighters and their relative effectiveness, warblades at least would seem to complement caster very well. Providing very consistent power over long periods compared to "spike damage" and providing players dissatisfied with the fighter options some more knobs to fiddle with. It also gets around (..got around?) some aspects of 4e people take umbrage with, the martial daily(edit: unless the daily is "Barbarian Rage") and combats dragging on thanks to missing key 'encounter powers'.
Why Did It Fail??
Because it sucked - okay?
No it really sucked big time.
It was a stinky stew of bad ideas made by too many cooks.
A player shouldn't need a card collector page of 9 plus 'power cards' on the table just to keep track of what silly sounding 'powers' his or her character has.
- Ed C.
RIFTS is a pretty good game, in fact.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Sommerjon;508691Is that like in 3e when in darkness you cast darkness so you can see?
There was once a 20-25 page (some few hundred message) flame war on rec.games.frp.dnd over whether or not casting Invisibility on a door in 3e would let you see through it into the room.
There were actually people arguing that no, just because the door was utterly invisible that you couldn't see through it, that it's lack of visible presence would still somehow not permit what was in the room to be seen.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKERS! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508774There was once a 20-25 page (some few hundred message) flame war on rec.games.frp.dnd over whether or not casting Invisibility on a door in 3e would let you see through it into the room.
There were actually people arguing that no, just because the door was utterly invisible that you couldn't see through it, that it's lack of visible presence would still somehow not permit what was in the room to be seen.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKERS! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Nerds: not quite as universally smart as pop-culture makes them seem (unfortunately).
Quote from: Peregrin;508776Nerds: not quite as universally smart as pop-culture makes them seem (unfortunately).
Not even close, actually.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508774There was once a 20-25 page (some few hundred message) flame war on rec.games.frp.dnd over whether or not casting Invisibility on a door in 3e would let you see through it into the room.
There were actually people arguing that no, just because the door was utterly invisible that you couldn't see through it, that it's lack of visible presence would still somehow not permit what was in the room to be seen.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKERS! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
The sad thing is that I think the designers, and many fans, felt that the rigidity of 4E's design, which severely limited the PC's ability to try such things, was a good thing.
Quote from: Dog Quixote;508792The sad thing is that I think the designers, and many fans, felt that the rigidity of 4E's design, which severely limited the PC's ability to try such things, was a good thing.
Which is why I, for one, believe 4e to suck monkey balls.
Quote from: RPGPundit;508744RIFTS is a pretty good game, in fact.
RPGPundit
Fuck off.
Quote from: B.T.;508796Fuck off.
Nope, I'm gonna have to agree. Rifts and Palladium Fantasy. You can tell from reading the intros to the books (core books and the Rifts Adventure Guide) that he has a real, true, love/passion for RPGs and exploring worlds in your imagination. He really gets what RPGs are about, and why they are so great.
The settings have tonnes of cool stuff in them. They just . . . really are filled with lots of great ideas. Gonzo. Also, don't have to worrying about upgrading to a new edition, really.
The Rifter is always a good read, too, I find.
I agree. RIFTS is a labor of love. No question about it.
Sweaty gonzo man-boob love, maybe, but love nonetheless.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508774There was once a 20-25 page (some few hundred message) flame war on rec.games.frp.dnd over whether or not casting Invisibility on a door in 3e would let you see through it into the room.
There were actually people arguing that no, just because the door was utterly invisible that you couldn't see through it, that it's lack of visible presence would still somehow not permit what was in the room to be seen.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKERS! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Man, I was just thinking about that fucking train wreck yesterday. I was working on finalizing the
invisibility spell for the Legends & Labyrinths Grimoire (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/12052/roleplaying-games/legends-labyrinths-the-grimoire). I was struggling with one of the core design philosophies of L&L -- exactly how much precision do the rules benefit from? -- and I very specifically thought about that thread...
And realized that trying to answer those kinds of specific, interpretive questions in an RPG rulebook is almost always irrelevant and is more usefully left in the hands of the GM and players.
For those who weren't around at the time, the fundamental point of disagreement was that one group felt that invisibility made the subject perfectly transparent (allowing you to see through the door) while the other felt the spell provided a kind of "reality filter" so that people just wouldn't notice the caster (which meant that you couldn't see through the door; the spell would just make you ignore its existence).
The latter is an interesting effect, but creates some real interpretive difficulties if you start testing corner cases. (For example, what happens if you cast
invisibility on the entire wall? What do you see/perceive if you look down that hallway?) It was also clearly, completely, and totally wrong given the rules of AD&D2. (In AD&D,
invisible creatures in water were clearly visible due to the displaced water. This wouldn't be true under the "reality filter" interpretation of the spell.)
Quote from: Kord's Boon;508693I do like one feature out TOB over 4e: the recovery mechanic for each of the classes being different. Which served to make them distinct from each other, and different from casters in general.
ToB is pretty good if you just re-skin everything to be explicitly magical (and ditch the stuff that you can't). Viewed in that light, the entire book is basically the best iteration of the spellsword concept the game has ever had: The balance isn't too wacky and the classes have unique mechanical interest.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508774There was once a 20-25 page (some few hundred message) flame war on rec.games.frp.dnd over whether or not casting Invisibility on a door in 3e would let you see through it into the room.
There were actually people arguing that no, just because the door was utterly invisible that you couldn't see through it, that it's lack of visible presence would still somehow not permit what was in the room to be seen.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKERS! DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Oh God, that is funny....
Quote from: Peregrin;508776Nerds: not quite as universally smart as pop-culture makes them seem (unfortunately).
Aristotle made the important distinction between the ability to retain information and the ability to apply it wisely. Practical wisdom requires not just that you've internalized the essentials of what virtuous behaviour consists in, it also requires you to recognize which situations call for that behaviour and which do not.
Or, in other words...
(http://bronxbanter.arneson.name/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gary_larson_gifted_comp1.jpg)
Quote from: Justin AlexanderFor those who weren't around at the time, the fundamental point of disagreement was that one group felt that invisibility made the subject perfectly transparent (allowing you to see through the door) while the other felt the spell provided a kind of "reality filter" so that people just wouldn't notice the caster (which meant that you couldn't see through the door; the spell would just make you ignore its existence).
The latter is an interesting effect, but creates some real interpretive difficulties if you start testing corner cases. (For example, what happens if you cast invisibility on the entire wall? What do you see/perceive if you look down that hallway?) It was also clearly, completely, and totally wrong given the rules of AD&D2. (In AD&D, invisible creatures in water were clearly visible due to the displaced water. This wouldn't be true under the "reality filter" interpretation of the spell.)
I kind of like the idea of invisibility as an IGNORE ME! spell, if only because it explains why the spell ends if you attack somebody.
That said it's not something I've messed with in play for whatever reason.
And the IGNORE ME! spell gives a really easy method for hiding a door in that case, which could be a really cool way to throw off pursuit.
Quote from: beejazz;508981I kind of like the idea of invisibility as an IGNORE ME! spell, if only because it explains why the spell ends if you attack somebody.
That said it's not something I've messed with in play for whatever reason.
And the IGNORE ME! spell gives a really easy method for hiding a door in that case, which could be a really cool way to throw off pursuit.
aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAGH
NO! BAD! PUT IT DOWN!
INVISIBILITY! = NOT ABLE TO BE SEEN! THEREFORE! DOOR = TRANSPARENT.
DO NOT BRING YOUR EVIL HERE.
Suck it bitches.
Blind Spot
Spell Level: MU 2
Range: 240 feet
This spell alters the outside perception of the caster (or target). Onlookers ignore or otherwise fail to notice life forms or objects which are under the spell's effect. Individuals who aware of the presence of said object/life form may make a saving throw. A successful ST allows exposes the location of the enchanted object/life form.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508982aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAGH
NO! BAD! PUT IT DOWN!
INVISIBILITY! = NOT ABLE TO BE SEEN! THEREFORE! DOOR = TRANSPARENT.
DO NOT BRING YOUR EVIL HERE.
I do have another problem though - doesn't invisibility work only on a person? Like, it affects only flesh, but it also gives a small "aura" that conceals all the clothing etc. etc.?
Quote from: beejazz;508981I kind of like the idea of invisibility as an IGNORE ME! spell, if only because it explains why the spell ends if you attack somebody.
That said it's not something I've messed with in play for whatever reason.
And the IGNORE ME! spell gives a really easy method for hiding a door in that case, which could be a really cool way to throw off pursuit.
I really like that interpretation, too. It has a more low-key, shadowy feel than literal invisibility. On the other hand, casting invisibility on a door to see through it is clever, too. For the most part this seems like something that's best left to the individual table to interpret.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;508982aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAGH
NO! BAD! PUT IT DOWN!
INVISIBILITY! = NOT ABLE TO BE SEEN! THEREFORE! DOOR = TRANSPARENT.
DO NOT BRING YOUR EVIL HERE.
Jesus. Calm down.
Quote from: two_fishes;508992Jesus. Calm down.
thedungeondelver is an interesting poster, but he is not Jesus.
Quote from: 1989;508834Nope, I'm gonna have to agree. Rifts and Palladium Fantasy. You can tell from reading the intros to the books (core books and the Rifts Adventure Guide) that he has a real, true, love/passion for RPGs and exploring worlds in your imagination. He really gets what RPGs are about, and why they are so great.
The settings have tonnes of cool stuff in them. They just . . . really are filled with lots of great ideas. Gonzo. Also, don't have to worrying about upgrading to a new edition, really.
The Rifter is always a good read, too, I find.
RIFTS is basically an entire world based on what a 12-year-old boy on Jolt cola thinks is cool, endless skulls and dragons and cyborgs and all. The rules are just AD&D with brain damage.
Dayum, that motivates me to pick up a copy.
Quote from: Doom;509032Dayum, that motivates me to pick up a copy.
Ditto. I'd want to run it using
Mutant Future, though.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;509000RIFTS is basically an entire world based on what a 12-year-old boy on Jolt cola thinks is cool, endless skulls and dragons and cyborgs and all. The rules are just AD&D with brain damage.
Eh, Palladium's system is pretty far removed from AD&D by the time you get to Rifts.
The original Palladium Fantasy rules were a lot closer (being an AD&D/Runequest hybrid) but by the time you get to Rifts the system has definately mutated into something of its own.
Quote from: two_fishes;508992I really like that interpretation, too. It has a more low-key, shadowy feel than literal invisibility. On the other hand, casting invisibility on a door to see through it is clever, too. For the most part this seems like something that's best left to the individual table to interpret.
There's room for both versions, though if I had an ignore me spell, I might not call it invisibility, just because there are people like dungeondelver. Popular perception has an invisible thing physically invisible.
Though on that note, if I had both spells, I wouldn't have genuine invisibility end when you attack somebody. That really makes more sense for an ignore me spell, because you can't ignore the knife in your back.
Quote from: Aos;508989Suck it bitches.
Blind Spot
Spell Level: MU 2
Range: 240 feet
This spell alters the outside perception of the caster (or target). Onlookers ignore or otherwise fail to notice life forms or objects which are under the spell's effect. Individuals who aware of the presence of said object/life form may make a saving throw. A successful ST allows exposes the location of the enchanted object/life form.
And there we go. We don't have to torture language any more now that we already have a wholly separate and clearer form of concept already available (or you can also just use "Ignore Me" as well). So now we can leave the word "invisibility" alone.
No sense retreading Forgist sadism against language.
Quote from: Opaopajr;509087No sense retreading Forgist sadism against language.
I call such attempts (not just from Forge) "Alphabet Rapist".
Quote from: beejazz;508981I kind of like the idea of invisibility as an IGNORE ME! spell
Then read "Glamour (http://www.amazon.com/Glamour-GollanczF-Christopher-Priest/dp/0575075791/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4)" by Christopher Priest. It is a novel set in the modern times and based on this very idea: a power possessed by a tiny number of individuals. It is a page turner and the crucial plot-twist is
really good.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;509000RIFTS is basically an entire world based on what a 12-year-old boy on Jolt cola thinks is cool, endless skulls and dragons and cyborgs and all. The rules are just AD&D with brain damage.
This is the best summary I ever read of why RIFTS is so good.
Quote from: Rincewind1;508991I do have another problem though - doesn't invisibility work only on a person? Like, it affects only flesh, but it also gives a small "aura" that conceals all the clothing etc. etc.?
Going back, it looks my memory was faulty. It was actually a discussion of the rules from 3E (in which invisibility can affect objects).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;509137Going back, it looks my memory was faulty. It was actually a discussion of the rules from 3E (in which invisibility can affect objects).
No problem - I make no claims to be a specialist on any edition's spell list(except Warhammer 1e). Was just curious.
Quote from: Halloween Jack;509000RIFTS is basically an entire world based on what a 12-year-old boy on Jolt cola thinks is cool, endless skulls and dragons and cyborgs and all. The rules are just AD&D with brain damage.
Funny that this should come from the mouth of someone who posts on at least two forums in which grown men express glee at watching a cartoon about ponies.
RIFTS is a steaming pile of failure. Not because of the setting, which is palatable if you accept it as a giant themepark, but because Kevin Siembieda is a douche, his mechanics are terrible, and his book layouts are from a bygone era.
Quote from: B.T.;509153RIFTS is a steaming pile of failure. Not because of the setting, which is palatable if you accept it as a giant themepark, but because Kevin Sembieda is a douche, his mechanics are terrible, and his book layouts are from a bygone era.
So you're saying its "Old School"? I agree.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;509156So you're saying its "Old School"? I agree.
RPGPundit
LOL. That made me laugh out loud. :D
Quote from: B.T.;509153Funny that this should come from the mouth of someone who posts on at least two forums in which grown men express glee at watching a cartoon about ponies.
To co-opt a simile, trying to find a forum that has people who like the new MLP and want to show it is about as hard as finding someone who eats breakfast cereal.
Fucking serious. You can't get away from the shit. Even the Mechwarrior boards I post on have several regulars with pony avatars.
Subcultures are weird.
Quote from: Peregrin;509170To co-opt a simile, trying to find a forum that has people who like the new MLP and want to show it is about as hard as finding someone who eats breakfast cereal.
Fucking serious. You can't get away from the shit. Even the Mechwarrior boards I post on have several regulars with pony avatars.
Subcultures are weird.
Nerd subculture is insular and cancerous.
TheRPGSite is the most mature, least embarrassingly childish RPG forum that I have ever encountered. (That may or may not be damning with faint praise.) I
despise nerds, and that sentiment is coming from a huge geek who spends his talking about D&D and writing up house rules. Once you disconnect nerds from their electronic umbilical cords, they become passable human beings, but as long as they have their weird online hugboxes, they will remain social detritus.
Quote from: B.T.;509177Nerd subculture is insular and cancerous.
TheRPGSite is the most mature, least embarrassingly childish RPG forum that I have ever encountered. (That may or may not be damning with faint praise.) I despise nerds, and that sentiment is coming from a huge geek who spends his talking about D&D and writing up house rules. Once you disconnect nerds from their electronic umbilical cords, they become passable human beings, but as long as they have their weird online hugboxes, they will remain social detritus.
Bolded part - I am scared of other RPG forums then.
The rest - going outside? Are you mad?!
Once you've experienced Tangency, you've experienced nerd subculture.
Quote from: B.T.;509177Once you disconnect nerds from their electronic umbilical cords, they become passable human beings,
Have you never been to a convention?
Quote from: B.T.;509179Once you've experienced Tangency, you've experienced nerd subculture.
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
Quote from: Aos;509180Have you never been to a convention?
I've been to plenty, but then again, Polish conventions are mostly about getting wasted with people you see once 3 months.
Quote from: Aos;509180Have you never been to a convention?
I should amend that to say:
QuoteOnce you disconnect nerds from their electronic umbilical cords and are subjected to the normalizing effects of society, they become passable human beings, but as long as they have their weird online hugboxes, they will remain social detritus.
You two and your cisgendered privilege abuse.
Quote from: Peregrin;509170Fucking serious. You can't get away from the shit.
You certainly haven't gotten away from us here.
Quote from: beejazz;509188You certainly haven't gotten away from us here.
Meh. I don't care as long as ponies don't become relevant to every topic.
If it were star wars or transformers it would be just as annoying.
Quote from: Peregrin;509199Meh. I don't care as long as ponies don't become relevant to every topic.
If it were star wars or transformers it would be just as annoying.
I'm into lots and lots of nerd things. I don't make a habit of talking to football nerds about my D&D character, or to anime club about klezmer, or on RPG forums about ponies (they're one of the least RPG-able things I'm into).
Only thing ponies are relevant to right now are:
1. Hasbro owns a cable channel. D&D TV show please?
2. Lauren Faust is busy, but what has Gendy Tartovsky been up to lately? Because there seriously needs to be a TV show.
3. Conversations about target audience, and obtaining unexpected audiences by way of quality and general appeal.
Quote from: beejazz;5092022. Lauren Faust is busy, but what has Gendy Tartovsky been up to lately? Because there seriously needs to be a TV show.
/QUOTE]
Directing a movie.
Quote from: beejazz;509202I'm into lots and lots of nerd things. I don't make a habit of talking to football nerds about my D&D character, or to anime club about klezmer, or on RPG forums about ponies (they're one of the least RPG-able things I'm into).
Only thing ponies are relevant to right now are:
1. Hasbro owns a cable channel. D&D TV show please?
2. Lauren Faust is busy, but what has Gendy Tartovsky been up to lately? Because there seriously needs to be a TV show.
3. Conversations about target audience, and obtaining unexpected audiences by way of quality and general appeal.
Hmm yeah. If ponies can take the met by storm, outstripping Dnd in popularity, there has to be something we could do for the franchise. Transmedia something or other?
Quote from: Rincewind1;509205Quote from: beejazz;5092022. Lauren Faust is busy, but what has Gendy Tartovsky been up to lately? Because there seriously needs to be a TV show.
Directing a movie.
Really?
Quote from: Mostlyjoe;509240Really?
Wasn't he doing the Star Wars cartoons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Transylvania
*gives it the horns*
But anyrate Rifts was what happens when you take the 1980's dump it in a blender and then spice with enough robots to make Skynet choke.
Quote from: beejazz;5092022. Lauren Faust is busy, but what has Gendy Tartovsky been up to lately?
It's a real shame that Cartoon Network didn't pick up Korgoth of Barbaria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJ8G_ou6Dc) (Likely NSFW), which was sort of like Thundarr, Conan, and Heavy Metal tossed into a Venture Brothers blender.
Quote from: John Morrow;509255It's a real shame that Cartoon Network didn't pick up Korgoth of Barbaria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJ8G_ou6Dc) (Likely NSFW), which was sort of like Thundarr, Conan, and Heavy Metal tossed into a blender.
It'd be certainly a good addition to Adult Swim. But - back to the topic?
Quote from: Rincewind1;509256But - back to the topic?
This thread still has one? Which is that? My Little Pony? How socially inept gamers are? Invisibility as an "ignore me" magic? Rifts? Why 4e failed?
Quote from: John Morrow;509257This thread still has one? Which is that? My Little Pony? How socially inept gamers are? Invisibility as an "ignore me" magic? Rifts? Why 4e failed?
Fair enough (and I see what you did there ;) ).
On the subject of RPG cartoons - Adventure Time is pretty much DnD cartoon, if your GM was taking bad acid.
Quote from: John Morrow;509255It's a real shame that Cartoon Network didn't pick up Korgoth of Barbaria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJ8G_ou6Dc) (Likely NSFW), which was sort of like Thundarr, Conan, and Heavy Metal tossed into a Venture Brothers blender.
I agree. I love that thing.
Quote from: Aos;509263I agree. I love that thing.
Ditto. Them not picking up Korgoth broke my heart :(
Quote from: Rincewind1;509259On the subject of RPG cartoons - Adventure Time is pretty much DnD cartoon, if your GM was taking bad acid.
Perhaps you missed that Genndy Tartakovsky was the animation director for the Korgoth pilot, which is why I mentioned it?
Quote from: John Morrow;509265Perhaps you missed that Genndy Tartakovsky was the animation director for the Korgoth pilot, which is why I mentioned it?
Guilty as charged, though I saw Korgoth before.
It's a terrible shame that Metalopocalypse (or whatever that poor cartoon about metal musicians is called) is produced, while Korgoth got the sod :(.
Still, at least Archer never fails to amuse.
I suppose I should add that Tartakovsky's Dexter is a big believer in a strong GM who can do whatever he wants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIA2MhMoQGQ).
Quote from: Peregrin;509219Hmm yeah. If ponies can take the met by storm, outstripping Dnd in popularity, there has to be something we could do for the franchise. Transmedia something or other?
Bringing it closer to the original topic, simple licensing can go a long way for a property. The cartoon/toy duo had all kinds of success back in the day, and I think D&D could still benefit in a big way. It's just a matter of giving the license to someone who won't fuck it up.
Hopefully the videogame license can do something worthwhile now. It's really odd that the edition most accused of being like an MMO never got its own CRPG.
I think the challenge at this point is by now, D&D, at least in terms of single-player CRPGs, is a damaged name most folks don't care about anymore. It's synonymous with buggy, mediocre releases. Even Obsidian's NWN2 split the fanbase because of how badly they fucked up the toolset and multiplayer -- the only things setting Neverwinter apart from other bog-standard fantasy RPGs, and the only D&D-related RPG to play on some of the strengths of D&D as a customizable experience.
With other more critically acclaimed franchises really riding high atm, it's going to be tough to find a niche for D&D in CRPGs. The MMO scene is the only spot where it's had at least some success.
Quote from: Peregrin;509305With other more critically acclaimed franchises really riding high atm, it's going to be tough to find a niche for D&D in CRPGs. The MMO scene is the only spot where it's had at least some success.
The 3e offerings for D&D games always left me wondering "if I'm spending time doing this, why am I not calling my friends to have a more interesting time playing the actual game without the clunky interface?" and/or "Maybe I should just work on my campaign instead."
Now if there was some kind of action rpg designed to be a video game first and a crappy emulation of tabletop rules second. Featuring the adventures of Meepo, Pun-pun, and Tucker Jr. in their journey to recapture the artifacts of the lost kobold empire. I'd play the crap out of that game.
QuoteThe 3e offerings for D&D games always left me wondering "if I'm spending time doing this, why am I not calling my friends to have a more interesting time playing the actual game without the clunky interface?" and/or "Maybe I should just work on my campaign instead."
Now if there was some kind of action rpg designed to be a video game first and a crappy emulation of tabletop rules second. Featuring the adventures of Meepo, Pun-pun, and Tucker Jr. in their journey to recapture the artifacts of the lost kobold empire. I'd play the crap out of that game.
I love face-to-face, and I generally prefer it over online play.
However the original Neverwinter Nights (IMO) got the closest to emulating the tabletop experience, with things like Neverwinter Connections (scheduling GM-run games using the DM client) or persistent-world role-play servers for more free-form play.
In fact I'd say on a good PW server, it was almost like playing Skyrim (good servers would let you buy a house or let you otherwise do things to make it feel like you "lived" there) with other people, just with the dynamic bits being real people and the server GMs interacting rather than based on algorithms. Much more entertaining than WoW, because a GM could "pick up" a group from a PW and start running a small off-the-cuff adventure.
NWN2 borked that creative and interactive aspect because Bioware gave it to a sub-par developer who fucked the multiplayer in favor of offering a more well-crafted story for the single-player, completely missing the point of the original game (whose singleplayer was pretty mediocre and more of an example of what you could do with the toolset).
I've heard the new Neverwinter game (multiplayer focused, thank god) offers something in the way of being able to submit dungeon ideas for the dev team to use, but I don't think it'll offer the same creative freedom that helps foster a really thriving community.
NWN 1 was grand. I've played it since it was released, I think. Ah, the days of NWN Connections. Whom you played there as, Peregrin?
Quote from: Rincewind1;510065NWN 1 was grand. I've played it since it was released, I think. Ah, the days of NWN Connections. Whom you played there as, Peregrin?
Sadly, the few times I tried to get into games on NW Connections, they fell through. But I heard a lot of great things about the service.
I mostly played on persistent world servers that had active GMs who would sometimes run short adventures in between the freeform RP. I couldn't tell you the character names anymore, but my NWN account name was Vismor.
D&D is trying to do 2 things which are counter-intuitive to each other:
1: It is trying to compete against other products in the pen & paper ROLEPLAYING game market.
2: It is trying to appeal to new customers, rather than the existing fan base, specifically the WOW/MMO generation.
The trouble with trying to achieve point 1 whilst constantly trying to also achieve point 2 is that they ended up making a product in 4E which, technically, is no longer really a Roleplaying game. It is a game where combat is more important than anything, where the things that make a character unique have all been homogenised and magic and class abilities no longer have any real differentiation, where you create a 'build' rather than a 'character', and most importantly - where the rules as they are presented now for the first time make it actually harder to do anything other than combat compared to previous editions of the game.
Even up to 3E, D&D was never just about combat - but about roleplaying a character and telling a shared story with your friends. And when you did have to resort to combat, at least you didn't have to buy a whole load of figures or minis in order to use the combat system.
D&D 4E is not an RPG yet not really a tabletop miniatures game either - its fallen into some horrible half-way house in-between and so doesn't really satisfy either type of gamer. For all the new customers it may have won with 4E, it has lost more than it gained - otherwise Pathfinder would not be massively outselling it the way it is.
I haven't looked at D&D Next, and there is a part of me that hopes they are steering the product back towards being a proper RPG. But my guess is that, being owned by Hasbro, they will inevitably be under pressure to tie-in a requirement to buy additional 'extras' like minis, terrain tiles, floor plans etc in order to play the game.
Wizards understand RPGs. Hasbro doesn't.
Dead thread...........ARISE!!!!
I'll pour a bit of energy into the undead thread, what the heck.
I downloaded the free 4E stuff, spent ten minutes looking at it, and decided it was too complicated for me.
Behold!
I will agree that D&D4 would be not appealing to the core MMORPG audience; just watch/listen to their podcasts, read their forums and listen to their conversations. Pay attention to their lingo and what they consider important about the game--what they think being a RPG (any sort) means--and you will see that WOTC could not have failed harder to target them.
I have the Essentials line. 4 books for: characters, reference and monsters. It looks great. I like the tight skills, I like the tight spell casting thing. I don't like the powers, the feats (I hate feats), the second wind auto-heal thing it has. I don't want to use a map.
The games that have lasted for me are adaptable. The ones that haven't require me to play lock-step with the assumptions of the designers. I could adapt it, but then, why don't I just play a different game?
I know a game will have difficulty being all things to all people, but my opinion is that 4E was too narrow in focus.
WotC struck out for a new audience with 4E. Which is not a bad idea in itself - clinging to the veteran RPG players-base is a path to suicide. Problem is, the game they came up with was much too complex and difficult to get into for new and casual gamers. WotC lost sight of what those casual and new players want, and what makes a pen and paper RPG unique. 4E is actually a very well-designed game. It's just not a game with as large a natural audience as WotC assumed.
The good news is they're applying the hard-won lessons of 4E to Next, and they'll be a publishing a new edition that marries the innovations of the last 20 years with a clear understanding of what most casual and new players want out of a pen and paper D&D experience. That is, to let the rules fade into the background and enable a group to tell fantastic stories.
My wife works in the MMO industry. Together we've managed 100+ person guilds from EQ to WoW, down to small intimate guilds with 8 folks. We played in MUDs and MUSHs before the advent of MMO's...
Whenever I hear the outrage of 4e fans about comparing the mechanics of 4e to an MMO... I scratch my head.
I can very easily see the connections mechanically. Why is it they can't? It's like they can actually play an MMO and not realize the mechanics of an MMO exist entirely to simulate what is supposed to be going on in a table-top game?
But that translation is exactly what is off-putting about 4e. It's like getting bootleg copy of a copy.
I've never understood the outrage at the comparison. It's very much there.
I was given a full set of 4e - complete. Brand new. Everything up to Essentials. I wanted to like it. I didn't. I loathed it, in fact. It felt... wrong.
Playing RPG's like any hobby has its beginning points, and if you stick with it your tastes will refine themselves. Otherwise you'll quit the hobby. You'll eventually play other things, and come to understand not just what you like - but WHY you like it. 4e is like Talisman on steroids. Sure you can play it and have fun - but I want a *lot* more out of my RPG's than what 4e offers.
I've mentioned here and there I like all editions of D&D for one reason or another, and there are things about each that I dislike.
4e is no exception. I don't think the game was a 'failure'-it may have been one of those 'corporate failures', sort of like what happened to Hitman/Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs with Square-Enix's old management(they considered them failures even though they moved something like...5 million for Hitman, 4 million for TR and Sleeping Dogs sold 2 million, and that was a brand new IP no one really knew about). They were expecting them to combine into something like 15 million. 4 million short! Oh no, failure!
4e I think did sell well enough, but I think a number of things sorta affected it(many have been mentioned over this thread, but I'll break my own down):
-the Battlemat dependency. 3.x was more ideal with them, but one *could* play pretty effectively without(we did plenty of times, but I guess it depended on how technical you wanted to get.) 4e simply all but reqired it flat out. It's been mentioned many times, but this really is I think a big blow behind why it didn't do as well.
-I somehow feel that being 'too perfectly balanced' may have been a blow against it as well. For as much as people sometimes lament the 3x/OGL in general as being too 'caster-rific', fixing it to the point where everything was actually on par seemed to go a bit too far and I actually talked to a few people around who said 'you know, maybe having the powerful wizard wasn't as bad as I thought, since this way it's a bit too same-y.'
-Now, I personally wasn't into Essentials. Some people liked it more than the base-I wasn't one of them, but I do feel that no matter how you felt, changing gears after a time in the middle might not have been the best thing they could have done, even if it was done with good intentions. If they had STARTED with it, it may have gone over better(and dare I say I might not have minded it as much if it was like that out of the gate.)
The 'Narrow in Focus' bit I can kinda agree with. While trying to be too broad in focus I think can be it's own issue, being too narrow can have it's issues as well. I find myself I think going back to 2e and 3.5 the most often(using a lot of splats for each) of all the games, due to the fact I feel I can pretty much pull off whatever style of game with them. (I love the Rules Cyclopedia for pick up and play; for me, if I'm going somewhere and people are interested in gaming and are open to styles/like D&D, I like using the RC, and 1e has a lovely old-fashioned groggy feel to it that I sometimes enjoy going back to as well, and it's books are some of the tops for me to read.)
I've played 4e, ran 4e, and enjoyed it; and if someone here were starting up a game of it I'd probably want to join in, but it's not quite my first choice of the bunch for some of those reasons. I don't think what they did was a disaster with it, but the varied changes and odds and ends just really indeed ended up narrowing it's focus a bit too much.
This thread makes me miss Abyssal Maw.
4e failed because it wasn't D&D, also because it was a big smelly turd.
I think they canned 4e, not because it was a failure, but because they realized they could use all the hate focused towards it to sell another round of core books five years earlier than expected.
With the exception of Brom's artwork, which is all available via image search anyway, the 4e presentation of Dark Sun was infinitely superior to the earlier iterations- which makes the game a net win for me.
Quote from: tenbones;7205194e is like Talisman on steroids. Sure you can play it and have fun - but I want a *lot* more out of my RPG's than what 4e offers.
I just recently played Talisman for the first time, so only now can I understand this reference.
Talisman is like pixel-bitching Monopoly -- excruciating and endless. There are far more entertaining ways for me to spend my time, such as staring blankly into space. The list of better things to do, and of expectations for my effort, are sizably convincing.
I really want to get a chance to play 4ed again one of these days. The only time I played it was for Keep on the Shadowfell and after that there was only one person in my RPG group that ever speaks well of 4ed (out of 217 members, including a lot of inactives, on our local RPG facebook group which includes a lot of lurkers and inactives but still...).
I just think that Keep on the Shadowfell did far too good a job of highlighting all of 4ed's flaws. If it had been better written and done things like include fewer but more interesting battles, that probably would've been the best way to have 4ed do better.
Well that and 4ed basically being an exercise of: "let's make a big list of everything that is annoying about 3ed mechanics that resulted from changing TSR-D&D mechanics without thinking through the results and fix those problems in the bluntest possible manner without ever considering just reverting to the TSR-D&D mechanics in which those problems were never an issue."
4e failed because Hasbro's sales expectations were out of line with reality, once the electronic component that was planned internally failed.
Quote from: Opaopajr;720612I just recently played Talisman for the first time, so only now can I understand this reference. Talisman is like pixel-bitching Monopoly -- excruciating and endless. There are far more entertaining ways for me to spend my time, such as staring blankly into space.
Any time I play a game like Talisman (e.g., Runebound, Dungeon!, HeroQuest, Dungeonquest, et cetera) it makes me wonder why the hell we aren't playing D&D, instead.
That's similar to my reaction to 4e: I'd rather play what I think of as *real* D&D, instead.
At my local meetup of 30+ gamers, 3.x has been overwhelmingly rejected in favor of 4, and Next is being ignored, in favor of the excitement generated by 13th Age.
If that's failure, I don't want to succeed!
Certainly, 4e's overabundance of rules, and often bad rules at that, didn't help...but even AD&D has "a rule or two" that really doesn't work.
I think what ultimately killed 4e was the terrible adventures. Everyone played KotS, but bottom line it wasn't very good or memorable or interesting. I bought a few other adventures, and they also were horrid, and often nearly unplayable (again the bad and repeatedly rewritten rules were a factor).
I think if 4e had great adventures, it would have helped a lot. Granted, it's possible the rules system itself made it tough to have great adventures; my attempts to "modernize" the old D&D adventures into 4e adventures usually failed, since the 4e rules really couldn't handle key concepts of D&D.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;720646At my local meetup of 30+ gamers, 3.x has been overwhelmingly rejected in favor of 4, and Next is being ignored, in favor of the excitement generated by 13th Age.
If that's failure, I don't want to succeed!
4e is all the rage with the younger Millennials, at least in the college group I've attended once or twice. They are stupid, as is using anecdotal evidence used to support broader trends.
Quote from: Doom;720659... my attempts to "modernize" the old D&D adventures into 4e adventures usually failed, since the 4e rules really couldn't handle key concepts of D&D.
Can you elaborate with a few examples?
Quote from: jeff37923;720548This thread makes me miss Abyssal Maw.
What's that?
Quote from: Doom;720659Certainly, 4e's overabundance of rules, and often bad rules at that, didn't help...but even AD&D has "a rule or two" that really doesn't work.
I think what ultimately killed 4e was the terrible adventures. Everyone played KotS, but bottom line it wasn't very good or memorable or interesting. I bought a few other adventures, and they also were horrid, and often nearly unplayable (again the bad and repeatedly rewritten rules were a factor).
I think if 4e had great adventures, it would have helped a lot. Granted, it's possible the rules system itself made it tough to have great adventures; my attempts to "modernize" the old D&D adventures into 4e adventures usually failed, since the 4e rules really couldn't handle key concepts of D&D.
I think the adventures being so appallingly, unnecessarily bad was a big factor. Many people learn to GM more through reading published adventures than anything else - they answer the big question, "What do I do with this game?"
4e also had a PHB that is appallingly badly written for someone trying to learn the game. It's designed as a reference text, but some of the most important stuff is still buried. The Essentials books are better, but few people read those.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;720669Can you elaborate with a few examples?
My first 4e campaign used Vault of Larin Karr, a large sandbox adventure converted from 3e. Many encounters didn't work under 4e rules, eg meeting a lone ooze.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;720646At my local meetup of 30+ gamers, 3.x has been overwhelmingly rejected in favor of 4, and Next is being ignored, in favor of the excitement generated by 13th Age.
If that's failure, I don't want to succeed!
Well if 30 odd customers is your idea of success, that's awesome.
4e failed because the majority of players and potential players didn't like it. Theres nothing more complicated than that. Doesn't mean there aren't people that like it, but there are people who like Phoenix Command too. Just not enough people.
I was kinda lucky-the first time I DM'd 4e I had just made up some stuff for an adventure, and the folks I DM'd for included a group with my husband and some old friends, all of which had at least varying degrees of role-playing experience(the hubby and I have played most of our lives, as had my two really old friends, and my other friend was newer at it but has at least done some.)
It took us awhile for the combats, but I have to say that if the entire group had been new to tabletop gaming in general, I could have seen it taking much longer. I actually don't mind rules-heavier games at *all*(one of my favorite games is Shadowrun, 3rd edition), and I actually felt that the rules(FWIW, we didn't use Essentials, we played more 'vanilla 4e', so to speak) mostly did what we needed them to do, but realized that there were things we wished we could have done that we would have been able to had it been another edition.
For a fantasy tactics game(hell, I started fooling with a Final Fantasy Tactics 'hack' for it though it's been on ice for awhile) I felt it worked pretty good for us overall, but I do think all of us agreed afterward we'd probably end up playing 3.5 or even 2 or something for a next game.
I totally agree with Gib regarding the production values of the 4E Dark Sun books - they were absolutely gorgeous, even without Brom's signature paintings. The Dark Sun books were the only 4E products, apart from the core rulebooks, that I parted cash for, as I'm a big fan of the Dark Sun setting (for me personally, the most refreshingly 'different' setting ever conceived for D&D).
In fact, if there's one thing about 4E that deserves praise, its that the production values of the product just keep improving. Physically, the books are absolutely gorgeous. I recently bought the Premium Reprint that Wizards put out of the 2nd Ed AD&D PHB (my old one being years old now and very tatty). If only they had revamped the layout on the interior as they did with the cover, I would have had the best of both worlds - the awesome production values of Wizards married to the familiar loveliness of AD&D 2E.
Incidentally Gib, in case you were not aware, Tim Brown, the creator of Dark Sun, is currently working on a new RPG start-up called Dragon Kings, which is an evolution of what he originally envisioned for Dark Sun when he first conceived it. If you like Dark Sun, you should check it out at:
http://www.dragonkingsproject.com
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;720646At my local meetup of 30+ gamers, 3.x has been overwhelmingly rejected in favor of 4, and Next is being ignored, in favor of the excitement generated by 13th Age.
If that's failure, I don't want to succeed!
If only the world worked like your local meetup of gamers...
I have no horse in this career, both D&D3.X and D&D4 are too complex for me, but the truth of the matter is that D&D was a failure, whereas D&D3.5 and Pathfinder were a resounding success. Period.
Quote from: TristramEvans;720680What's that?
An old poster now long gone.
Quote from: Azzy;720685I was kinda lucky-the first time I DM'd 4e I had just made up some stuff for an adventure, and the folks I DM'd for included a group with my husband and some old friends, all of which had at least varying degrees of role-playing experience(the hubby and I have played most of our lives, as had my two really old friends, and my other friend was newer at it but has at least done some.)
It took us awhile for the combats, but I have to say that if the entire group had been new to tabletop gaming in general, I could have seen it taking much longer. I actually don't mind rules-heavier games at *all*(one of my favorite games is Shadowrun, 3rd edition), and I actually felt that the rules(FWIW, we didn't use Essentials, we played more 'vanilla 4e', so to speak) mostly did what we needed them to do, but realized that there were things we wished we could have done that we would have been able to had it been another edition.
For a fantasy tactics game(hell, I started fooling with a Final Fantasy Tactics 'hack' for it though it's been on ice for awhile) I felt it worked pretty good for us overall, but I do think all of us agreed afterward we'd probably end up playing 3.5 or even 2 or something for a next game.
4e tried to capture the current fad of the time, which was the explosion in popularity in MMOs and tactical video game rpgs (fftactics, disgea, etc). In doing so, it lost it's game play identity and just became another random tactical RPG. It very well is a great game for what it is, but because it lost the feel of what a D&D ttrpg played like, it lost to PF.
Quote from: tenbones;720519My wife works in the MMO industry. Together we've managed 100+ person guilds from EQ to WoW, down to small intimate guilds with 8 folks. We played in MUDs and MUSHs before the advent of MMO's...
Whenever I hear the outrage of 4e fans about comparing the mechanics of 4e to an MMO... I scratch my head.
I can very easily see the connections mechanically. Why is it they can't? It's like they can actually play an MMO and not realize the mechanics of an MMO exist entirely to simulate what is supposed to be going on in a table-top game?
But that translation is exactly what is off-putting about 4e. It's like getting bootleg copy of a copy.
I've never understood the outrage at the comparison. It's very much there.
I was given a full set of 4e - complete. Brand new. Everything up to Essentials. I wanted to like it. I didn't. I loathed it, in fact. It felt... wrong.
Playing RPG's like any hobby has its beginning points, and if you stick with it your tastes will refine themselves. Otherwise you'll quit the hobby. You'll eventually play other things, and come to understand not just what you like - but WHY you like it. 4e is like Talisman on steroids. Sure you can play it and have fun - but I want a *lot* more out of my RPG's than what 4e offers.
This is precisely how I felt.
Literally, the way most powers calculate damage (X+[Y*weapon damage]) works exactly the same as most base powers in WoW.
You honestly have to be deliberately obtuse to not see the similarity.
Quote from: S'mon;720682My first 4e campaign used Vault of Larin Karr, a large sandbox adventure converted from 3e. Many encounters didn't work under 4e rules, eg meeting a lone ooze.
Funny, that was the example I was going to use. In Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, a piece of green slime fell near the players. That was it, just a small piece.
The whole party freaks out: "It must be a solo". Everyone unloads their encounter powers on it--this is a big factor, players are so front loaded with awesome power that "small" encounters just can't happen. Poor thing took over 400 points of damage.
Oh god, the vegepygmies...the idea of a monster nigh immune to a type of damage just doesn't work in 4e. The poor archer went totally ape "What do you mean my arrows only do 1 point of damage??!!??!!". I practically had to beg the player to just draw a sword and hack at the things (many of which had 10ish hit points). Characters are very much one trick ponies in 4e, and players aren't supposed to adapt.
Similarly, you can't just have a 10' pit anymore, as there's no such thing as a small encounter. A player takes d6 damage? So what, the next burst heal will take care of that.
4e was different from D&D in MANY ways. But good adventures could still have helped.
The main problem with 4E IMHO was that it was unnecessary. If you wanted to play new-school D&D, you had 3.xE and pathfinder, with a MASSIVE amount of supporting material, both by WotC and Paizo as well as by third-party publishers. If you wanted to play old-school, you can get B/X or AD&D, and, now, over a dozen retro-clones (such as the masterpiece that is ACKS). 3.xE does "new school" VERY WELL. But 4E set out to fix what wasn't really broken, and ended up re-inventing the wheel. As a completely new game it would have had quite a lot of merit. But as D&D, many players I know saw little reason to leave behind their well-stocked collection of 3.xE books.
Reading this thread makes me shake my head and wonder how WotC could have messed up so badly. Total sellout.
More and more, I think the person who was responsible for the design of 4e should really come out and issue an apology to the the D&D community.
Quote from: golan2072;720758The main problem with 4E IMHO was that it was unnecessary. If you wanted to play new-school D&D, you had 3.xE and pathfinder, with a MASSIVE amount of supporting material, both by WotC and Paizo as well as by third-party publishers. If you wanted to play old-school, you can get B/X or AD&D, and, now, over a dozen retro-clones (such as the masterpiece that is ACKS). 3.xE does "new school" VERY WELL. But 4E set out to fix what wasn't really broken, and ended up re-inventing the wheel. As a completely new game it would have had quite a lot of merit. But as D&D, many players I know saw little reason to leave behind their well-stocked collection of 3.xE books.
Well, no. 4e set out to fix 3e, which many people felt
was broken. Just about all of the innovations in 4e, the good ones and the bad, could be traced back as direct reactions/overreactions to the big problems in 3e like LFQW.
What do you mean by 'new school' D&D?
Quote from: soviet;720762What do you mean by 'new school' D&D?
The post-2000 style of D&D, as opposed to AD&D 2E and earlier games. usually with more miniature and combat focus, as well as more detailed skill rules and an emphasis on fighting monsters rather than avoiding them and stealing their treasure (as was in old-school).
Both styles are valid and in my experience - also vastly enjoyable.
Quote from: soviet;720762Well, no. 4e set out to fix 3e, which many RPGA weasels and online storygame wankers felt was broken. Just about all of the innovations in 4e, the good ones and the bad, could be traced back as direct reactions/overreactions to the minor problems in 3e like balance.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: jeff37923;720770Fixed it for you.
I don't think the game mechanics being broken in half is a minor problem, but then again you think traveller 5 isn't a piece of shit, so...
Quote from: soviet;720774I don't think the game mechanics being broken in half is a minor problem, but then again you think traveller 5 isn't a piece of shit, so...
You're right, I don't think
Traveller5 is a piece of shit. Then again, I gave it an overall 3 out of 10 in my review. Either you didn't bother to read the review or you do not understand complexities of opinion.
Now, you say that the 3.x game mechanics are broken in half. Why don't you elaborate on that for a few paragraphs so that us slower folks can understand why 3.x is still alive in the form of
Pathfinder while 4E is considered a failure?
Quote from: Doom;720734Funny, that was the example I was going to use. In Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, a piece of green slime fell near the players. That was it, just a small piece.
The whole party freaks out: "It must be a solo". Everyone unloads their encounter powers on it--this is a big factor, players are so front loaded with awesome power that "small" encounters just can't happen. Poor thing took over 400 points of damage.
Oh god, the vegepygmies...the idea of a monster nigh immune to a type of damage just doesn't work in 4e. The poor archer went totally ape "What do you mean my arrows only do 1 point of damage??!!??!!". I practically had to beg the player to just draw a sword and hack at the things (many of which had 10ish hit points). Characters are very much one trick ponies in 4e, and players aren't supposed to adapt.
Similarly, you can't just have a 10' pit anymore, as there's no such thing as a small encounter. A player takes d6 damage? So what, the next burst heal will take care of that.
4e was different from D&D in MANY ways. But good adventures could still have helped.
:rotfl:
"It's a solo slime -- must be a boss! Unload everything you got!"
"My lovingly crafted one-trick pony! What do mean 'do I have an alternate weapon?'"
"Oh, a punji pit trap?" *yawn*
But the game remains the same, I hear.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Opaopajr;720797:rotfl:
"It's a solo slime -- must be a boss! Unload everything you got!"
"My lovingly crafted one-trick pony! What do mean 'do I have an alternate weapon?'"
"Oh, a punji pit trap?" *yawn*
But the game remains the same, I hear.
:rotfl:
Frankly, it sounds to me like Doom didn't quite do enough adapting either. My experience is that when running an older adventure in 4e, it requires both players that are willing to think outside the box (but let's not kid ourselves, any edition of D&D is boring without those guys) and a DM that's willing to tweak the module to play to 4e's strengths. That done... well, I wouldn't call it an old-school experience, but it maps much closer to one than any 3.x or PF game I've ever participated in or witnessed.
I saw this and thought of you guys:
QuoteI'm no longer allowed to move 30 squares (150 feet) in one round (6 seconds) without getting massive penalties in 4e.
>rolled a drow ranger
>took a feat to give me +1 feat bonus to speed
>item gave me +1 item bonus to speed in cloth armor
>run gives +2 to speed at a minus to AC for a turn, but doesn't stack with each run
>standard action and move action to run 20 squares (base speed 6 + 1 item bonus + 1 feat bonus + 2 run bonus x 2)
>action point to move 10 squares again
>run past all the baddies in a room to the door on the opposite side of the mat
>they got AoO but missed because of high AC even after minuses
>skipped whole fight and teleported the party with some custom items into the next room
>DM was pissed
>whatever.jpg
oh 4E.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;720802I saw this and thought of you guys:
oh 4E.
If it was 1e you'd be singing praises about out of the box thinking.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/rock.png)
Quote from: Rincewind1;720803If it was 1e you'd be singing praises about out of the box thinking.
Yeah any DM who doesn`t cheer the players on when they pull stunts like that should be beaten with sticks.
Quote from: Doom;720734Funny, that was the example I was going to use. In Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, a piece of green slime fell near the players. That was it, just a small piece.
The whole party freaks out: "It must be a solo". Everyone unloads their encounter powers on it--this is a big factor, players are so front loaded with awesome power that "small" encounters just can't happen. Poor thing took over 400 points of damage.
Oh god, the vegepygmies...the idea of a monster nigh immune to a type of damage just doesn't work in 4e. The poor archer went totally ape "What do you mean my arrows only do 1 point of damage??!!??!!". I practically had to beg the player to just draw a sword and hack at the things (many of which had 10ish hit points). Characters are very much one trick ponies in 4e, and players aren't supposed to adapt.
Similarly, you can't just have a 10' pit anymore, as there's no such thing as a small encounter. A player takes d6 damage? So what, the next burst heal will take care of that.
4e was different from D&D in MANY ways. But good adventures could still have helped.
All I know about 4e is that it's RPGs: The MMOing, but that sounds horrific. I mean even away from player expectations and poor behaviour, the dissociation of the mechanics from the experience of play is like a textbook example of how to do it wrong. They're thinking in terms of healing bursts and front loading, not enjoying the game world.
I begin to understand the vociferous dislike many have expressed for the system.
Quote from: Rincewind1;720803If it was 1e you'd be singing praises about out of the box thinking.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/rock.png)
If it was 1E the maneuver would be worth doing. In 4E skipping planned encounters just means less XP and crappy magic loot parcels for you.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;720807If it was 1E the maneuver would be worth doing. In 4E skipping planned encounters just means less XP and crappy magic loot parcels for you.
No, in 1e the encounter would end in TPW since it's a fantasy fucking vietnam so you're probably dressed in leather armour or something since encumbrance rules are in full effect, and even if they'd try to teleport, the GM'd just say that the magic of the tomb prevented them from teleporting in the first way, since all grognards are bastards who use "viking hat" as an excuse to be a dick GM.
Another failure point was DDI.
First off, no matter the value, subscription based services are going to turn off a portion of your customers. Period.
And that's all well and good if DDI is optional but once they started changing rules via D&D it became required if you wanted to play the current rules(or join a group that did) or play in official events, etc...
Well if they really wanted to market it to the next generation of rpg kiddies out there, they probably should have made it more in line with ANIME than an MMO, it would have sold like hot cakes then and gave everyone uber powers and shit and called it D&D the Anime System, thats all these kids wanna play anymore.
those rotten youngsters with thier mangas and thier mighty morphene blackberrys, dagnabbit! why in my day you got d6 for hp and you were thankful for it! none of that "healing surges"! sounds like an epileptic baptism! Gordammit! I tell you why, its cause kids today are punks I tells ye. Punks and whores, all hanging out at the drugstores with thier fancy phosphates and malts, tweeting each other on myface! Geek used to mean something in this country!
Quote from: Piestrio;720812Another failure point was DDI.
First off, no matter the value, subscription based services are going to turn off a portion of your customers. Period.
Paizo disagrees
QuoteAnd that's all well and good if DDI is optional but once they started changing rules via D&D it became required if you wanted to play the current rules(or join a group that did) or play in official events, etc...
All errata was free of charge and published on their website.
Quote from: flyingcircus;720817Well if they really wanted to market it to the next generation of rpg kiddies out there, they probably should have made it more in line with ANIME than an MMO, it would have sold like hot cakes then and gave everyone uber powers and shit and called it D&D the Anime System, thats all these kids wanna play anymore.
4e had plenty of anime influence, especially if you consider JRPGs part of anime. That's one of the things I appreciated about it.
Quotethose rotten youngsters with thier mangas and thier mighty morphene blackberrys, dagnabbit! why in my day you got d6 for hp and you were thankful for it! none of that "healing surges"! sounds like an epileptic baptism! Gordammit! I tell you why, its cause kids today are punks I tells ye. Punks and whores, all hanging out at the drugstores with thier fancy phosphates and malts, tweeting each other on myface! Geek used to mean something in this country!
:rotfl:
Quote from: TristramEvans;720818those rotten youngsters with thier mangas and thier mighty morphene blackberrys, dagnabbit! why in my day you got d6 for hp and you were thankful for it! none of that "healing surges"! sounds like an epileptic baptism! Gordammit! I tell you why, its cause kids today are punks I tells ye. Punks and whores, all hanging out at the drugstores with thier fancy phosphates and malts, tweeting each other on myface! Geek used to mean something in this country!
Thread call for OG.... Thread call for OG.
Last few posts have highlighted the disparity between the wants and needs of some and how 4E didn't provide for that RAW.
Quote from: flyingcircus;720817Well if they really wanted to market it to the next generation of rpg kiddies out there, they probably should have made it more in line with ANIME than an MMO, it would have sold like hot cakes then and gave everyone uber powers and shit and called it D&D the Anime System, thats all these kids wanna play anymore.
Naw, anime is for olds now.
Anime is best appreciated with a beard on your neck, a fedora on your head and securely in your mom's basement.
Quote from: Mistwell;720819Paizo disagrees
Clearly DDI and paizo's subscriptions are the same thing :rolleyes:
QuoteAll errata was free of charge and published on their website.
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote from: Mistwell;720819All errata was free of charge and published on their website.
Ultimately this was my problem with 4E; I had no idea what 4E was, in the sense that I had no idea what the onramp was at any given point. I had the original hardback, then there were all the nerfs and upgrades via errata, then Essentials - I had no problem with the "tactical RPG" nature of it as its own thing, I just could never figure out what I needed to play.
I don't think I was the only one; that kind of confusion creates a huge barrier to entry to the casual player.
Oh, and 4E wasn't designed to "fix" 3e. There may have been some of that in the design phase, but the primary reason for 4E existing - per the designers and product managers themselves - was a Hail Mary pass to pump D&D's sales up past the magic $50M/year mark Hasbro insisted on. That's it. Incrementally tweaking the rules set or going back to older rules mechanics wasn't going to do that.
Quote from: Rincewind1;720803If it was 1e you'd be singing praises about out of the box thinking.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/rock.png)
Note how much of that was build, not contextual play. ;) But I'm sure you knew that, yes? Not counting forum coup at all, are we?
:p
Quote from: Opaopajr;720838Note how much of that was build, not contextual play. ;) But I'm sure you knew that, yes? Not counting forum coup at all, are we?
:p
45 meters in 1 minute rounds (or high DEX elf and 6 - 10 seconds rounds) and declaration of a full round spent running? "Yeah, I can see many old school GMs saying one'd not make that distance", Rincewind wrote, sarcastically.
Render unto Caesar's what his - there are many things to be critical in 4e. An example of out of the box thinking is not one of them.
Besides the errata, the three Player Handbooks, and then Essentials, really didn't help. It felt far too close to RPGA or MtG keeping up with the tourney meta-game. Granted the books can still be used ignoring the updates. But the community support from the FLGS Encounters/Dungeon Delve format didn't help, and the everlasting fora whinging about fine tuning the balance between builds likely didn't either.
Getting away from the insular bickering of hardcore fans will likely be a very healthy thing for the product. It returns the power of whether one is "playing it wrong" back to the singular table than the community at large. Community support need not be all about integrating tables into a single, reproducible body of play.
Quote from: Rincewind1;72083945 meters in 1 minute rounds (or high DEX elf and 6 - 10 seconds rounds) and declaration of a full round spent running? "Yeah, I can see many old school GMs saying one'd not make that distance", Rincewind wrote, sarcastically.
Render unto Caesar's what his - there are many things to be critical in 4e. An example of out of the box thinking is not one of them.
Fucking metric... we should have switched years ago in the US.
Anyway that's 45 meters in 6 second rounds, so it isn't a hand-wavium issue of give-or-take a minute or an elf. The issue is how much of that 4e example required a build to recreate previous "out-of-the-box thinking": race, class, feat, item,
and action point.
Given that 40 yard dash averages to around 5 seconds for professional NFL athletes, 45 meters in 6 seconds (even if on irregular, yet flat, terrain, and during battle) -- though challenging and likely requiring a roll -- shouldn't
need a build. This isn't about out-of-the-box thinking, as you obviously missed the point.
It's about front-loading functionality into the char-gen mini-game and rendering the context of actual play that much poorer.
Quote from: Opaopajr;720847Fucking metric... we should have switched years ago in the US.
Anyway that's 45 meters in 6 second rounds, so it isn't a hand-wavium issue of give-or-take a minute or an elf. The issue is how much of that 4e example required a build to recreate previous "out-of-the-box thinking": race, class, feat, item, and action point.
Given that 40 yard dash averages to around 5 seconds for professional NFL athletes, 45 meters in 6 seconds (even if on irregular, yet flat, terrain, and during battle) -- though challenging and likely requiring a roll -- shouldn't need a build. This isn't about out-of-the-box thinking, as you obviously missed the point. It's about front-loading functionality into the char-gen mini-game and rendering the context of actual play that much poorer.
Except whether handwaved by logic or played by the book, you have the same effect. The player'd be working under different mechanics, but the effect itself remain the same. Going by your logic, GURPS or Warhammer'd render the context of actual play much poorer, because I'm also pretty sure their movement rules in combat are more complicated than old D&D's.
Quote from: Opaopajr;720847Fucking metric... we should have switched years ago in the US.
Anyway that's 45 meters in 6 second rounds, so it isn't a hand-wavium issue of give-or-take a minute or an elf. The issue is how much of that 4e example required a build to recreate previous "out-of-the-box thinking": race, class, feat, item, and action point.
Given that 40 yard dash averages to around 5 seconds for professional NFL athletes, 45 meters in 6 seconds (even if on irregular, yet flat, terrain, and during battle) -- though challenging and likely requiring a roll -- shouldn't need a build. This isn't about out-of-the-box thinking, as you obviously missed the point. It's about front-loading functionality into the char-gen mini-game and rendering the context of actual play that much poorer.
Yes, now that I look at it, the distance math is indeed wanky in 4e. Might be to do with calculating it for the board, rather than logical distances.
Quote from: Piestrio;720829Clearly DDI and paizo's subscriptions are the same thing :rolleyes:
You said "subscription based services," not "DDI". Both DDI and Paizo's subscriptions are "subscription based services." I responded to what you said, not what you were thinking. Leave that to your significant other, not a message board. We can't read your fucking mind.
QuoteWhat does that have to do with anything?
You said they were "changing rules" via DDI and that "it became required if you wanted to play the current rules". The only changes were errata, and that was published for free, outside of the DDI. DDI was not required to obtain rules changes so that you could play the current rules.
If you meant additional rules (like expansion books), well yes, like all editions of D&D and Pathifinder, you pay for additional rules. Oh, and it would require us reading your fucking mind again, since you said "changing rules" not "additional rules".
Quote from: Mistwell;720893You said "subscription based services," not "DDI". Both DDI and Paizo's subscriptions are "subscription based services." I responded to what you said, not what you were thinking. Leave that to your significant other, not a message board. We can't read your fucking mind.
*sigh*
Paizo offers a subscription of things that are otherwise available. Like a magazine subscription. If you don't want to sign up you can still buy the magazines.
DDI offered a subscription of something not otherwise available. If you didn't want to subscription there was no way to use DDI.
One way offers a way to use your product to fans that don't like subscriptions while the other does not.
Add to that the feeling that DDI is, if not strictly necessary, at least a big part of the draw of 4e and you have a pretty clean recipe for driving off some customers.
Quote from: Mistwell;720893You said they were "changing rules" via DDI and that "it became required if you wanted to play the current rules". The only changes were errata, and that was published for free, outside of the DDI. DDI was not required to obtain rules changes so that you could play the current rules.
If you meant additional rules (like expansion books), well yes, like all editions of D&D and Pathifinder, you pay for additional rules. Oh, and it would require us reading your fucking mind again, since you said "changing rules" not "additional rules".
Of course if you want to play with a group that uses DDI you always have the option of painstakingly applying 140+ pages of errata by hand. Nope, no barrier to entry there. :rolleyes:
Quote from: daniel_ream;720831Ultimately this was my problem with 4E; I had no idea what 4E was, in the sense that I had no idea what the onramp was at any given point. I had the original hardback, then there were all the nerfs and upgrades via errata, then Essentials - I had no problem with the "tactical RPG" nature of it as its own thing, I just could never figure out what I needed to play.
I don't think I was the only one; that kind of confusion creates a huge barrier to entry to the casual player.
Oh, and 4E wasn't designed to "fix" 3e. There may have been some of that in the design phase, but the primary reason for 4E existing - per the designers and product managers themselves - was a Hail Mary pass to pump D&D's sales up past the magic $50M/year mark Hasbro insisted on. That's it. Incrementally tweaking the rules set or going back to older rules mechanics wasn't going to do that.
I started playing 4e with the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Masters Guide. Then I picked up other books along the way that caught my fancy. This is the exact same format as AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, and 3.5e.
How on earth could the exact same format of book publishing that has been used for 30 years cause confusion?
Quote from: Piestrio;720897Of course if you want to play with a group that uses DDI you always have the option of painstakingly applying 140+ pages of errata by hand. Nope, no barrier to entry there. :rolleyes:
"My player wants to use these splat books that I don't own" is a problem for basically every GM of every game. Your group has not figured out a solution to that problem yet?
Quote from: Old One Eye;720899"My player wants to use these splat books that I don't own" is a problem for basically every GM of every game. Your group has not figured out a solution to that problem yet?
That's not what I wrote.
New Player: "hey guys can I join your game!"
Group: "Sure, come on in!"
NP: "Awesome! I'll just make a fighter, I only have PH1"
Group: "Oh... Well that's cool but you should just use DDI, it has all the changes"
NP: "Ermmm... I don't like giving my card out/don't have the money for DDI/etc..."
Group: "No problem, just download 140 pages of errata and cross reference everything you do with the PH1 to make your character!"
NP: "That sounds like a lot of work, can't we just play with the books?"
Group: "We use DDI"
Quote from: Piestrio;720896Add to that the feeling that DDI is, if not strictly necessary, at least a big part of the draw of 4e and you have a pretty clean recipe for driving off some customers.
Yup. I was a subscriber to DDI when it was an offline supported tool. I maintained my sub during 2009. Once they moved to silverlight online only bullshit I cancelled.
Quote from: Piestrio;720902That's not what I wrote.
New Player: "hey guys can I join your game!"
Group: "Sure, come on in!"
NP: "Awesome! I'll just make a fighter, I only have PH1"
Group: "Oh... Well that's cool but you should just use DDI, it has all the changes"
NP: "Ermmm... I don't like giving my card out/don't have the money for DDI/etc..."
Group: "No problem, just download 140 pages of errata and cross reference everything you do with the PH1 to make your character!"
NP: "That sounds like a lot of work, can't we just play with the books?"
Group: "We use DDI"
I had kind of the opposite issue. As DM, I just used my books and never had a DDI account. Some of my players had such account and would make their characters with it. I would give it an eyeball over and say sure, same as when I started with AD&D and a player wanted to be a drow from some weird Unearthed Arcana book that I didn't own at the time.
As for the direction you are describing (that the group uses a broader range of resources for the game than the new player, potentially overwhelming him/her) I fail to see how that is any different than a Rifts group saying that they aren't using the main book to make characters, but are using South America for the flavor.
DDI is bullshit. It's not needed to play 4e at all, and in fact its existence was a net loss for 4e.
For one thing, the belief at WotC that most of its audience used DDI was what led to the astonishing blizzard of errata that got released towards the end. I'm all for changing the stupid stuff, like battleragers or whatever, but most of what they did veered too far into tinkering for tinkering's sake. For anyone that didn't use DDI, it was way too much. At some point you just have to publish and move on.
For another thing, relying on computers over pencils and papers is never a great idea. 4e is complex but it's not unmanageable. We've just gone back to 4e after a year's break, and we've levelled up in the process. But our GM does use DDI, and some new shitty update that he can't undo has meant that our new character sheets are screwed. We're randomly missing powers, bonuses, fluff text, basic equipment, and also unique item abilities that we'd written as freetext. It's very annoying, and difficult to spot the omissions until you start playing. I've never had a sheet of paper I'd written on spontaneously delete information overnight, and I've never had a difficulty adding '+1' to a bunch of things and then writing on a new encounter power with a pencil. Maybe paper isn't so redundant after all.
DDI is bullshit.
Quote from: Old One Eye;720910As for the direction you are describing (that the group uses a broader range of resources for the game than the new player, potentially overwhelming him/her) I fail to see how that is any different than a Rifts group saying that they aren't using the main book to make characters, but are using South America for the flavor.
It's not a matter of having to buy an extra book or whatever it's a matter of signing up for a recurring service, which is what I said left some customers with a bad taste in their mouths.
Quote from: Piestrio;720902That's not what I wrote.
New Player: "hey guys can I join your game!"
Group: "Sure, come on in!"
NP: "Awesome! I'll just make a fighter, I only have PH1"
Group: "Oh... Well that's cool but you should just use DDI, it has all the changes"
NP: "Ermmm... I don't like giving my card out/don't have the money for DDI/etc..."
Group: "No problem, just download 140 pages of errata and cross reference everything you do with the PH1 to make your character!"
NP: "That sounds like a lot of work, can't we just play with the books?"
Group: "We use DDI"
Yep, IME this is definitely a problem with the online charbuilder especially. One way round it is a single group DDI subscription & share the password. Another is for the new guy to just use one of the Essentials books, he should not be too underpowered unless the group are heavy min-maxers.
As GM I'm more the restricted sources type. I have a problem with players who buy no books but use DDI and don't follow my restrictions, or frequently ask for exceptions.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;720904Once they moved to silverlight online only bullshit I cancelled.
Rampant, pervasive piracy. The vast majority of the 4E groups around here were using pirated versions of the software. You can't pirate a web app.
Quote from: Old One Eye;720898I started playing 4e with the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Masters Guide. Then I picked up other books along the way that caught my fancy. This is the exact same format as AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, and 3.5e.
How on earth could the exact same format of book publishing that has been used for 30 years cause confusion?
Actually it isn't the same format because 4E broke up the character classes into seperate books. So if you wanted to play a Bard (A Core Class since AD&D 2e), you had to buy the 4E PHB1 and the 4E PHB2 to be able to do it.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507294The handwriting was on the wall for 4e with "Essentials". Remember, the ad push for 4e was practically tailor-made to destroy any goodwill anyone felt towards Wizards. The whole savings worth of said goodwill that they'd spent the introductory years of 3e building up went away in a flash. An ad campaign that said "Your games sucked and you're stupid for having played them this way"...
4e failed when it threw the baby out with the bathwater - Most folks didn't want "D&D but in name only". We want D&D. They get it now. 5e might not be perfect but as I've said before if it's a good 2nd game for me, that's enough to win back my gaming dollars.
My fiancée says that when they came out with Essentials, they were effectively withdrawing support from 4E; I think she may be right. It changed enough to make a decent game more limited: I liked PH 1, 2 and 3 but she and I agree that Essentials was much more restrictive than original 4E by reducing the useful amount of abilities. So you had to play essentially the same characters over and over again.
Fortunately the GM we play Encounters with doesn't require that we use Essentials.
(As a side note I enjoyed the 4E Gamma World, which was basically Essentials; it was more whole-cloth than the other.)
Quote from: daniel_ream;720919Rampant, pervasive piracy. The vast majority of the 4E groups around here were using pirated versions of the software. You can't pirate a web app.
And? The first core books were leaked and downloadable before they hit the shelves, so what?
The original DDI and 4E tools I found to be worth paying for and I did so. The web app was slower clunkier and didn't even have the same functionality as the previous version. That made me decide to stop paying for and using the electronic stuff.
Once the computer with the offline tools died, I stopped running 4E because it was too much of a PITA to do statblocks by hand and after giving it some thought, decided that the system wasn't worth downloading a bootleg piece of software and getting it to work just to run a pen & paper tabletop game.
Since then I haven't run any system that requires electronic support to not be a major pain and have been much happier for it.
4e's failure has nothing to do with malfunctioning services, errata size and whatever. 4e is a different game than the d&d roleplaying games of the previous editions but if people loved it as a roleplaying game, no matter the hurdles of official support, they would still go on playing it and enjoying it in enough numbers so that Wotc could keep up supporting and expanding it in the target market population.
4e fails as a roleplaying game. It is not designed as one. Its rules are rather designed as a board game like Blood Bowl. Many people will find 4e as a roleplaying game boring after a while. But the target market of 4e and its engaging filler is roleplaying game folk. 4e's reason of failure is bland simple.
Quote from: xech;7209654e's failure has nothing to do with malfunctioning services, errata size and whatever. 4e is a different game than the d&d roleplaying games of the previous editions but if people loved it as a roleplaying game, no matter the hurdles of official support, they would still go on playing it and enjoying it in enough numbers so that Wotc could keep up supporting and expanding it in the target market population.
4e fails as a roleplaying game. It is not designed as one. Its rules are rather designed as a board game like Blood Bowl. Many people will find 4e as a roleplaying game boring after a while. But the target market of 4e and its engaging filler is roleplaying game folk. 4e's reason of failure is bland simple.
Oh I agree, I just find it fascinating that WOTC did nearly everything wrong. They were like a King Midas of shit.
4e is like an onion of fail.
A failure fractle, if you will.
It's fail, fail all the way down.
Etc, etc, etc...
Here is the problem I have with 4E:
I got what the designers were trying to do. They wanted to engineer the rules to reproduce the most memorable and tense combats people had from previous editions, and make those the norm. The problem is that set-piece battles become tedious when there's one in every room of every dungeon.
I liked what 4E did when it first came out because I thought the game had a lot of good ideas. However, after a year or two of playing and running the game I began to feel that the combat portion was a ponderously slow chore, and the worst part of the game - the problem being that this was the portion that had the most mechanical support. So what do you do with 4E when you don't like the biggest distinction of the game?
In my opinion, 4E needed at least another year of solid playtesting and development before being released into the wild. The game needed more support for exploration and social play, including guidelines for experience awards. One of the worst mistakes D&D ever made was handing out XP for killing things. Also, combat itself needed to be massively simplified - with less focus on push-pull-shift gridplay and more on traditional D&D combat.
That said - here's a funny 4E story:
I was running a game wherein players were traipsing through the woods on their way to adventure or whatever the fuck they do...
One of the character's had a class ability that allowed them to sense all life within X radius. This is the player who always maxes out their perception skills in every game, for fear of being snuck up - probably.
The player asks, for the hundredth time: "Do I sense any life signs around?"
To which I reply: "Yes, player - you are in a forest and surrounded by a veritable kaleidoscope of life in all directions. Now roll initiative because you're being attacked by ghouls."
Quote from: xech;7209654e's failure has nothing to do with malfunctioning services, errata size and whatever. 4e is a different game than the d&d roleplaying games of the previous editions but if people loved it as a roleplaying game, no matter the hurdles of official support, they would still go on playing it and enjoying it in enough numbers so that Wotc could keep up supporting and expanding it in the target market population.
4e fails as a roleplaying game. It is not designed as one. Its rules are rather designed as a board game like Blood Bowl. Many people will find 4e as a roleplaying game boring after a while. But the target market of 4e and its engaging filler is roleplaying game folk. 4e's reason of failure is bland simple.
Quoted for truth.
4e failed because it was a board game, not a roleplaying game.
Quote from: Doom;720659I think what ultimately killed 4e was the terrible adventures. Everyone played KotS, but bottom line it wasn't very good or memorable or interesting. I bought a few other adventures, and they also were horrid, and often nearly unplayable (again the bad and repeatedly rewritten rules were a factor).
I think if 4e had great adventures, it would have helped a lot.
The problem with the 4E adventures is the early ones were written by guys who thought 4E was played pretty much like AD&D. That is, long sequences of grindy combats meant to wear down resources. That kind of play is a real drag in a game with very detailed combat.
The adventures from the last year or two of 4E are much, much better. The Neverwinter Nights Campaign setting is the one of the best - maybe
the best - sandbox D&D setting book I've ever seen. Colourful adversaries, great plot hooks, fantastic locations, really engaging integration of PC backgrounds. The Threats of the Nentir Vale setting/monster book is excellent. I just ordered Madness at Gardmore Abbey, which is regarded as the best WotC adventure written in many years.
Unfortunately for WotC, they didn't hit their stride with adventure content until the waning days of 4E. However, I'm optimistic that the institutional experience they gained with that excellent setting material will find its way into 5E.
Quote from: Claudius;720718I have no horse in this career, both D&D3.X and D&D4 are too complex for me, but the truth of the matter is that D&D was a failure, whereas D&D3.5 and Pathfinder were a resounding success. Period.
But WotC's bar of success for 4E was much higher than Paizo's for Pathfinder. Sales figures that would make any other RPG publisher do cartwheels of joy are not enough for WotC and Hasbro. It wasn't until the final year of 4E that Pathfinder matched it in sales. And Hasbro will not tolerate D&D earning the revenue of Pathfinder. They have no interest in (for them) such small-scale return on investment. I reckon if Hasbro owned Paizo, they would regard Pathfinder as an underperforming product line and shitcan or re-boot the whole thing.
I just picked up the 4E Essentials books a few months ago, and have been buying more material since. I've played a couple sessions and yes, combats take a long time. But I don't run combat-intensive games anymore. I typically have 1-3 combats in a 5 hour session of D&D. So the detailed 4E combat doesn't dominate a session. My sessions are still mainly exploration and in-character roleplaying.
And the non-mechanical content of the Essentials-era books is outstanding. WotC were really hitting their stride with adventure structure, campaign advice, flexible encounters, and really inspired background material. The DM book from the Dungeon Master's Kit is a model of integrating adventures and game system. I think 4E would have had a much smoother introduction if it had been published in the Essentials format at the outset.
If 4E had been released by a different publisher and called something other than Dungeons and Dragons, it would not have aroused such a supernova of nerdrage. And let's be serious about the 'failure' of 4E - it was almost certainly the 2nd or 3rd top selling RPG of the last decade. Tens of thousands of new RPGers happily played 4E for years. Because expectations and tradition aside, it's quite a good game on its own merits.
And it's no harder to run an adventure with little combat in it using 4E than any other edition of D&D. I know, because I've done it. Nobody tears your book out of your hands and slaps you if you spend a session exploring the sewers under a ruined city or investigating the schemes of feuding guilds.
Quote from: Piestrio;720896*sigh*
Paizo offers a subscription of things that are otherwise available. Like a magazine subscription. If you don't want to sign up you can still buy the magazines.
Their primary means of selling these days is through subscriptions. It's their thing.
QuoteDDI offered a subscription of something not otherwise available. If you didn't want to subscription there was no way to use DDI.
Unless you did what a large number of people did, which was buy one month, download all the issues, and then cancel your subscription. Rinse and repeat every 6 months or so.
The basic idea of DDI and subscriptions is great. Keeps the money coming in while not requiring you to reboot the editions. It's just the implementation of DDI was borked, partly because one DDI dev went and shot another dev (his wife) and killed himself. Hard to blame the 4ed crew for that of all the things they screwed up.
Quote from: Daztur;721094The basic idea of DDI and subscriptions is great. Keeps the money coming in while not requiring you to reboot the editions. It's just the implementation of DDI was borked, partly because one DDI dev went and shot another dev (his wife) and killed himself. Hard to blame the 4ed crew for that of all the things they screwed up.
Also a start of a great Unknown Armies/CoC 21st Century scenario.
I'll show myself to the door.
Quote from: xech;7209654e's failure has nothing to do with malfunctioning services, errata size and whatever. 4e is a different game than the d&d roleplaying games of the previous editions but if people loved it as a roleplaying game, no matter the hurdles of official support, they would still go on playing it and enjoying it in enough numbers so that Wotc could keep up supporting and expanding it in the target market population.
4e fails as a roleplaying game. It is not designed as one. Its rules are rather designed as a board game like Blood Bowl. Many people will find 4e as a roleplaying game boring after a while. But the target market of 4e and its engaging filler is roleplaying game folk. 4e's reason of failure is bland simple.
Quote from: 1989;721066Quoted for truth.
4e failed because it was a board game, not a roleplaying game.
It was a roleplaying game. We played it as a roleplaying game just fine, and it is written as one. You jokers seem to think it was badwrongfun to enjoy it as a roleplaying game, and think it was intended as one. Goodie for you, more proof opinions are like assholes.
Quote from: Daztur;721094The basic idea of DDI and subscriptions is great. Keeps the money coming in while not requiring you to reboot the editions. It's just the implementation of DDI was borked, partly because one DDI dev went and shot another dev (his wife) and killed himself. Hard to blame the 4ed crew for that of all the things they screwed up.
Oh, certainly the implementation was poor and that's at least partly due to very tragic circumstances beyond their control.
But I disagree that it was a good idea from the beginning.
It created a barrier to play, it obsolesced books, it scared away customers, and worst of all it absolutely FUCKED game stores.
A bad idea badly made.
Quote from: Daztur;721094The basic idea of DDI and subscriptions is great. Keeps the money coming in while not requiring you to reboot the editions. It's just the implementation of DDI was borked, partly because one DDI dev went and shot another dev (his wife) and killed himself. Hard to blame the 4ed crew for that of all the things they screwed up.
Indeed.
Quote from: Haffrung;721085And it's no harder to run an adventure with little combat in it using 4E than any other edition of D&D. I know, because I've done it. Nobody tears your book out of your hands and slaps you if you spend a session exploring the sewers under a ruined city or investigating the schemes of feuding guilds.
In the main 4e campaign that I ran, it was very noticeable that the party was avoiding combat so I asked them about it. To which one of the players states that combat in 4e is so damn boring that they will try any trick in the book to avoid it. Other than combat, though, it was a damn fine campaign.
Quote from: Old One Eye;721108In the main 4e campaign that I ran, it was very noticeable that the party was avoiding combat so I asked them about it. To which one of the players states that combat in 4e is so damn boring that they will try any trick in the book to avoid it.
Hah, how ironically old school!
"Don't start unnecessary fights, it's the treasure/quest XP we're after!" ... Except the motivation for evasion in the past was that death was too easy, now it's because combat can take up to three hours and squeeze out everything else.
I will say this, 4e and
Pathfinder combat works best when you customize the monsters to reduce their hit points, increase their damage, and make their abilities as simple as possible while still being distinct. Never use the base Monsters from the manual, except as inspiration. The PCs already have enough "moving parts" and wizzbangs to gum up the works.
I did this throughout my 2012 4e Essentials campaign and it was one of the best I've ever run in any game. Too bad I had to run two middling campaigns before that to learn the lesson the hard way.
Quote from: Opaopajr;720612I just recently played Talisman for the first time, so only now can I understand this reference. Talisman is like pixel-bitching Monopoly -- excruciating and endless. There are far more entertaining ways for me to spend my time, such as staring blankly into space. The list of better things to do, and of expectations for my effort, are sizably convincing.
Hah! I was one of the poor sods who bought the 90s version... Opened it and...
75% air.
No. Im not kidding. The contents only took up the bottom 25% of the box.
The dragon tower expansion was awesome, and I totally missed it, but damn that core box pissed me off.
I really love Talisman, however we have sped up the game a a lot by reducing the amount of trophies you need to increase a stat.
That and the 4.5 Talisman speeds up the game a lot anyway.
Quote from: Haffrung;721085And it's no harder to run an adventure with little combat in it using 4E than any other edition of D&D.
But it is harder to run an adventure with AS MUCH combat using 4ed than in other editions of D&D. The last 1ed campaign I was in generally had around five fights a session. Doing that in 4ed would get a bit unpleasant and suck up all of the time for everything else.
It's not that old edition D&D has fewer combats, in my experience it has more combat, it's that the combat takes less time so you can get up to your elbows in blood and have time for everything else as well.
One of the problems with 4e wasnt so much that it was minis-centric. But that the damn minis were blind buy collectible.
Yes its our old friend mister endless commons. Except these commons take up a few storage bins after a while.
So they possibly didnt sell as well as expected. Another nail an exec can hammer in the coffin.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;721176I will say this, 4e and Pathfinder combat works best when you customize the monsters to reduce their hit points, increase their damage, and make their abilities as simple as possible while still being distinct. Never use the base Monsters from the manual, except as inspiration. The PCs already have enough "moving parts" and wizzbangs to gum up the works.
I did this throughout my 2012 4e Essentials campaign and it was one of the best I've ever run in any game. Too bad I had to run two middling campaigns before that to learn the lesson the hard way.
Did you trim back monster HP and increase damage even more than Essentials does already with the Monster Vault and Essentials-era adventures?
Quote from: Daztur;721212But it is harder to run an adventure with AS MUCH combat using 4ed than in other editions of D&D. The last 1ed campaign I was in generally had around five fights a session. Doing that in 4ed would get a bit unpleasant and suck up all of the time for everything else.
It's not that old edition D&D has fewer combats, in my experience it has more combat, it's that the combat takes less time so you can get up to your elbows in blood and have time for everything else as well.
Absolutely. 4E is a crappy game for running lots of small-stakes combats. WotC really dropped the ball by releasing early adventures designed like Keep on the Borderlands. The system is best for games with few, dramatic, and high-stakes combats.
Quote from: Omega;721215One of the problems with 4e wasnt so much that it was minis-centric. But that the damn minis were blind buy collectible.
Another thing they seemed to have figured out by the time of Essentials, which includes pogs in the DM's Kit, Monster Vault, and later adventures.
Quote from: Haffrung;721230Absolutely. 4E is a crappy game for running lots of small-stakes combats. WotC really dropped the ball by releasing early adventures designed like Keep on the Borderlands. The system is best for games with few, dramatic, and high-stakes combats.
I disagree, it is no better and no worse than GURPS or any other RPGs with combat of comparable length.
What is true is that 4e is a crappy game for running lots of small-stakes combats in the time it took prior editions of D&D to handle similar circumstances.
Once I understood the potential length of D&D 4e combat I handled it how I did in GURPS for 20+ years. Mostly by making the encounters a more realistic mix.
Quote from: Haffrung;721230Absolutely. 4E is a crappy game for running lots of small-stakes combats. WotC really dropped the ball by releasing early adventures designed like Keep on the Borderlands. The system is best for games with few, dramatic, and high-stakes combats.
Yes. 4e isn't bad for what it does, but the designers enshrined one particular play style and told the costumers to like it or lump it. Many lumped it.
Quote from: Haffrung;721230Did you trim back monster HP and increase damage even more than Essentials does already with the Monster Vault and Essentials-era adventures?
I only bought the digest-sized player and rule books for Essentials, not the GM stuff or whatever the Essential monster compilation was. The first two regular GM books from 4e were good enough (in fact the second one is one of the best D&D GM guides printed to date) and I knew enough about the monster math to work it out on my own for homebrewing by that point.
Musical theme for this thread. (http://youtu.be/wv-34w8kGPM)
Quote from: Gib;720608I think they canned 4e, not because it was a failure, but because they realized they could use all the hate focused towards it to sell another round of core books five years earlier than expected.
Don't forget Mearls gets to be the 'hero'.
Quote from: Sommerjon;721313Don't forget Mearls gets to be the 'hero'.
Not trying to be argumentative... and I certainly don't want to misrepresent Mike, but I have a curious anecdote that I don't have a real answer for... (and honestly I've wondered why this hasn't come up that I've seen anywhere on the web...)
So backstory -
I shared a few projects with Mike Mearls during the hey-day of 3e. I won't say I know him personally, we never met physically, but we spent hours on the phone discussing D&D and what we like/don't like, and more importantly what we'd like to change about 3e. Overall - I felt like a lot of those discussions were very solid and I "felt" like we were very much in the same pea-pod in terms of what we liked/didn't like in D&D.
At the time we were both feature writers at Dragon, he was much more established than myself but at the time - I was going hot and heavy there and we worked on our various things through the 3.5 implementation right to the very end of when Dragon was yanked - and I was considering on going "full time" as an RPG developer or sticking with the dayjob (I chose the dayjob it was much WI$ER).
Somewhere THEREABOUTS as I was exiting the business... Mike had forged onward with Iron Heroes and was considering taking on an open-source project where the OGL would be used to construct a d20 system unlike any other. Where people would take ownership in a Wiki-style setup that would consist of peer-reviewed playtested sub-systems where you could have a modular version of D&D with various sub-systems of do
owned (in an editorial sense) by the person who invented it and got it passed through the peer-review. Now as I recall - it wasn't Mike's idea to do all this - but I remember that people wanted him to be the guy running the show. It sounded awesome for me in particular - because I couldn't commit to doing full-time RPG development, but I sure as hell could commit to something like this.
I felt it was an exciting idea - I remember the hoopla about it, so I had sent him a bunch of ideas that I had for a few sub-systems.... when... He dropped out of it all completely - then we learned he got hired by WotC. In retrospect I thought - this could be the liberation of D&D that was needed (possibly naive? I'm not certain)
Of course the speculation of what/why/who/when this all happened - etc. and I remember thinking, like a lot of people did:
Conspiracy #1 - WotC did this because they knew what he was planning to do with this system and didn't want yet another unified front with a living system, which would be something none of the other d20 games could be agile enough to deal with. (heh or so I'd like to think)
Conspiracy #2 - Mike used this egalitarian Free d20 concept to mine it for all the best ideas so he could use them in D&D!!!!
Likely - none of the above - or rather they were minor considerations in #1 that I like to think were true. At least it feels good to think that they broke a sweat - probably not.
Anyhow... I waited with positive anticipation - and we got 4e. I then I shit myself (seriously - I was on the toilet when I cracked open the first 4ePHB...). The KER-PLUNK was the echo of my inner-disappointment). Where were all the awesome ideas we'd talked about? All the ideas about equalizing values, and limiting derivative stats, paring down the scale of casters vs. melee by upping the values and potential of non-casters? trimming out the fat and junk in the math curve post-level 12, balancing the feats and skills, not killing sacred cows - but getting ALL THE COWS in the their respective pastures for use as plug-ins as needed! We could have our cake and eat it!!! Where were they?
None of it was in 4e. DINGLE. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
Conceptually - 4e had the tightness of design. But lord those mechanics! The abstraction of it all - was like two steps TOO removed from the game itself. The mechanics *became* the game. To this day I'm puzzled by it.
So I always wondered why it turned out as such. Granted - it's a different story once you go corporate as we all know. It leads me to be much more lenient on my views of Mike as a person - I know he's a gamer in there. But I want THAT Mike carrying the D&D banner...
What I wanted was closer to Fantasy Craft (which can get a little crunchy on the front end) but 'spiritually' it's what I want out of D&D - a toolbox of POWER to make the campaigns that reflect BIG DAMN HEROES doing what BDH's are supposed to do regardless of class.
Instead what I got was what felt like Talisman on a 2-week binge of Meth and Steroids called 4e.
Short response: I don't think the context of Mearls "being the hero" is used correctly. I do believe he cares about the D&D brand. I really do. I think he wants his name to be up with with all the rest of the great custodians of the D&D name. Who wouldn't as a game-designer? But yeah... 4e... man that's hard to live down.
Not that it matters - I never understood the fawning over Monte's design work in 3e. Cool guy, yes. But 3e... is ... bah - you guys already know.
Quote from: tenbones;721635Short response: I don't think the context of Mearls "being the hero" is used correctly. I do believe he cares about the D&D brand. I really do. I think he wants his name to be up with with all the rest of the great custodians of the D&D name. Who wouldn't as a game-designer? But yeah... 4e... man that's hard to live down.
'Being the savior' work better for you?
Quote from: Piestrio;721098Oh, certainly the implementation was poor and that's at least partly due to very tragic circumstances beyond their control.
But I disagree that it was a good idea from the beginning.
It created a barrier to play, it obsolesced books, it scared away customers, and worst of all it absolutely FUCKED game stores.
A bad idea badly made.
Right it had a lot of problems especially as a barrier to play but I think the FLGS is mostly dead or dying as a significant force in the RPG industry.
Basically the idea of a subscription to keep things going sounds a lot better than an edition treadmill. Something like whst PF has but with more online content.
My guess is that by looking at MtG they thought about a D&D edition that would force groups to either have the DM buy loads of minis or have all players buy subscriptions to a virtual table top. And thus make money by selling stuff as they have been doing with MtG.
Quote from: tenbones;721635Instead what I got was what felt like Talisman on a 2-week binge of Meth and Steroids called 4e.
Short response: I don't think the context of Mearls "being the hero" is used correctly. I do believe he cares about the D&D brand. I really do. I think he wants his name to be up with with all the rest of the great custodians of the D&D name. Who wouldn't as a game-designer? But yeah... 4e... man that's hard to live down.
Not that it matters - I never understood the fawning over Monte's design work in 3e. Cool guy, yes. But 3e... is ... bah - you guys already know.
Mearls gets a lot of undeserved blame/credit for 4E. The game was designed primarily by Rob Heinsoo, along with Andy Collins and James Wyatt.
Mearls was on the development team, but he was operating under guidelines set by the design team.
Quote from: GibI think they canned 4e, not because it was a failure, but because they realized they could use all the hate focused towards it to sell another round of core books five years earlier than expected.
Its the 5 year plan, not the 10 year plan. Give or take a few years. 3.5 came out 2-3 years too yearly.
More likely WOTC or more likely Hasbro canned 4th because someone decided it was time for 5th ed. That and it was getting all sorts of flack.
And in a few years Next will be shuffled off the side to make room for D&D Better. and so on.
Its exactly why I passed on 4th totally. 5th was coming no matter if 4th succeeded or failed.
Mearls was not the big dog on 4e, he was just the mouthpiece. He IS the big dog on 5e, so the proof will be in the pudding. At the moment it is all Brand Brand Brand, but come summer it may be about Game Game Game.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;721265I only bought the digest-sized player and rule books for Essentials, not the GM stuff or whatever the Essential monster compilation was. The first two regular GM books from 4e were good enough (in fact the second one is one of the best D&D GM guides printed to date) and I knew enough about the monster math to work it out on my own for homebrewing by that point.
Monster Vault is said (by many Post Y2J players) to be the best Monster book of all time. Based on my experience with the 3e and 4e MMs, that is not really all the high of a compliment, but hey progress is good. If the late 4e material had been available at launch- basically a reverse release order of all the 4e books, 4 would probably still be going strong, lol.
Quote from: Omega;721215One of the problems with 4e wasnt so much that it was minis-centric. But that the damn minis were blind buy collectible.
Yes its our old friend mister endless commons. Except these commons take up a few storage bins after a while.
So they possibly didnt sell as well as expected. Another nail an exec can hammer in the coffin.
I thought DDM had mostly (or entirely) ended by the time 4e was released due to supposed cost increases in material and China labor costs? I know they had non random packs early in the life of 4e. Wotc pretty much canned DDM right around the time of 4e, lol.
Great job guys, launch a new major product and immediately kill it's support- like when Essentials launched and they killed the free access to the low level Character Builder. Foolishness, pure foolishness.
And so far, I have not seen any reason to believe this kind of thinking has stopped? The 5e Beta rules were pulled because???
Lol.
Quote from: tenbones;720519Whenever I hear the outrage of 4e fans about comparing the mechanics of 4e to an MMO... I scratch my head.
I can very easily see the connections mechanically. Why is it they can't? It's like they can actually play an MMO and not realize the mechanics of an MMO exist entirely to simulate what is supposed to be going on in a table-top game?
But that translation is exactly what is off-putting about 4e. It's like getting bootleg copy of a copy. [snip]
4e is like Talisman on steroids.
My friends and I refer to it as Advanced
Descent.
JG
Quote from: Teazia;721692I thought DDM had mostly (or entirely) ended by the time 4e was released due to supposed cost increases in material and China labor costs? I know they had non random packs early in the life of 4e. Wotc pretty much canned DDM right around the time of 4e, lol.
Great job guys, launch a new major product and immediately kill it's support- like when Essentials launched and they killed the free access to the low level Character Builder. Foolishness, pure foolishness.
And so far, I have not seen any reason to believe this kind of thinking has stopped? The 5e Beta rules were pulled because???
Lol.
Could be. I missed that money sink either way. But 4th ed seems tailored for the DDM line.
As for plastics cost. Companies trot that out whenever they want to kill a line or jack prices. Though yes of course prices have gone up to produce.
The thing I find most annoying about the lead-up to D&D Next is that Wizards are being so tight-lipped about the content and changes to the game. I tried for ages looking at all official Wizards and D&D sites to find out any info I could about what to expect from the upcoming new edition, and frankly - apart from learning its initial release will be tied to the Sundering in Faerun, I'm still none the wiser.
Scoured Youtube, watched some GenCon panel vids (which were all very vanilla and noncommittal about actual mechanics info and focused mainly on style and theme) and frankly I still have no clue about what the actual changes/improvements to the game are/will be compared to 4E. I'm pretty sure those who signed up to beta test initially know a lot more than me, but it seems as if anyone like myself who did not sign up is kind of being left in the dark about what D&D Next is actually gong to be like.
Considering the game is being released this summer (assuming Wizards stick to their projected schedule), I find it weird that for a game edition which has been in development for so long now, the average D&D fan still knows next to nothing about what to expect from it after all this time.
Quote from: Maeglynn;721739The thing I find most annoying about the lead-up to D&D Next is that Wizards are being so tight-lipped about the content and changes to the game. I tried for ages looking at all official Wizards and D&D sites to find out any info I could about what to expect from the upcoming new edition, and frankly - apart from learning its initial release will be tied to the Sundering in Faerun, I'm still none the wiser.
Scoured Youtube, watched some GenCon panel vids (which were all very vanilla and noncommittal about actual mechanics info and focused mainly on style and theme) and frankly I still have no clue about what the actual changes/improvements to the game are/will be compared to 4E. I'm pretty sure those who signed up to beta test initially know a lot more than me, but it seems as if anyone like myself who did not sign up is kind of being left in the dark about what D&D Next is actually gong to be like.
Considering the game is being released this summer (assuming Wizards stick to their projected schedule), I find it weird that for a game edition which has been in development for so long now, the average D&D fan still knows next to nothing about what to expect from it after all this time.
I expect they'll get the hype machine out this year and have previews and stuff that'll make things a little clearer.
Quote from: Maeglynn;721739The thing I find most annoying about the lead-up to D&D Next is that Wizards are being so tight-lipped about the content and changes to the game. I tried for ages looking at all official Wizards and D&D sites to find out any info I could about what to expect from the upcoming new edition, and frankly - apart from learning its initial release will be tied to the Sundering in Faerun, I'm still none the wiser.
Scoured Youtube, watched some GenCon panel vids (which were all very vanilla and noncommittal about actual mechanics info and focused mainly on style and theme) and frankly I still have no clue about what the actual changes/improvements to the game are/will be compared to 4E. I'm pretty sure those who signed up to beta test initially know a lot more than me, but it seems as if anyone like myself who did not sign up is kind of being left in the dark about what D&D Next is actually gong to be like.
Considering the game is being released this summer (assuming Wizards stick to their projected schedule), I find it weird that for a game edition which has been in development for so long now, the average D&D fan still knows next to nothing about what to expect from it after all this time.
Ummm - if you are curious about the direction D&D5 is taking, why didn't you sign up for the playtest?
For me personally 4e was a triumph for Game Masters, showing how you can make interesting and easy monsters and NPCs, but its failure was the player side.
I looked at the nine core classes and felt like they were not the same as the old 3e ones. Especially the magicians who felt like they were missing all their utility that made them special (I know all these are in the back of the book as ritual spells, but still). Everything was optimized for combat. Social conflict rules were presented, but made it seem more like a skill die role and social combat rather than roleplaying.
That total combat focus seemed to permeate the ruleset and it had seemingly lost sight of the real joy of roleplaying, the social interactions without the need of die rolls, the spells to get around obstacles and puzzles without the need for time consumptive rituals, etc.
I ran the basic adventure in the core rules to get a feel for the game and my gaming group that had stuck with DnD 3.x all the way to DnD 3.5 was simply put off by the way things were handled with daily, encounter, and at-will powers rather than the wider range of options in their mind of the older rules set.
To me the perfect DnD would be player options with the wide gamut of DnD 3.x for classes but with 4es much tighter designed and focused NPCs and monsters. If DnD Next can accomplish something like that, I think it will be highly successful compared to DnD 4e.
Yeah, could easily make some very cool.monsters for 4e. It gets grudging props from.me for that.
The Shrike from Hyperion? It just flew together.
Quote from: One Horse Town;721740I expect they'll get the hype machine out this year and have previews and stuff that'll make things a little clearer.
Yeah, I suspect they didn't want to push mechanics news to much until they had the actual design locked down, but now that they do (there's no way they'd announce the game for this summer if they hadn't already got the system finalised and were able to go full steam ahead on developing the core products and other launch materials) they might start pushing them a bit more.
It would have been extra stupid to loudly declare major mechanical changes earlier than this because an OGL game or retro-clone could have just swiped the mechanic in question.
Quote from: Maeglynn;721739The thing I find most annoying about the lead-up to D&D Next is that Wizards are being so tight-lipped about the content and changes to the game. I tried for ages looking at all official Wizards and D&D sites to find out any info I could about what to expect from the upcoming new edition, and frankly - apart from learning its initial release will be tied to the Sundering in Faerun, I'm still none the wiser.
Scoured Youtube, watched some GenCon panel vids (which were all very vanilla and noncommittal about actual mechanics info and focused mainly on style and theme) and frankly I still have no clue about what the actual changes/improvements to the game are/will be compared to 4E. I'm pretty sure those who signed up to beta test initially know a lot more than me, but it seems as if anyone like myself who did not sign up is kind of being left in the dark about what D&D Next is actually gong to be like.
Considering the game is being released this summer (assuming Wizards stick to their projected schedule), I find it weird that for a game edition which has been in development for so long now, the average D&D fan still knows next to nothing about what to expect from it after all this time.
I'm flabbergasted. You claim that the average D&D fan knows next to nothing about what to expect, when actually, the average D&D fan has downloaded the D&D Next playtest and has a very good idea about what D&D Next is going to be like. The last version of the playtest is a complete and playable ruleset, it has everything you need in order to play for years!
Quote from: Haffrung;721084But WotC's bar of success for 4E was much higher than Paizo's for Pathfinder. Sales figures that would make any other RPG publisher do cartwheels of joy are not enough for WotC and Hasbro. It wasn't until the final year of 4E that Pathfinder matched it in sales. And Hasbro will not tolerate D&D earning the revenue of Pathfinder. They have no interest in (for them) such small-scale return on investment.
You say that as if Pathfinder had been a success in relative terms. That's misleading. Pathfinder has been a success in
absolute terms. D&D4 has sold less and less, whereas Pathfinder has sold more and more, to the point that Pathfinder is the number one RPG.
QuoteI reckon if Hasbro owned Paizo, they would regard Pathfinder as an underperforming product line and shitcan or re-boot the whole thing.
A few years ago, Hasbro owned it, but it wasn't called Pathfinder yet, it was called D&D 3rd, and it was success. I don't know what prompted them to abandon D&D3 and release D&D4
Quote from: Claudius;721786You say that as if Pathfinder had been a success in relative terms. That's misleading. Pathfinder has been a success in absolute terms. D&D4 has sold less and less, whereas Pathfinder has sold more and more, to the point that Pathfinder is the number one RPG.
No proof of that at all.
Wait I know what we can do. Let's talk to a regional distributor, a couple game stores. Let's ignore company distribution. Let's add in some assumption fries, cuz you know we're all about pop culture, and Voila. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Claudius;721781I'm flabbergasted. You claim that the average D&D fan knows next to nothing about what to expect, when actually, the average D&D fan has downloaded the D&D Next playtest and has a very good idea about what D&D Next is going to be like. The last version of the playtest is a complete and playable ruleset, it has everything you need in order to play for years!
Well, it's a (relatively) complete one. "Playable" might be a bit charitable.
Quote from: Sommerjon;721818No proof of that at all.
Wait I know what we can do. Let's talk to a regional distributor, a couple game stores. Let's ignore company distribution. Let's add in some assumption fries, cuz you know we're all about pop culture, and Voila. :rolleyes:
Frankly, who gives a fuck. :idunno:
Quote from: One Horse Town;721820Frankly, who gives a fuck. :idunno:
but, if more people bought the book I like, it means they agree with me, which means I must be right.
Unless they were buying the one I don't like, then they're wrong because people are stupid and like bad things like Jersey Shore and Queen Latifah movies.
Quote from: J Arcane;721824but, if more people bought the book I like, it means they agree with me, which means I must be right.
Unless they were buying the one I don't like, then they're wrong because people are stupid and like bad things like Jersey Shore and Queen Latifah movies.
hahaha, I JUST got essentially this response from someone on the WoTC forums from someone. Nice timing ;)
Quote from: Claudius;721786You say that as if Pathfinder had been a success in relative terms. That's misleading. Pathfinder has been a success in absolute terms. D&D4 has sold less and less, whereas Pathfinder has sold more and more, to the point that Pathfinder is the number one RPG.
Spending $4 million to make $5 million might be a great business model for Paizo, but not good enough in the eyes of Hasbro. D&D as the best-selling RPG in absolute terms may not be good enough in the eyes of Hasbro. They operate with a fundamentally different business model and expectations than the small-fry who make up the rest of the RPG industry. I doubt they give a shit that there's a small book publisher like Paizo earning more from Pathfinder than WotC earned from D&D in the last couple years of 4E. They care about return on investment on an entirely different scale. Success for Paizo - in absolute terms - may be failure for Hasbro.
Quote from: Haffrung;721826Spending $4 million to make $5 million might be a great business model for Paizo, but not good enough in the eyes of Hasbro. D&D as the best-selling RPG in absolute terms may not be good enough in the eyes of Hasbro. They operate with a fundamentally different business model and expectations than the small-fry who make up the rest of the RPG industry. I doubt they give a shit that there's a small book publisher like Paizo earning more from Pathfinder than WotC earned from D&D in the last couple years of 4E. They care about return on investment on an entirely different scale. Success for Paizo - in absolute terms - may be failure for Hasbro.
This is why, I believe, that D&D will never be what it once was to many of us. It's going to be this creature that is a facade of mass-market hype, smoke and mirrors.
I would like to think I'm wrong - but there are just too many forces working at odds with it against the fickleness of the gaming community.
Quote from: One Horse Town;721820Frankly, who gives a fuck. :idunno:
Take a gander around here. How many people quote icv2 like it's gospel? Evidently a bunch around here give a fuck enough to consistently quote it. Wait, my bad, they quote it like it's gospel when it's in align with their interests.
Funny that it was a minor blip on the radar, until PF 'outsells' 4e then, holy shit, it's the proverbial gold standard for all things RPG. :rolleyes:
Just don't look too closely at their 'process'.
Quote from: Claudius;721781I'm flabbergasted. You claim that the average D&D fan knows next to nothing about what to expect, when actually, the average D&D fan has downloaded the D&D Next playtest and has a very good idea about what D&D Next is going to be like. The last version of the playtest is a complete and playable ruleset, it has everything you need in order to play for years!
Far from complete.
But absolutely perfectly playable with what is there.
I could see very well some of the directions the final complete product might go. Others were a bit more murky as there wasnt much to base off of. Enough to playtest. Not enough to form a complete picture.
Its the backgrounds and histories that will be the big unknown aside from the bits revealed on the WOTC forums if those get greenlit as core. Dragons and Dragonborn comes to mind.
Quote from: Sommerjon;721868Take a gander around here. How many people quote icv2 like it's gospel? Evidently a bunch around here give a fuck enough to consistently quote it. Wait, my bad, they quote it like it's gospel when it's in align with their interests.
Funny that it was a minor blip on the radar, until PF 'outsells' 4e then, holy shit, it's the proverbial gold standard for all things RPG. :rolleyes:
Just don't look too closely at their 'process'.
Who cares.
You and them evidently.
Now me by saying who cares.
Bastard.
Quote from: One Horse Town;721886Who cares.
You and them evidently.
Now me by saying who cares.
Bastard.
The circle of care.
Quote from: One Horse Town;721820Frankly, who gives a fuck. :idunno:
I suppose I give a general sort of fuck because prepping games as a GM the way I prefer to takes a lot of time, I run games for a lot of different people (frequently newbies but also people with established tastes) and I appreciate being able to re-use material. I prefer
4e Essential, but I will run
Pathfinder nowadays because
that's where the players are. I need to know what games are (going to be) hot so I don't always have to scrape for enthusiastic players like I did for my current
7th Sea campaign. I want to be ready to run things that the maximum number of average gamers wants to play.
I also find myself thinking about this Ryan Dancey quote a lot when it comes to the importance of consensus popularity in a niche hobby (spoilered due to moderate length):
Spoiler
The second issue that Lisa’s data [about the market] revealed led us to our conceptual breakthrough about the business of TRPGs that shaped every decision we made when bringing the 3rd Edition of D&D to the market.
We realized that TRPGs fall into a special class of products & services that generate network effects. In our case, the effect that had the most impact was the concept of the network externality. For TRPGs, the “true value” of the product is not in the book/box that you buy. It is in the network of social connections that you share which enable you to play the game. Without that social network, the game’s value is massively reduced (it becomes literature, and there’s a small market for people who like to just read and never play TRPG content).
We began to view the market not as a series of product pyramids (a core book at the top, and an ever-broadening base of support materials produced over time), but instead as a series of human webs that overlapped and interconnected. Where those webs were strong, the products flourished. Where they were weak, the products failed. The limiting factor to the growth and strength of the TRPG market was not retail stores or shelf space, it was human brains within which these games could interconnect.
The more segmented those brains became, the weaker the overall social network was. Every new game system, and every new variant to those systems, subdivided that network further, making it weaker. Between 1993 and 1999, the social network of the TRPG players had become seriously frayed. Even if you just looked at the network of Dungeons & Dragons players you could see this effect: People self-segmented into groups playing Basic D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and within 2nd Edition into various Campaign Settings that had become their own game variants. The effect on the market was that it became increasingly hard to make and sell something that had enough players in common that it would earn back its costs of development and production.
We looked around the industry and saw the same problem at virtually every company that had become successful: White Wolf had 5 World of Darkness games which were all slightly different, surrounded by a more diffuse constellation of games somewhat related to the Storyteller system but designed to be mutually incompatible. FASA had 4 games, none of which shared anything in common. Palladium & Steve Jackson Games both had “house systems” that they tried to use across their entire product lines, but they had ended up with the “Campaign Setting” issue that was bedeviling TSR; the variant rules at the edges of their games were creating independent game networks despite the shared DNA of the core. And we knew that inside every one of those companies they were seeing the same financial information we were seeing: Each new release was selling fewer and fewer copies, and in response, the companies were increasing the pace of releases trying to sustain planned revenues by volume of titles, not by volume of units. And it was killing everyone.
Our analysis lead us to the conclusion that in order to escape this trap, D&D at least had to try and unify its player community around one set of universally acceptable rules. And we had to cut back drastically on the number of different books we were publishing to focus spending on individual titles to drive up profitability. It was literally better to sell 7 copies of one book vs. 5 copies of two different books due to the economies of scale involved.
That Dancey view of modern gaming could be accurate, but that doesn't make it less fucked up.
Who really gives a shit which TSR-era books the GM uses? "OMG, there's Mentzer, I'm outta here!"
Playing only in some particular commercially defined world? Regularly would be surprising enough, but ONLY? Seriously?
And what's up with needing to have 100,000 strangers all marching in the same lockstep? Don't people, like, have FRIENDS to play with any more?
Quote from: Phillip;721916And what's up with needing to have 100,000 strangers all marching in the same lockstep? Don't people, like, have FRIENDS to play with any more?
I'm always a bit surprised when I hear gamers have to tailor their games to whatever some strangers down at the local game store are playing. Can't you teach your friends to play? Find a few gamers with common interests and make a regular group out of it? When I started playing, there were probably 30 kids in my junior high school alone who played D&D.
I suppose it's a symptom of how much the hobby has shrunk since I started playing. On the other hand, I recently formed a casual RPG group out of people I worked with. One had played D&D before, and the others were CRPG players. The one who had played before had played 4E, but was happy to play whatever. The other two were also happy to play whatever. We played Dragon Age because it was easy to get into.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;721909I prefer 4e Essential, but I will run Pathfinder nowadays because that's where the players are. I need to know what games are (going to be) hot so I don't always have to scrape for enthusiastic players like I did for my current 7th Sea campaign. I want to be ready to run things that the maximum number of average gamers wants to play.
I'm different, I guess. I could care less what is popular at the moment. I run long term campaigns of house-ruled TSR era D&D (currently in the form of Microlite74 or Microlite81) in a "sandbox" setting the same as I have for years. In the 35+ years I've been playing, I've never really had any trouble getting a group of players interested in playing. However, if I could not, I would not be willing to GM a game system I did not like just to have players. To me, no gaming is better than running a game system that I do not really like/enjoy, especially for a long term campaign like I run.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;721909I also find myself thinking about this Ryan Dancey quote a lot when it comes to the importance of consensus popularity in a niche hobby (spoilered due to moderate length):
Problem is the "one bucket" solution failed because instantly once people realized there was now a total lack of published settings... They went crazy. All of a sudden there were dozens and dozens of new 3rd ed variant settings from other publishers.
They not only proved the theory wrong. But they caused a growth in the number of settings alone. Then realizing the mistake, started setting out more buckets again. A little late.
Wonderfull example of reading the data wrong.
Quote from: RandallS;721921I'm different, I guess. I could care less what is popular at the moment. I run long term campaigns of house-ruled TSR era D&D (currently in the form of Microlite74 or Microlite81) in a "sandbox" setting the same as I have for years. In the 35+ years I've been playing, I've never really had any trouble getting a group of players interested in playing. However, if I could not, I would not be willing to GM a game system I did not like just to have players. To me, no gaming is better than running a game system that I do not really like/enjoy, especially for a long term campaign like I run.
But you ARE running a version of D&D, the easiest game to get players for. Try pitching something like
Star Frontiers these days. You'd get a lot more hemming and hawing and...
"Nah, not my style, see you in WoW later, KTHNXBYE"
and...
"I've got two kids to feed and no time to read more rule/setting books, can't we just play what I know?"
and...
"Oh it's a game like that
Dungeons and Dragons I've heard about... oh hey, how about we play that?"
QuoteProblem is the "one bucket" solution failed because instantly once people realized there was now a total lack of published settings... They went crazy. All of a sudden there were dozens and dozens of new 3rd ed variant settings from other publishers.
They not only proved the theory wrong. But they caused a growth in the number of settings alone. Then realizing the mistake, started setting out more buckets again. A little late.
Wonderfull example of reading the data wrong.
Except Dancey wrote all that in 2011, with all the hindsight that entails, and still believes our small niche hobby is fragmenting itself to death, both in industry terms
and social terms. The way he sees d20 was as an attempt to A) ensure some form of D&D could never been yanked out of the market by a single publisher and B) create the One Ring of all systems: Rule them all, bind them, yadda yadda. This, in theory, would have staunched the fragmentation bleed, and I get the feeling from many of his writings that he thinks it succeeded to a certain degree and would have continued to if WotC hadn't sown chaos by switching horses and fueling things like the OSR.
But if TSR-era D&D and related rules sets are not enough "d20 system," and 4E D&D is d20 System but not satisfying for either 3E or old-school people, and everyone who goes the old route of making up their own campaigns and adjusting rules to taste is wreaking horrible "fragmentation"... then I would rather have this, what I call old-fashioned healthy diversity, than whatever straitened New Order would be called for to satisfy the homogenizers' ambitions.
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/151/4/7/Vulcan_IDIC_necklace_by_absynthia.jpg)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;721950But you ARE running a version of D&D, the easiest game to get players for. Try pitching something like Star Frontiers these days. You'd get a lot more hemming and hawing and...
I really doubt it would take me more that a month or so to put a Star Frontiers, a FASERIP Marvel Superheroes, Gamma World, Classic Traveller, or the like group together -- and without asking any of my current Sunday group to play. The group might be smaller than I really like (perhaps only 3 or 4 players), but I doubt it would be that hard to get those players. Something like first edition C&S, RQ, or EPT would probably be much harder. Top Secret or Boot Hill might be impossible, but I really don't know as I've never tried to find people who might be interested in those genres in my current area.
All I have to do to get people to play a game with me is talk about it casually. I just say "hey, I have this cool idea for a game, want to play?" "I've never played a role playing game!" "It's a lot of fun! You play the character you want in a make-believe situation, could be in the Caribbeans playing pirates, or in Star Wars playing smugglers or Jedi Knight, and here I got this idea to for [insert game pitch]. It unfolds from there, and you get from situation to situation, solve mysteries, rescue the princess, whatever the case may be. [insert game specs]. It's really not that hard. Wanna try?"
Some people will say "nah it's okay." Others will say yes. Others will be curious, will have seen some books or minis, and might need some time to make up their minds, and they'll say "yes" or "no" after a while. With just a couple of yes, you've got yourself the start of a game, and a game group to play other games too, potentially.
I've never had a hard time finding players that way. Why? Because I play with people first, people I'd like to play a game with. Whether they are already gamers or not is completely incidental. Whether I'd enjoy spending time with them playing a game is much more important to me.
Quote from: Benoist;721965All I have to do to get people to play a game with me is talk about it casually. I just say "hey, I have this cool idea for a game, want to play?" "I've never played a role playing game!" "It's a lot of fun! You play the character you want in a make-believe situation, could be in the Caribbeans playing pirates, or in Star Wars playing smugglers or Jedi Knight, and here I got this idea to for [insert game pitch]. It unfolds from there, and you get from situation to situation, solve mysteries, rescue the princess, whatever the case may be. [insert game specs]. It's really not that hard. Wanna try?"
Some people will say "nah it's okay." Others will say yes. Others will be curious, will have seen some books or minis, and might need some time to make up their minds, and they'll say "yes" or "no" after a while. With just a couple of yes, you've got yourself the start of a game, and a game group to play other games too, potentially.
I've never had a hard time finding players that way. Why? Because I play with people first, people I'd like to play a game with. Whether they are already gamers or not is completely incidental. Whether I'd enjoy spending time with them playing a game is much more important to me.
Plus, these days, almost every city and a lot of towns have some geek hang out places.
Holy shit, I just realized one of the biggest problems for the modern RPG hobby is that people forgot the normal societal expectation of The Ask, and are trying poor socializing techniques, like passive-aggressiveness.
It's like dating and all those who: stay in the friend zone like bitter vultures waiting to snap up the girl, or shitstorm group friends to poach a new entourage of their victimization, or wilt gracelessly pining beside the dream guy, or constantly over-criticize everyone and everything in an effort to be that last man left on earth...
Oh my god, we've been so insular we've let the dysfunctional define us and sap our basic confidence! No wonder by net fora standards things seem to be dwindling, as if we can only sell within; we let ourselves be convinced that we are not good enough for others. Geez, you'd think that self-destructive attitude will next go for our precious bodily fluids or something.
:eek:
Quote from: Opaopajr;721968Holy shit, I just realized one of the biggest problems for the modern RPG hobby is that people forgot the normal societal expectation of The Ask, and are trying poor socializing techniques, like passive-aggressiveness.
It's like dating and all those who: stay in the friend zone like bitter vultures waiting to snap up the girl, or shitstorm group friends to poach a new entourage of their victimization, or wilt gracelessly pining beside the dream guy, or constantly over-criticize everyone and everything in an effort to be that last man left on earth...
Oh my god, we've been so insular we've let the dysfunctional define us and sap our basic confidence! No wonder by net fora standards things seem to be dwindling, as if we can only sell within; we let ourselves be convinced that we are not good enough for others. Geez, you'd think that self-destructive attitude will next go for our precious bodily fluids or something.
:eek:
My piss already corrodes metal.
Though it may be all those saturated fats I've been eating.
One of the main problems of the tabletop RPG community as I see it is this tendency of some among us to only want to play with other gamers, defaulting to a gamer search to find a group otherwise... no gaming at all.
I don't think there's a quick fix to it, but it could change with time.
Quote from: tenbones;721829This is why, I believe, that D&D will never be what it once was to many of us. It's going to be this creature that is a facade of mass-market hype, smoke and mirrors.
I would like to think I'm wrong - but there are just too many forces working at odds with it against the fickleness of the gaming community.
For about the same reason that there will never be another Beatles.
That and the fact that the music industry sucks.
JG
My vision of a best possible future isnt "another D&D" as it were. I get no joy out of one RPG being enormously popular or exceptionally lucrative, especially when that rpg is published my a large corporation. What Id like to see if every roleplayer eventually making thier own system, tailored to thier specific tastes.
Its like in Star Wars, where part of becoming a Jedi was crafting one's own lightsabre. Its the reason I love conversions in Warhammer and despise the notion of a standardized painting scheme for people's armies. I want to exalt in the creativity of my fellow hobbyists, not wait around for some publisher to win the market bingo and see a hobby full of slaves to published ideas nor treat imagination like something that needs to be purchased from an official product line.
Quote from: Rincewind1;721969My piss already corrodes metal.
Though it may be all those saturated fats I've been eating.
The weaponizing potential of such precious bodily fluids might place you at higher risk.
:(
Quote from: Rincewind1;721969My piss already corrodes metal.
Though it may be all those saturated fats I've been eating.
Diabetes, man. Diabetes.
JG
Now I want to make a superhero based on that. A fellow contracts diabetes from genetically modified foods, giving him acid urine and his feet fall off. Donning a spandex suit and robotic extendo-feet, he uses his acid urine powers to fight crime and bad eating habits as...The Golden Shower!
Quote from: TristramEvans;721989Now I want to make a superhero based on that. A fellow contracts diabetes from genetically modified foods, giving him acid urine and his feet fall off. Donning a spandex suit and robotic extendo-feet, he uses his acid urine powers to fight crime and bad eating habits as...The Golden Shower!
I'd play that.
JG
Quote from: Benoist;721974One of the main problems of the tabletop RPG community as I see it is this tendency of some among us to only want to play with other gamers, defaulting to a gamer search to find a group otherwise... no gaming at all.
I don't think there's a quick fix to it, but it could change with time.
As a gross generalization, I'd rather play with non gamers than gamers. No offense to present company intended. But I prefer their lack of baggage.
My Pendragon campaign features a range of people from dyed-in-the-wool gamers to people who had brief encounters with D&D years and years ago. I think it's benefited from that.
Quote from: Planet Algol;721997As a gross generalization, I'd rather play with non gamers than gamers. No offense to present company intended. But I prefer their lack of baggage.
One of my best campaigns was all newbies. My most frustrating player is consistently my brother, whose passion for RPGs equals mine but whose tastes have become as decadent and jaded as those of a thousand-year-old vampire. I still play with him from time to time because I like him overall and when he's good he's really good, but when his eccentricities are triggered... ugh.
Quote from: Claudius;721781I'm flabbergasted. You claim that the average D&D fan knows next to nothing about what to expect, when actually, the average D&D fan has downloaded the D&D Next playtest and has a very good idea about what D&D Next is going to be like. The last version of the playtest is a complete and playable ruleset, it has everything you need in order to play for years!
I'd be careful about making assumptions about the 'average D&D fan'. I'd put it to you that anyone who downloaded the playtest beta when Wizards first put it out is far from average, and more of a dedicated fan.
In an effort to un-flabbergast you Claudius, I invite you to direct me to where that play test ruleset can
now be downloaded from the Wizards site. Because trust me I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find it and I can't find a link for the life of me. If I can't find it, having spent a considerable amount of time deliberately trying to do so, then what chance do other people, like me, who were not early to the beta test party, stand of learning more about the new edition when we try to find out more info on Wizard's site?
The open playtest lasted what...a year? And in the wake of that Google will pull up how many hundreds of forum threads and blogs dissecting it? Not to mention the myriad posts on the Wizards site discussing plans and aspects of the game.
Can you name any other rpg in the history of rpg publishing that has provided that much free access to a game's rules development before its release?
You're being entirely disingenuous.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722010The open playtest lasted what...a year? And in the wake of that Google will pull up how many hundreds of forum threads and blogs dissecting it? Not to mention the myriad posts on the Wizards site discussing plans and aspects of the game.
Can you name any other rpg in the history of rpg publishing that has provided that much free access to a game's rules development before its release
To be technical Pathfinder. But doesn't invalidate your point.
Quote from: Maeglynn;722006In an effort to un-flabbergast you Claudius, I invite you to direct me to where that play test ruleset can now be downloaded from the Wizards site. Because trust me I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find it and I can't find a link for the life of me. If I can't find it, having spent a considerable amount of time deliberately trying to do so, then what chance do other people, like me, who were not early to the beta test party, stand of learning more about the new edition when we try to find out more info on Wizard's site?
You can't download the playtest anymore but there is abbreviated version included in the Dragonspear Castle module which you can buy.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722010The open playtest lasted what...a year?
1 year, 7 months to be exact. May 2012 to December 2013.
And even if one didn't download the playtest, there have weekly columns, Q&As, podcasts, and livestreamed games going on since January of 2012.
Quote from: estar;722011To be technical Pathfinder. But doesn't invalidate your point.
Flippant response: Of course, Pathfinder has Next beat because an early version of its SRD was available as early as 2000...
Less flippant response: Of course, the big difference here is that Pathfinder's system was 90% a known quantity anyway - everyone interested in Pathfinder already knew it was a patched D&D 3.5, so the open playtest was no more of a risk than releasing a game based mostly on a freely downloadable SRD in the first place.
Quote from: Opaopajr;721985The weaponizing potential of such precious bodily fluids might place you at higher risk.
:(
Judging by his avatar, he's got a codpiece for that.
Quote from: Phillip;721916Playing only in some particular commercially defined world? Regularly would be surprising enough, but ONLY? Seriously?
One of the more unique attractions of our peculiar hobby is the potential to engage in mid or long term campaigns. I and many others have done so, sometimes spanning decades, because it's a lot of fun. Others treat RPGs like an evening's parlour games, fire and forget, and that's alright but I submit that they're probably in the minority.
I wholeheartedly endorse Dancey's views because they're spot on accurate. Presumably RPG companies followed a version business model based on its success in computer games - unfortunately RPGs aren't computer games, they follow a completely different dynamic.
New versions of computer games bring better graphics, new interfaces, superior responsiveness, a plethora of advantages which cause older versions to be rightfully deprecated and discarded. RPGs, not so much, original D&D works just fine, some might argue even better than later versions. There's generally no pressing reason to buy a new version, and in fact there might be plenty of reasons not to if a group is deeply engaged in a campaign using an older version.
All that releasing "new versions" does is balkanise and fragment your market, effectively forcing companies to compete with themselves, financial suicide.
Quote from: Phillip;721916Who really gives a shit which TSR-era books the GM uses? "OMG, there's Mentzer, I'm outta here!"
From a commercial perspective it's quite desireable to have a monolithic product line for several reasons beyond the abovementioned. I mean we have people complaining that there's no money in RPGs while at the same time engaging in furious edition warring which is the manifestation of that crippling market fragmentation which leads to poverty.
I don't blame them, they're just running with the situation, but the sooner RPG companies recognise this and break away from the disastrous new edition business model the better it will be for everyone. And I definetely don't begrudge the potential existence of a few large corporations - the concentration of capital in this case leads to opportunities for market growth. People ask who's going to pay for advertising, the answer is "the RPG company with enough money to do so".
A fragmented market helps nobody.
I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle when it comes to market fragmentation. Large publishers just don't have the kind of advantages over a bunch of guys in their home office the way that they used to, especially when the guys in their home office all talk to each other and are willing to do a lot of work for free.
I think the future holds a lot more stuff like the FATE or OSR communities. Maybe some tent pole companies organizing things but a lot of inter-related families of games that are constantly coming up with new ideas, stealing ideas from each other, etc. a lot like the mod development communities for a lot of computer games.
The thing is computer game design studios can do a lot of things a couple of guys making mods just can't when it comes to game development. That's much less the game with making tabletop RPGs, any idiot can write a book and I've seen plenty of decent enough production values on even free PDFs that I've seen floating around.
As far as if that can bring new people in, the hell if I know. If there's a breakthrough my guess it's going to be gaming via videochat or somesuch once people's internet connections get a bit better so the video chatting is more reliable and then have that spread through adult geeks who don't want to put up with the headaches of organizing face-to-face meetups.
Of course basic dungeoncrawling is still as addicting to 10-12 year olds as it was in the 80's. I know that from first hand experience. It's just that there's not much infrastructure to get games into their hands and while kids can have a bunch of fun RPing with even a mediocre DM, plenty of fun to compete easily with other forms of entertainment, there's a lot of things out there more fun than RPing with a crappy DM and most kids DMing for their first time are pretty crappy. These days it's probably harder for other kids to have patience with their friends stumbling about learning how to DM than was the case before when there was so many competing forms of entertainment.
The problem with "market fragmentation" is that it basically means "Getting out product is so easy these days, we can no longer count to establish monopoly." In other words, for everyone except the biggest players (and really, nowadays, WotC and Pathfinder, maybe a smattering of 40k), it means good things, because they can find a game tailored to their exact needs, if they just search long enough - or work one themselves.
And yet Pathfinder, as far as I'm aware, is making great gains sticking to one monolithic game system and avoiding edition treadmills while releasing supplements and new adventures. And they're bringing in new gamers too via their society structure and easily accessable entry points. They're Doing It Right.
Quote from: The Traveller;722034And yet Pathfinder, as far as I'm aware, is making great gains sticking to one monolithic game system and avoiding edition treadmills while releasing supplements and new adventures. And they're bringing in new gamers too via their society structure and easily accessable entry points. They're Doing It Right.
Yes but a lot of PF is based on an embrace of the SRD, which undermines a lot of the monolithic nature of that game. In a good way, mind you, but still, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing a family of Pathfinder spin-off games.
Quote from: The Traveller;722034And yet Pathfinder, as far as I'm aware, is making great gains sticking to one monolithic game system and avoiding edition treadmills while releasing supplements and new adventures. And they're bringing in new gamers too via their society structure and easily accessable entry points. They're Doing It Right.
For their company size, yes. If Hasbro accepted Paizo levels of income as successful then they would still be supporting 4E and still on top.
Tabletop rpgs can make money, just not the kind of money Hasbro expects from a popular brand.
Quote from: Daztur;722040Yes but a lot of PF is based on an embrace of the SRD, which undermines a lot of the monolithic nature of that game. In a good way, mind you, but still, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing a family of Pathfinder spin-off games.
Sure, success brings competition and that's a healthy thing, but what's happened with Pathfinder emphasises how unworkable the new edition model is for the RPG hobby. They sidestepped the trap that most other companies fell into while attempting to lurch after computer games and are reaping the rewards. I've a lot of respect for the company and the people behind it.
Really when you think about it RPG companies need to focus on two things - continual outwards expansion and producing ongoing materials for the existing fans; I don't know if there are any other ways to really make money doing this.
Quote from: Daztur;722040In a good way, mind you, but still, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing a family of Pathfinder spin-off games.
Sure, people want to play different genres (I'm eager for
"Pathfinder Future"), but the spin-offs will have the considerable player advantage of being based on d20, allowing players to transfer most of their system knowledge instead of watering down their rule mastery (and diverting more of the increasingly squeezed commodity that is discretionary time) with an entirely new system.
Quote from: TristramEvans;721983My vision of a best possible future isnt "another D&D" as it were. I get no joy out of one RPG being enormously popular or exceptionally lucrative, especially when that rpg is published my a large corporation. What Id like to see if every roleplayer eventually making thier own system, tailored to thier specific tastes.
Its like in Star Wars, where part of becoming a Jedi was crafting one's own lightsabre. Its the reason I love conversions in Warhammer and despise the notion of a standardized painting scheme for people's armies. I want to exalt in the creativity of my fellow hobbyists, not wait around for some publisher to win the market bingo and see a hobby full of slaves to published ideas nor treat imagination like something that needs to be purchased from an official product line.
Frankly, that's a pretty elitist stance to take. Most RPG players simply don't have the inclination to make their own adventures, let alone their own game. The hobby you describe would consist of about 1,000 people.
It's like a music hobbyist wishing that people would stop buying recorded music like sheep and make their own instead.
Or a natural foods advocate wishing people would stop buying packaged or processed food and start making all their meals from scratch out of produce they grew themselves.
Or an amateur video game developer denouncing commercial video games because people should just make their own games to play.
Or car enthusiasts who expresses contempt for people won't learn to tinker with and modify their cars, and just want something to fill them up with gas and drive.
Surely there are aspects of your own life that you don't want to work at, that you want to simply buy ready-made products or content and enjoy them at your leisure. Why can't RPGs be a casual pastime, requiring no more effort than playing Settlers of Catan or the Dragon Age CRPG? Why does it have to be a lifestyle hobby?
There are only so many hours in the day, only so much mindspace people have for creative or productive endeavours. Personally, I have about 1.5 hours of free time a day, maybe 3 hours on weekends. Sometimes I get a surge of creative energy and work on an RPG adventure for a couple days. Then I get busy, or tired, or pursue one of my others hobbies (cycling, boardgames, writing fiction, drinking beer), and the work is set aside, usually unfinished. When I play these days, I need published support. And I have no tolerance for most of the hack stuff put out by amateurs. Professional layout, readability, format, and content matters to me.
I get the impression a lot of the hardcore RPGers really would rather the hobby consisted of 1,000 super-committed ubergeeks who had no other hobbies or interests, making our own splendid games and game worlds unsullied by the masses or by commerce.
Quote from: Haffrung;722087I get the impression a lot of the hardcore RPGers really would rather the hobby consisted of 1,000 super-committed ubergeeks who had no other hobbies or interests, making our own splendid games and game worlds unsullied by the masses or by commerce.
I would sig this...if I was the type of person who sigged other people's comments.
Quote from: Haffrung;722087Frankly, that's a pretty elitist stance to take. Most RPG players simply don't have the inclination to make their own adventures, let alone their own game. The hobby you describe would consist of about 1,000 people.
So the premise of your argument is that my statement takes place in some magical fantasy alternate reality world where history up to this point hasnt happened and there arent hundreds of rpgs for people to play?
Sorry, I was talking about the real world. You can join me there if you actually want to debate what I said because Im really not interested in your "how dare he suggest that we dont need a replication of D&D's 80s commercial success to have a healthy thriving hobby?" indignation time travel scenario.
Quote from: Haffrung;722087Frankly, that's a pretty elitist stance to take. Most RPG players simply don't have the inclination to make their own adventures, let alone their own game. The hobby you describe would consist of about 1,000 people.
It's like a music hobbyist wishing that people would stop buying recorded music like sheep and make their own instead.
Or a natural foods advocate wishing people would stop buying packaged or processed food and start making all their meals from scratch out of produce they grew themselves.
Or an amateur video game developer denouncing commercial video games because people should just make their own games to play.
Or car enthusiasts who expresses contempt for people won't learn to tinker with and modify their cars, and just want something to fill them up with gas and drive.
Surely there are aspects of your own life that you don't want to work at, that you want to simply buy ready-made products or content and enjoy them at your leisure. Why can't RPGs be a casual pastime, requiring no more effort than playing Settlers of Catan or the Dragon Age CRPG? Why does it have to be a lifestyle hobby?
The thing is, you can have the best of both worlds. Considering we are talking about role playing games, games whose main point of attraction is actually to be an active participating hobby in which the user uses his own imagination to play the game, contrary to the more passive entertainment provided by other game types and media, you can build products that actually emphasize that and make it easier/more intuitive/time saving for people to use their own imaginations and play their own games instead of someone else's who would have done their imagining for them.
Likewise, a thriving scene of people sharing their own works and participating to the hobby is not automatically stopping people who want to play games but do not necessarily want to spend time on forums or blogs sharing their materials from just playing with their friends.
So I personally don't see the idea of construing role playing games as passive entertainment as particularly appealing, helpful or un-elitist, for that matter: It's just a way of saying that role playing games suck for people who'd prefer to watch a movie instead. While some people might want from there to cater to the lowest common denominator and call it a day, thereby making them surrender to their own particular brand of elitism, thinking that people just can't do their own imagining for themselves because "that's too hard", I personally don't see anything wrong with some folks not liking the active imagination aspect of role playing games. It's part of the territory, and the nature of the medium. I'm cool with that.
That said, again, the other extreme, of wanting gamers to only play with gamers and to have this gradual complication of games as time goes on to appeal to the hardcore to the exclusion of more casual gamers, is itself nocive to the health of the hobby, in my opinion, and again, I think there's a way to have a happy medium with a thriving DIY scene and RPG products that actually help people do their own imagining for themselves with game systems that are not a shore to use and so on, so forth.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;507367You know, I think we're overlooking the BIGGEST reason 4e failed:
not enough 4vengers
If only there'd been more people at every turn on open RPG forums telling people who enjoyed 3.5, 3.0, AD&D 2e, AD&D, original and basic of all its various stripes that they were dumb, that their opinions were dumb, that 4e was the pinnacle of game design, questioning the mindset and intelligence of people who didn't want to "evolve" or even worse people who'd go back and non-ironically play those earlier versions, 4e would have lived.
That's what my time here on theRPGsite and reading other forums has taught me. At least that's what I take away from it. Those poor guys :( they were being so screechy and hateful in an attempt to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive as it were.
Just saw this, and +1.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722133So the premise of your argument is that my statement takes place in some magical fantasy alternate reality world where history up to this point hasnt happened and there arent hundreds of rpgs for people to play?
Sorry, I was talking about the real world. You can join me there if you actually want to debate what I said because Im really not interested in your "how dare he suggest that we dont need a replication of D&D's 80s commercial success to have a healthy thriving hobby?" indignation time travel scenario.
I don't expect the RPG hobby to return to the mass popularity of the 80s. But I do think it's desirable, maybe even crucial, that it has a couple commercially successful companies able to provide professionally published material to people who want to play RPGs casually without a lot of work.
Quote from: Benoist;722135So I personally don't see the idea of construing role playing games as passive entertainment as particularly appealing, helpful or un-elitist, for that matter: It's just a way of saying that role playing games suck for people who'd prefer to watch a movie instead. While some people might want from there to cater to the lowest common denominator and call it a day, thereby making them surrender to their own particular brand of elitism, thinking that people just can't do their own imagining for themselves because "that's too hard", I personally don't see anything wrong with some folks not liking the active imagination aspect of role playing games. It's part of the territory, and the nature of the medium. I'm cool with that.
The very act of playing an RPG is an active, creative endeavour, whether you use homebrewed material or books you buy at a store. Sitting down to play a Pathfinder AP using only Paizo material is miles ahead of playing Skyrim in terms of active participation and imagination. It shouldn't be looked down on as a lower form of gaming than DIY content, or a threat to the ideals of the hobby.
Quote from: Haffrung;722144The very act of playing an RPG is an active, creative endeavour, whether you use homebrewed material or books you buy at a store. Sitting down to play a Pathfinder AP using only Paizo material is miles ahead of playing Skyrim in terms of active participation and imagination. It shouldn't be looked down on as a lower form of gaming than DIY content, or a threat to the ideals of the hobby.
I don't see it that way. You are arguing with a bogeyman inside your own head here. I think there's room for a lot more than Adventure Paths. People who want that should have access to them, and they already do thanks to Paizo. At the same time, it doesn't have to be/remain the defining aspect of the hobby or construed as some type of ideal that role playing games must therefore appeal primarily or exclusively to people who want to play serial scripted adventures and that's that.
Quote from: Haffrung;722144I don't expect the RPG hobby to return to the mass popularity of the 80s. But I do think it's desirable, maybe even crucial, that it has a couple commercially successful companies able to provide professionally published material to people who want to play RPGs casually without a lot of work.
People incapable of accessing the thousands of products from indy publishers, the OSR community, and the very active existing community of gamers online.
Nice goal post shifting there.
You read some weird diatribe into what I said that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with any point I made and took it on a hyperbolic joyride to suggest that I was anti anything rpg related ever getting published.
Perhaps you should start by rereading the post I actually wrote or maybe even paying a little closer attention to the lightsabre metaphor. You see, my scenario would involve MORE RPG products available than ever in history up to this point. Where you extrapolated some "1000 hardcore nerds" elitist club from that I cant begin to fathom, but if I had to guess you were popping off about some other poster(s) you may or may not have encountered once upon a time and projected those very personal issues on to me.
Quote from: Benoist;722148I don't see it that way. You are arguing with a bogeyman inside your own head here. I think there's room for a lot more than Adventure Paths. People who want that should have access to them, and they already do thanks to Paizo. At the same time, it doesn't have to be/remain the defining aspect of the hobby or construed as some type of ideal that role playing games must therefore appeal primarily or exclusively to people who want to play serial scripted adventures and that's that.
You're making shit up. Read the thread - I didn't say any of that stuff. Of course people who enjoy making and using their own content should do so. I was responding to a post that said in an ideal world everyone would make their own game. In my opinion, the hobby will be worse off if there are no commercial RPGs drawing in new blood and keeping time-scarce players in the hobby.
You gotta be the worst thread-crapper on this site.
Quote from: Haffrung;722087Frankly, that's a pretty elitist stance to take. Most RPG players simply don't have the inclination to make their own adventures, let alone their own game. The hobby you describe would consist of about 1,000 people.
The "by the book", "published material only" referee is about as common as the referee being a total DiYer.
Most people fall on a spectrum, and how that spectrum is distributes depends on the specific system/edition.
Organized play is a different story. As the point of that is to play the distributed adventures under a specific set of rules common to every group.
In the end the open free form nature of traditional tabletop means that creative additions are the rule rather than the exception. Even in Organized Play there are creative additions when the distributed adventures are designed to be open ended.
Quote from: Haffrung;722154You gotta be the worst thread-crapper on this site.
I love you too. Let me know when you're ready to have a conversation, instead of fighting against the private fantasies you have about the motivations and personalities of the people not saying "A-men" to your own ideas about role playing and euro games. Thank you.
Quote from: estar;722155The "by the book", "published material only" referee is about as common as the referee being a total DiYer.
Most people fall on a spectrum, and how that spectrum is distributes depends on the specific system/edition.
Organized play is a different story. As the point of that is to play the distributed adventures under a specific set of rules common to every group.
In the end the open free form nature of traditional tabletop means that creative additions are the rule rather than the exception. Even in Organized Play there are creative additions when the distributed adventures are designed to be open ended.
I didn't say anything about RAW either. There's a world of difference between tweaking a game to suit your preferences and designing your own game. Most GMs do the former at one point or another. They take a commercially published system or adventures and revise it as needed. Very, very few will ever create their own game.
There's seriously no reason that "big gaming corporations" and "small creative artisans" have to be mutually exclusive or even detract in any way from one another. Big gaming companies are the rising tide that lifts all boats by expanding awareness and opening up new markets, smaller independent creators provide alternatives for those who want them.
In short, large companies reach out to people, smaller groups are there if you're looking for them. It's a positive feedback situation for everyone.
Quote from: Benoist;722157I love you too. Let me know when you're ready to have a conversation, instead of fighting against the private fantasies you have about the motivations and personalities of the people not saying "A-men" to your own conceptions of role playing games. Thank you.
You know, I actually quote the people I'm responding to. And I responded to specific claims here. Again, if you actually read the thread you won't come across as such a belligerent thread-crapper. Or maybe it's just your personality in any case.
Quote from: The Traveller;722159There's seriously no reason that "big gaming corporations" and "small creative artisans" have to be mutually exclusive or even detract in any way from one another. Big gaming companies are the rising tide that lifts all boats by expanding awareness and opening up new markets, smaller independent creators provide alternatives for those who want them.
In short, large companies reach out to people, smaller groups are there if you're looking for them. It's a positive feedback situation for everyone.
I agree 100 per cent.
Quote from: Haffrung;722160You know, I actually quote the people I'm responding to.
Yes, and you quoted me in this instance.
Quote from: Haffrung;722160And I responded to specific claims here.
Which in itself was in answer to you raising the idea that people don't have time and want passive entertainment so role playing games should give it to them. Which is not an idea I actually agree with, and said you could actually have the best of both worlds, that you could have a DIY community and game companies providing products that empower people and saves some time when it comes to playing a role playing game and using your own imagination to do so.
You're the one who brought up APs specifically in response to that and assumed that's what I was criticizing (hint: it wasn't. I was criticizing YOUR stance, not Paizo's). So. How about you take a large helping of your own medicine here and actually answer what *I* said instead of reading in tea-leaves and assuming a whole bunch of stuff about me, what I meant, or alluding to other posts I personally didn't write when answering my own quotes? That'd be cool! Thanks again!
:hatsoff:
Quote from: Haffrung;722154You're making shit up. Read the thread - I didn't say any of that stuff. Of course people who enjoy making and using their own content should do so. I was responding to a post that said in an ideal world everyone would make their own game. In my opinion, the hobby will be worse off if there are no commercial RPGs drawing in new blood and keeping time-scarce players in the hobby.
You are assuming that Everybody making their own system = No Commercial Industry. That doesn't follow from what Tristam said.
For example when you buy the two core books of GURPS, you have to make your own system if you want to actually play the game. The GURPS Core book give you the tools to do this.
Another example is the d20 system, while not a toolkit the common design of d20 derived games makes it very easy to pick and choose different elements from different published books as well as adding your own. Like a feat in Call of Cthulu d20 for your Pathfinder game, just add it!
My take on the whole issue is that what important is creative freedom protected by some type of open gaming license.
If people want just to buy books more power to them but the option is always present for a person to creatively contribute and profit off of his work. Whether it is a full blown rulebook, a list of items, or just a simple zine.
My ideal is the majority of the industry to be under open content licenses. That is the only thing I see that will ensure the long term survival of tabletop RPGs. Because this situation is the only in my opinion that will generate the diversity of option that is needed to ensure at least one of them will continue to survive.
And in the event of a total collapse of interest, it will allow for the preservation of material in the hopes of a rebirth of interest no matter how little.
And if you don't think that an issue look at the problem with preservation of 1920s and 1930s Jazz Music and imagine that happening to tabletop roleplaying games.
Quote from: Haffrung;722158I didn't say anything about RAW either. There's a world of difference between tweaking a game to suit your preferences and designing your own game. Most GMs do the former at one point or another. They take a commercially published system or adventures and revise it as needed. Very, very few will ever create their own game.
It is a spectrum not an off and on switch.
Do enough tweaks and you will have produced a new game. That is why I am making the point, the only difference between A game designer and a referee adding a feat to his campaign is the scale of the work.
Which is why Tristam's ideal doesn't lead to the conclusion that there will be no industry. Even game designers don't always make things out of whole cloth.
Quote from: estar;722171Which is why Tristam's ideal doesn't lead to the conclusion that there will be no industry. Even game designers don't always make things out of whole cloth.
I think the objection had more to do with the perceived value that large gaming companies bring to the table. They are often underappreciated.
Quote from: The Traveller;722173I think the objection had more to do with the perceived value that large gaming companies bring to the table. They are often underappreciated.
I am of two minds about that. Because RPGs have a network effect there is a distinct benefit to having a game from a dominant publisher. However the downside if the dominant publishers sneezes we all catch cold.
In the end I think I prefer a dominant system under a open content license with many publishers to be the best option for the long term health of the industry.
Obviously that sounds a lot like the OSR so I am biased there.
But I think because of that, classic D&D gaming is going to around for the long haul. If Goblinoid Games, Frog God Games, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess falters, it can be picked up by others and continued far easier than say with GURPS if SJ Games falters.
I cannot say for sure that D&D 4e failed commercially (though the fragmentary evidence we have points towards that), or, if it did, why did it fail.
I can tell you why it failed for me.
When I finally sat down to play D&D 4e, I had read plenty of the seething nerdrage, as well as the book itself. I had some idea of what to expect: a role-playing game with a marked emphasis on combat, which was mostly treated as a movement-heavy skirmish-level wargame best played with miniatures and a grid.
For me, it failed mostly because it was a bad design. It did not accomplish what it set out to do, from a game-design perspective. The skirmish-wargame-withon-a-RPG is bad, drags along, and pays no heed to immersion.
Funny, I once downloaded a free, Brazilian fantasy RPG whose name escapes me, that had "martial powers" similar to D&D 4e's, but insightfully, they ran on a fatigue point economy. The whole book looked and read like it was put together by an enthusiastic 13-year-old and his gaming group, and yet this guy, bless his heart, had a ton more common sense and design chops than whoever figured that it'd be a brilliant idea for Fighters (or Rangers, or Rogues, or Warlords) to have a Super Sayajin Sword Swing usable only once per day.
Essentials did address a few of my gripes with 4e but by then it was too little, too late.
I'd totally pick up and play a D&D 4e-esque game, complete with proprietary miniatures -- hell, I'll even play in a 4e game if someone in my group wants to run it -- but this is why I feel D&D 4e was, for The Butcher, a failure.
Quote from: The Butcher;722176I cannot say for sure that D&D 4e failed commercially (though the fragmentary evidence we have points towards that), or, if it did, why did it fail.
I can tell you why it failed for me.
When I finally sat down to play D&D 4e, I had read plenty of the seething nerdrage, as well as the book itself. I had some idea of what to expect: a role-playing game with a marked emphasis on combat, which was mostly treated as a movement-heavy skirmish-level wargame best played with miniatures and a grid.
For me, it failed mostly because it was a bad design. It did not accomplish what it set out to do, from a game-design perspective. The skirmish-wargame-withon-a-RPG is bad, drags along, and pays no heed to immersion.
Funny, I once downloaded a free, Brazilian fantasy RPG whose name escapes me, that had "martial powers" similar to D&D 4e's, but insightfully, they ran on a fatigue point economy. The whole book looked and read like it was put together by an enthusiastic 13-year-old and his gaming group, and yet this guy, bless his heart, had a ton more common sense and design chops than whoever figured that it'd be a brilliant idea for Fighters (or Rangers, or Rogues, or Warlords) to have a Super Sayajin Sword Swing usable only once per day.
Essentials did address a few of my gripes with 4e but by then it was too little, too late.
I'd totally pick up and play a D&D 4e-esque game, complete with proprietary miniatures -- hell, I'll even play in a 4e game if someone in my group wants to run it -- but this is why I feel D&D 4e was, for The Butcher, a failure.
...and that's the thing about 4e that I think really is the cause of all the "It's not an RPG" or "It's not D&D" gripes. It's not that the game went too far down the tactical combat rabbit hole, it's that in going down the rabbit hole, the designers didn't even bother to consider that they were designing rules for a role-playing game. "Immersion" as you put it, wasn't even a design goal, and it shows, obviously, in 50 foot high letters on every page to someone who does care about it.
If you accept that 4e failed, then there is only one reason - the majority of people didn't accept it as D&D compared to previous versions.
Why didn't they accept it as D&D compared to previous versions? Length of combat was certainly a factor, but I think in hindsight it's pretty obvious you can chalk it all up to Dissociated Mechanics.
If they'd stayed with 3.5 on the RPG front and released 4e as "D&D Tactics" with iconics, minis, cards, etc, they would have had a clear winner. WotC would basically have most of both the Pathfinder and 4e customers (except for the bitter dregs who only played 4e because it was "Different D&D" and they could piss on Gary's grave).
Quote from: CRKrueger;722179If you accept that 4e failed, then there is only one reason - the majority of people didn't accept it as D&D compared to previous versions.
It's not really that I didn't accept it as D&D, or as a RPG, or as my personal lord and savior or whatever.
It's that, even if you divorce it from your favorite versions of D&D, even if you divorce it from your idea of what a RPG should look and play like, even if you shed your voluminous expectations, the better to approach it at the game table
tabula rasa, and consider it solely on its own merits... which I did, or I like to think that I did... you'll find it wanting.
Quote from: The Traveller;722173I think the objection had more to do with the perceived value that large gaming companies bring to the table. They are often underappreciated.
How many threads have we had just on this forum alone that consisted largely of fretting and fraying about how financially successful 5th edition is going to be or how much money 4th edition actually made or whether or not Pathfinder will continue to outsell D&D or how the ogl was a financial liability to WoTC? I really dont see any underappreciation going on.
My point was these things ultimately dont matter. The OGL achieved its author's primary goal, which is that D&D will always be available, whether Hasbro decides to cease printing it or hand us another game that is D&D in name only. The OSR is thriving and pdf sales of past adventures and supplements are thriving. And thats just D&D, one drop in a huge pond at this point. If D&D continues to have any importance, its solely in name recognition. As the majority of the people who get into the hobby are introduced by people already playing as opposed to simply walking into a store and trying out "that D&D game everyone talks about", that name recognition is of increasingly less importance.
Im not againt RPGs getting published, Im not against them making money or being successful. I am against the idea that the health of the hobby overall is entirely dependent on WoTC's sales figures or that the success financially of one game or another actually reflects the hobby at large.
Its not that large corporate publishers = bad, its simply that big publishers dont matter over small publishers anymore (and shouldnt). And when those big publishers try to contrive within thier games the idea that a player needs to rely on official published products (TSR tried that line in the 90s, 5th edition was predicated on the concept), then that should be denounced loudly and voiciferously.
And in a tangentially related manner, Im against the idea that a new edition needs to equal a new rules set. I personally would love to ideally see certain systems remain in print forever, getting revisions and erratta, and new artwork and presentation, w/o placing more importance on a brand name than the game itself.
Quote from: The Butcher;722180It's not really that I didn't accept it as D&D, or as a RPG, or as my personal lord and savior or whatever.
It's that, even if you divorce it from your favorite versions of D&D, even if you divorce it from your idea of what a RPG should look and play like, even if you shed your voluminous expectations, the better to approach it at the game table tabula rasa, and consider it solely on its own merits... which I did, or I like to think that I did... you'll find it wanting.
Yeah I think the HP scaling and multiple effects/hex-moving abilities would have been great in a computer game, but just takes too long on the table. Then again, if you're not trying to play it like an RPG, and accept that the tactical battle IS the game, I think it would play better.
Also the "you" in that sentence was generic - by that point I was done with you. :D
Quote from: TristramEvans;722183Its not that large corporate publishers = bad, its simply that big publishers dont matter over small publishers anymore (and shouldnt).
Reaching out to new players can be an expensive matter, whether in terms of time or money. I know some players evangelise the hobby where possible, but that's at best a piecemeal effort. Let's face it, most people have their groups, usually consisting of a few friends and that's it. A large well organised and well funded company is by far the most effective means to raise awareness of the hobby, so I would say that large corporate publishers do matter.
In terms of what people choose to play I agree with you, but it's not as though publishers can hold a gun to anyone's head one way or the other.
Quote from: The Traveller;722159In short, large companies reach out to people, smaller groups are there if you're looking for them.
And in a hobby as niche as ours - getting "nichier" by the minute judging from the increasing difficulty of bringing new people to the table when competing with other, "easier" entertainment they could spend their time on - I wonder if we really need the large centralized ruleset and company pushing it more than the artisanal local homebrewers at this point. And I say that as someone who totally admires the latter of course.
Quote from: estar;722169My take on the whole issue is that what important is creative freedom protected by some type of open gaming license.
If people want just to buy books more power to them but the option is always present for a person to creatively contribute and profit off of his work. Whether it is a full blown rulebook, a list of items, or just a simple zine.
My ideal is the majority of the industry to be under open content licenses. That is the only thing I see that will ensure the long term survival of tabletop RPGs. Because this situation is the only in my opinion that will generate the diversity of option that is needed to ensure at least one of them will continue to survive.
I disagree that lack of options is a threat to the continuing health of RPGs. I don't think there are many potential gamers out there who look at the 3 or 4 mainstream published RPGs, the 10 to 15 mid print games, or the 600 to 800 independent games out there, and think
I'd love to play RPGs if there were only more options. Lots of different options are what the bored, jaded, RPG forum junkie hardcores look for. And the more options are out there, the most confounded and frustrated the potential new gamer is. People don't want their initiation into a hobby to begin with work.
And I personally don't think the OGL and subsequent d20 glut really helped the RPG hobby. Some of the adventures put out by bigger companies like Necromancer Games were high quality. But most of the games and books were crap. Relatively few people played them compared to D&D. They didn't grow the hobby at all, in my opinion - they just added a bit of variety for jaded players who were tired of other systems. How many gamers out there played any of the d20 spinoffs for more than few months? How many are playing them today?
The history of RPGs has shown that other games are what people drift into when they're bored with official D&D. Which is fine. It's good to have those options. But without D&D drawing in new blood, those options won't mean much.
Quote from: Haffrung;722205I don't think there are many potential gamers out there who look at the 3 or 4 mainstream published RPGs, the 10 to 15 mid print games, or the 600 to 800 independent games out there, and think I'd love to play RPGs if there were only more options.
Your observation is correct but where you are wrong is that the or 3 or 4 mainstream published RPGs is not static. The importance of diversity is that if something happens to the market leader there is another game to take its place. Increased diversity means increases the chance that a game will catch the attention of the gaming audience.
For example in the 90s, Fudge was just this system, then Fate developed out of it which became a top mid print game.
Quote from: Haffrung;722205Lots of different options are what the bored, jaded, RPG forum junkie hardcores look for. And the more options are out there, the most confounded and frustrated the potential new gamer is. People don't want their initiation into a hobby to begin with work.
Again you looking at it only at the viewpoint of "This moment in time." My concern is for the long term. I know a top tier RPG will falter at some point for some reason. The more systems out there the likelihood that something will replace it in the top tier.
Quote from: Haffrung;722205And I personally don't think the OGL and subsequent d20 glut really helped the RPG hobby. Some of the adventures put out by bigger companies like Necromancer Games were high quality. But most of the games and books were crap. Relatively few people played them compared to D&D. They didn't grow the hobby at all, in my opinion - they just added a bit of variety for jaded players who were tired of other systems. How many gamers out there played any of the d20 spinoffs for more than few months? How many are playing them today?
That is one interpretation.
I believe that D&D 3.X came along at the right time for a second "fad" boom. The fact that Wizards was staffed with a bunch of idealists who created the OGL just added fuel to the flames. Then came the bust, followed by a gradual decline over 3.5e and finally D&D 4e which killed the Wizards as the gatekeeper company. Subsequently decline was more pronounced as the social network broke up.
If 3.0 was never put under the OGL what would have happened that the 4e demise would just dragged out perhaps fatally damaging the RPG industry. As you pointed out most other RPGs thrive because of D&D players looking for alternative. If the total number of D&D players decline so does the base for these games.
But because of the OGL, the market punished Wizards swiftly as these things go. Rather than playing out over a decade, the result was 4e being busted within a handful of years as much of the old 3.X customer base was picked up by Paizo.
The RPG Industry never lacked for a gatekeeper until recent years. The industry is facing new territory in terms of its history. It may be that the gatekeeper company may be replaced with a gatekeeper system in the form of d20 and near clones.
My opinion is that gatekeeper system with a thriving social network is the way to go for the long term health of the industry.
My feeling is that a variant of my ideal will take hold baring some "black swan" event. The ongoing development of the Internet and computer technology is changing the landscape for all type of publishing and social interaction. The old model of a gatekeeper company is no longer feasible.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722202I wonder if we really need the large centralized ruleset and company pushing it more than the artisanal local homebrewers at this point. And I say that as someone who totally admires the latter of course.
Well you have to factor in the fact we need a social network to play the games. A wellspring of people to form groups from. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into account.
Quote from: estar;722221Well you have to factor in the fact we need a social network to play the games. A wellspring of people to form groups from. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into account.
Right, and I don't think the artisanal homebrew types running obscure games for the benefit of veteran super-users are as good at expanding or maintaining the social network as big companies pushing well-understood games through more average GMs, but honestly I don't have numbers to back me up. It's just an impression.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722010The open playtest lasted what...a year? And in the wake of that Google will pull up how many hundreds of forum threads and blogs dissecting it? Not to mention the myriad posts on the Wizards site discussing plans and aspects of the game.
Can you name any other rpg in the history of rpg publishing that has provided that much free access to a game's rules development before its release?
You're being entirely disingenuous.
What's how long it was available got to do with anything? I wasn't interested then - it was early days and I want to know what's new about it
now when its pretty much finalised and near publishing. And seriously the idea of spending time trawling god knows how many forums and blogs as you suggest just isn't gonna happen. I don't expect to have to find out about a product by canvassing its customers - I expect to learn about it from the company selling it. Ironically the only reason I found this thread was because I was googling to try and find more info about it.
Here's a little example for you of my idea of an RPG company promoting their game well and engaging potential customers:
I recently found out about a new game called
Numenera, designed by Monte Cook (I happened to see it for sale on eBay whilst looking for old Dark Sun books). 5 minutes later I'd found the website for the game - numenera.com - and knew the basics of its game mechanics, character gen and setting info, because the company selling the game had taken the time to have the first 4 pages of their website explain those very things. As a result I was sufficiently intrigued to buy it (and I'm really glad I did).
I'm sure Wizards will eventually put better info up on their site as the launch of Next draws near (at least I bloody hope they will, otherwise I'm not buying it. Did that with 4E, blind-buying on faith and the rep of Wizards as decent game designers - never again). By now they must have trademarked or registered any specific game mechanics or concepts in Next that they wish to keep proprietary, so they should get on with promoting it already and stop treating it like a fucking trade secret.
Quote from: The Traveller;722034And yet Pathfinder, as far as I'm aware, is making great gains sticking to one monolithic game system and avoiding edition treadmills while releasing supplements and new adventures. And they're bringing in new gamers too via their society structure and easily accessable entry points. They're Doing It Right.
Step 1: Don't mess with what works.
Step 2: Listen to customers.
JG
Quote from: Maeglynn;722249By now they must have trademarked or registered any specific game mechanics or concepts in Next that they wish to keep proprietary, so they should get on with promoting it already and stop treating it like a fucking trade secret.
Game mechanics are not legally protectable, unless you can get a patent on something really innovative.
There's a lot more information out there about D&D Next than there was about Numenera eight months before it was released.
Quote from: Haffrung;722360There's a lot more information out there about D&D Next than there was about Numenera eight months before it was released.
Here's to hoping it will be as good as Numenera! :)
Quote from: Haffrung;722360There's a lot more information out there about D&D Next than there was about Numenera eight months before it was released.
Indeed Haffrung. But my point is that after all this time, if you want to find out anything about Next
now, you won't find it on Wizards' site. It just staggers me to be honest.
Now I know MMOs are a completely different creature in most respects, but even Blizzard sees the common sense in promoting their next WOW expansion over a year before it will be released. They dedicate an entire site to the next expansion which already tells you pretty much what you need to know about the new features that will be introduced. They continually update this site with new info as it is locked down and becomes available, and in so doing, generate excitement and anticipation in the build up to the next launch.
Now look at Wizards - by far the biggest and baddest RPG producer on the planet, with the considerable financial backing of a corp like Hasbro, and after over 2 years of development work and a multitude of submitted play test survey data, they find themselves 6 months or so away from the launch of ostensibly the most important RPG relaunch in history. Aside from those who have been part of the play test community during this time, what has Wizards done to promote awareness online,
on their site, despite having all the resources needed at their disposal to do so?
Not everyone is willing to read blogs and forums to find out about something, and frankly any company which relies only on these mediums to provide awareness of an upcoming product, rather than directing the conversation via their own portal, needs a serious talking to about promotional marketing. I just find it amazing that a company of Wizard's size and financial backing are doing such a poor job of creating a buzz.
Anyhoo, this will be my last post on this forum. I only really came across it trying to find out more info about Next, and as I've failed to find any real answers, I'll probably check Wizards site again in a few months to see if they've posted any new info about the game. Hope they do - hope its a great improvement on 4E, and if it is then I'll certainly be getting it. But if they don't then good luck to them. I'm not about to buy another edition of D&D from them without knowing in advance the direction they're taking the game this time.
Quote from: Maeglynn;722396I just find it amazing that a company of Wizard's size and financial backing are doing such a poor job of creating a buzz.
Odd then that its one of the most talked about RPG systems online despite not even being released...
Quote from: Emperor Norton;722401Odd then that its one of the most talked about RPG systems online despite not even being released...
OK, I have to ask. For everyone attacking Maeglynn, are you people truly as myopic as you appear to be when it come to understanding basic business concepts like marketing and advertising?
I'm really starting to wonder about gamers and their understanding of the absolute basics of business. Then again, its no secret why so many gamers start up a gaming store that closes its doors in a year or two.
Maeglynn is absolutely right - WotC should be promoting the hell out of D&D Next for the 6-12 months leading up to its release.
Why do you think movie studios announce movies, put out posters, and do press junkets months ahead of the release - because it doesn't work? Do you think the TV studios announce new shows for September in April and plaster billboards, magazines, and the sides of busses because it doesn't get more viewers?
Seriously people, take a real look at WotC's website. I had to really dig to even find a mention of D&D Next, and that was just lumping it in with 3.5 and 4th editions for D&D Encounters events. Most of the site seems to be dedicated to tricking people who don't know better into buying the 4th ed Essentials lines.
I understand why WotC can't afford to really advertise any more, but the absolute least they could do would be to advertise their upcoming edition on their own site.
It's eight months out from release. How many games, movies, tv shows do you see a big advertising push for eight months before release?
The D&D community knows about Next. And it's way too soon to be advertising to the casual gamer crowd who don't know about it. They'll likely think "oh yeah, I've heard about D&D. Sounds fun. Maybe I should check it out." And then go to their FLGS or Amazon and buy 4E by mistake.
If Maeglynn really wants to know about Next, he can read the Legends and Lore columns posted here (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore). Dozens of entries explaining Next, its goals, its playstyle, its mechanics, and how the developers are approaching the game.
If he wants fan impressions of the game, just start a thread here called "What do people who have played Next think of it so far?" He'll get lots of helpful and detailed responses. Pissing and moaning about WotC's marketing strategy is just complaining for the sake of having something to complain about.
They just closed down the playtest which was advertised HUGE on the front page of their site for a long time, one of the things linked directly on their main D&D page right now is the "D&D Next Q&A".
Its a lull. I've seen new information for Next regularly since it was ANNOUNCED, and they've ran the legends and lore column consistently since that time. The idea that no one can find any information about it is just untrue.
Its probably half a year away and when you have so many things going on with the IP at once, its not easy to highlight all of them, all the time.
Also its pretty moronic to say they've failed to create buzz when uh, guess what: People are talking about it.
Quote from: jgants;722403Maeglynn is absolutely right - WotC should be promoting the hell out of D&D Next for the 6-12 months leading up to its release.
Especially since they're supposed to be launching this thing as a transmedia event.
They don't have a Next page easily found on
their own frickin' site. Astonishing.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722409Especially since they're supposed to be launching this thing as a transmedia event.
They don't have a Next page easily found on their own frickin' site. Astonishing.
You mean other than this one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndnext.aspx)? (I found in literally less than 30 seconds)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;722410You mean other than this one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndnext.aspx)? (I found in literally less than 30 seconds)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, whew... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... okay
Go ahead click the [Access D&D Next Materials] tell me where it takes you.
Fucking hilarious.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;722410You mean other than this one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndnext.aspx)? (I found in literally less than 30 seconds)
This (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/) is a MMORPG which *might* come out next year.
This (http://company.wizards.com/) is the WotC main site. D&D is merely one of the brands listed there, and the D&D picture in the slideshow doesn't mention Next at all. If I were coming to the WotC site for any reason other then D&D, I would have no idea that there was even a Next.
This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/) is the main page for D&D. Nowhere does it even mention a new edition.
This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Feature.aspx?x=new/whatisdnd) is where I find out more in the blurb telling us
"What is D&D?" Don't you think it's a little odd that someone hasn't decided to oh, I don't know, just off the cuff kind of mention that "Hey, BTW, there's a brand new edition coming?"
The day the playtest ended, the "March to Next" websites should have gone up. Seriously this is like 101-level "How not to do a marketing campaign."
Yeah, if I, a non-D&D player out of the frickin blue decided to search "Hey is there a new version of D&D?" I would find it. Other then that, I could literally spend hours on the WotC site and not be aware there was a new version of a 40 year old IP coming down the tracks.
I mean this is so blatant and obvious I agree with Sommerjon's post, and god that hurt to say.
Well, went to the main website and licked on the link that says Latest News. Anyone want to guess the first item there?
This whole thing is a troll folks. Nothing more.
Not that I give a crap about Wizards advertising strategy.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722422Well, went to the main website and licked on the link that says Latest News. Anyone want to guess the first item there?
What did it taste like?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;722424What did it taste like?
Magic:The Gathering singles
Quote from: TristramEvans;722422Well, went to the main website and licked on the link that says Latest News. Anyone want to guess the first item there?
This whole thing is a troll folks. Nothing more.
Not that I give a crap about Wizards advertising strategy.
Why does anyone buy banner ads on websites?
Because an essential part of advertising is letting you know about a product you
aren't already looking for.
WotC main site is set up with three products - D&D, Magic, and Kaijudo. Is there any reason why any sane person
wouldn't inform customers about Next on the D&D slideshow picture?
Go to Mercedes website what are you going to see on the slideshows? Hey, all their new cars, whoda fucking thunk it?
Hell, go to Hasbro's site, you see the different brands there to click on but what is showing in the big slideshows? *Drum Roll Please* All their new products, whoda fucking thunk it?
Never underestimate the value of "Ooo shiny!" otherwise known as "Oh, I didn't know that, lemme click on it."
The WotC site is, for some reason (maybe to target investors?) set up to advertise
brands, not
products, it's a critical error in launching a new product.
I bet all those Hasbro products in thier slideshow already exist.
Quote from: Sommerjon;722414LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, whew... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... okay
Go ahead click the [Access D&D Next Materials] tell me where it takes you.
Fucking hilarious.
he said they didn't have a next page easily found. Not that the test materials were still there. And there is a page. One with a lot of links to things Next related.
Learn the context of what the conversation is before replying.
Thanks.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722428I bet all those Hasbro products in thier slideshow already exist.
and the websites for most computer or console games in the last 5 years that are up sometimes 1-2 years before the game launches don't have existing products but upcoming products.
Except for one section in "News", the site hasn't changed at all since the Playtest began. Do you think it's going to stay that way? Of course not, they are going to roll out their marketing campaign,
they just haven't done it yet.
That was the criticism (and simple irrefutable fact). The Next push hasn't begun yet, creating a lull between the "End of Playtest" buzz and the "Here comes launch" buzz. There's no need for it, one could have (and in a company serious about their web marketing of a product would have), rolled one right into another
even if only on their own site.
Wizards isn't pushing Next as a major upcoming product because they don't want to cannibalize two quarters of 4E Essentials sales by advertising that the new edition is feature complete and on track for a fall release.
I'm actually not one to give a shit about the marketing of D&D. I work in the marketing field, and I don't think they've done things perfect by a long shot.
But claiming that WotC hasn't built any buzz is blatantly false.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;722429he said they didn't have a next page easily found. Not that the test materials were still there. And there is a page. One with a lot of links to things Next related.
Learn the context of what the conversation is before replying.
Thanks.
The big red button takes you to......4e essentials, but lets ignore the big red button for links on the side of the page with no explanation of what they are.
Child Please. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Emperor Norton;722440I'm actually not one to give a shit about the marketing of D&D. I work in the marketing field, and I don't think they've done things perfect by a long shot.
But claiming that WotC hasn't built any buzz is blatantly false.
Yeah like after the last survey the numbers keep getting larger the more they reference it.
Started at 100k, than 125k, then 140k, now it's 200k.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722433and the websites for most computer or console games in the last 5 years that are up sometimes 1-2 years before the game launches don't have existing products but upcoming products.
Except for one section in "News", the site hasn't changed at all since the Playtest began. Do you think it's going to stay that way? Of course not, they are going to roll out their marketing campaign, they just haven't done it yet.
That was the criticism (and simple irrefutable fact). The Next push hasn't begun yet, creating a lull between the "End of Playtest" buzz and the "Here comes launch" buzz. There's no need for it, one could have (and in a company serious about their web marketing of a product would have), rolled one right into another even if only on their own site.
I agree. It's a disaster. Totally non-intuitive. I, a 25-year D&D veteran, wanted to find the Next stuff on the D&D website. Everything I clicked just took me to 4e. I gave up and left. Fail.
Quote from: Sommerjon;722452The big red button takes you to......4e essentials, but lets ignore the big red button for links on the side of the page with no explanation of what they are.
Child Please. :rolleyes:
No it doesn't. It redirects to the main D&D page. And all the other links re: Next material are very clear as to what they are, unless you can't speak English. And if you're some new person who hasn't been keeping up with Next and wonder why that redirect takes you to the main D&D page and not the playtest packet, most semi-inteligent or greater people would follow the links provided to the announcements, or the QA, or the forums. All of which would tell you the playtest has been taken down.
Stop being such an idiot.
Quote from: 1989;722454I agree. It's a disaster. Totally non-intuitive. I, a 25-year D&D veteran, wanted to find the Next stuff on the D&D website. Everything I clicked just took me to 4e. I gave up and left. Fail.
right in the middle, complete with hyperlinks:
QuoteQuestions about the D&D Next Playtest? Read the FAQ. You can also read the original announcement. Plus, share your opinions, talk with other gamers and stay in touch with D&D game designers on the official D&D Next forums.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722427WotC main site is set up with three products - D&D, Magic, and Kaijudo. Is there any reason why any sane person wouldn't inform customers about Next on the D&D slideshow picture?
Because the customer can't buy Dungeons and Dragons Next yet. However, there is already a game called Dungeons & Dragons that a customer
can buy. And if someone is so out of the D&D scene that they don't know about Next, they probably don't know what D&D 4E is, or that it's a completely different and incompatible system from Next. Which makes marketing and advertising Next kind of awkward at this point.
I suspect within a matter of weeks, we'll see WotC remove even the vestiges of support for 4E (besides the character builder), and brand everything as Next. I don't recall what WotC did at the time of the 3E to 4E switch, but I presume it was something similar.
Anyone come up with any amusing homonymic portmanteaus for the 5e faction yet?
And it's definitely time to get rid of the Next nomenclature. That sucks.
Quote from: Haffrung;722405It's eight months out from release. How many games, movies, tv shows do you see a big advertising push for eight months before release?
Pretty much all of them.
Or did you miss the slew of press for the next big movies coming out in Summer 2015 that started in June-July of 2013?
TV studios start talking about pilots for the next year in early spring, and announce their picks and start advertising at the network upfront meetings in spring.
Video game studios have ads up on their websites for games years before they are released.
Car manufacturers start talking up the new models many months in advance of when they actually go on sale.
Like others said, not having info about your big new release on your website is nothing short of just being stupid.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722419The day the playtest ended, the "March to Next" websites should have gone up. Seriously this is like 101-level "How not to do a marketing campaign."
Yeah, if I, a non-D&D player out of the frickin blue decided to search "Hey is there a new version of D&D?" I would find it. Other then that, I could literally spend hours on the WotC site and not be aware there was a new version of a 40 year old IP coming down the tracks.
I mean this is so blatant and obvious I agree with Sommerjon's post, and god that hurt to say.
Another thing that comes to mind - where's the big 40th anniversary marketing push?
Quote from: daniel_ream;722436Wizards isn't pushing Next as a major upcoming product because they don't want to cannibalize two quarters of 4E Essentials sales by advertising that the new edition is feature complete and on track for a fall release.
Guess what - hoping people won't notice a new version is coming out is a pretty ineffective way of keeping sales up.
You know what pretty much every other industry on the planet does in this situation - you have a big sale where you slash all the prices of your existing inventory then sell what's left to some discount wholesaler.
Once again see how cars, electronics, games, technical manuals, etc. are marketed. The "let's pretend we don't have a new product coming out" method is not the way to go because enough people do know and you'll get stuck with a bunch of inventory.
Ryan Dancey pointed out how TSR made the same stupid mistake with AD&D -> 2e (they literally had a warehouse full of AD&D books still when they released 2e; even if you don't believe in JIT inventory methods, that makes no sense)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;722440I'm actually not one to give a shit about the marketing of D&D. I work in the marketing field, and I don't think they've done things perfect by a long shot.
But claiming that WotC hasn't built any buzz is blatantly false.
Totally agree, it has a lot of buzz.
The fact it has buzz makes it even dumber they aren't trying to capitalize on the buzz they've already created by starting the big push for the release.
As someone who works in a marketing field, I'm sure you are aware that customers
won't dig through a website to find what they want; a website has only
seconds to get the viewer interested or what they are looking for, or the person will go to another site.
apples and oranges to compare a TTRPG with a TV show or movie. A better comparison would be, "How long did they hype up getting rid of the iron in Monopoly and replace with with another piece?
Quote from: The Traveller;722504Anyone come up with any amusing homonymic portmanteaus for the 5e faction yet?
5anbois?
5ucktards?
5ascists?
5acrosanct? :D
Quote from: The Traveller;722504Anyone come up with any amusing homonymic portmanteaus for the 5e faction yet?
Fifth Columnists?
PentaGrogs?
Nexters?
Quote from: Maeglynn;722396Indeed Haffrung. But my point is that after all this time, if you want to find out anything about Next now, you won't find it on Wizards' site. It just staggers me to be honest.
Now I know MMOs are a completely different creature in most respects, but even Blizzard sees the common sense in promoting their next WOW expansion over a year before it will be released. They dedicate an entire site to the next expansion which already tells you pretty much what you need to know about the new features that will be introduced. They continually update this site with new info as it is locked down and becomes available, and in so doing, generate excitement and anticipation in the build up to the next launch.
Now look at Wizards - by far the biggest and baddest RPG producer on the planet, with the considerable financial backing of a corp like Hasbro, and after over 2 years of development work and a multitude of submitted play test survey data, they find themselves 6 months or so away from the launch of ostensibly the most important RPG relaunch in history. Aside from those who have been part of the play test community during this time, what has Wizards done to promote awareness online, on their site, despite having all the resources needed at their disposal to do so?
Not everyone is willing to read blogs and forums to find out about something, and frankly any company which relies only on these mediums to provide awareness of an upcoming product, rather than directing the conversation via their own portal, needs a serious talking to about promotional marketing. I just find it amazing that a company of Wizard's size and financial backing are doing such a poor job of creating a buzz.
Anyhoo, this will be my last post on this forum. I only really came across it trying to find out more info about Next, and as I've failed to find any real answers, I'll probably check Wizards site again in a few months to see if they've posted any new info about the game. Hope they do - hope its a great improvement on 4E, and if it is then I'll certainly be getting it. But if they don't then good luck to them. I'm not about to buy another edition of D&D from them without knowing in advance the direction they're taking the game this time.
1: er... This was up for a year and a half? I still have the first packet and it is dated 05/22/2012. People have had that long to have a glance at it. The final playtest packet was up for 2 months. 10/14/2013.
But it is far far far from the finished product. In fact the playtest itself was incomplete. That is how playtests work. To hammer out problems for the final work. They took it down when they were done.
2: News flash. There are ample articles on the WOTC site about the game still and more coming out fairly regularly showing where the background elements may end up. Dragons for a recent example. Dont feel bad. I did not know about these either. I just do not frequent the WOTC boards much. Word is out there.
3: Actually Hasbro keeps WOTC on a tight leash. WOTC works within certain budget constraints for various projects. Tight enough that some projects cant even afford a full art spread. This is not all projects as far as I know.
As for advertising. WOTC is notoriously appallingly bad at advertising their games.
IE: Which game is getting a cartoon series?
A: The reboot of a failed CCG. or B: The reboot of the biggest RPG ever?
If you chose B: then you lost.
They didnt even bother to post up a page for the reprint of Dungeon! until it was nearly on the shelves. Lets not even get into the mess of the 4e advertising.
4: If WOTC advertises Next, it will start when they have a more finished product to present. Its been less than a month since the playtest closed and some optional rules are still in closed playtesting I am told. Never a wise idea to advertise something that is still in flux. Serpents Tongue got alot of backlash for stalling and then heavily altering the game after the KS ended. And that was a game 90% finished when the KS started.
5: Basic answer is. It is WOTC. They fail abysmally at actually advertising at least half the games they get handed or are handling. They need more than the hype and blogs/articles of the playtest. But since the playtest is barely ended Id say we will not see anything more substantial for a month or two.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722409Especially since they're supposed to be launching this thing as a transmedia event.
They don't have a Next page easily found on their own frickin' site. Astonishing.
This is standard for WOTC. Really. They suck at promoting their games.
Quote from: Haffrung;722533Fifth Columnists?
PentaGrogs?
Nexters?
Nextalists?
Fivers?
Fantastic5?
5anatics
Quote from: Haffrung;722533Fifth Columnists?
I like this one. Makes me feel subversive and dangerous.
Quote from: Planet Algol;7225755anatics
Shouldn't that be "5natics"?
Quote from: CRKrueger;7225275anbois?
5ucktards?
5ascists?
5acrosanct? :D
I like 5anbois.
Quote from: The Traveller;722504Anyone come up with any amusing homonymic portmanteaus for the 5e faction yet?
Gen X?
Quote from: jgants;722520Once again see how cars, electronics, games, technical manuals, etc. are marketed.
Absolutely none of those things are even remotely cognate to the way RPGs are bought by consumers. It's a great deal more like third-party software books; you don't buy the fourth edition of the llama book if you know the fifth edition is coming out shortly.
Quote from: the traveller;722504anyone come up with any amusing homonymic portmanteaus for the 5e faction yet?
"d&d?"
"next!"
Who's to say the D&D division even has the budget to do proper advertising?
Since 2009, the dept. was radically downsized. Here's an interim post of mine from 2011 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315187-WotC-s-Annual-Xmas-Layoffs/page11&p=5751197&viewfull=1#post5751197) where I highlight in colour all the people that were fired (and you have to look at it in Enworld's old colour formating, with black background to see all the font...).
Since then, how many new hirings did we hear of?
WotC couldn't even be f*cked to sell a huge amount of Playtest documents at 2013 GenCon (Dragoncastle or whatever it's called). Contrast this with Paizo that sold out 10.000 copies of PFRPG Beta - in softcover - at the GenCon prior to their release year.
Where is the product line up for D&D Next? When 4E was announced (for 2008) at GenCon 2007, they had mock up book covers and an entire product range announced, including Manual of the Planes, Martial Power, and some other 2008 releases, all of which came to pass.
This time round, I have no idea of what packaging Next will be in. I have no idea how long they are going to support it.
And frankly, that smacks of a company that thinks 'hmmm, let's try this for a while and see how much we can sell initially, and then develop product later on...'.
Like they said Essentials was the 'evergreen', 'never going out of print' D&D products that will always be in print, no matter what, and a year after the print run for the DM box had sold out and they didn't bother to reprint it WAY before Next was announced. They killed off Essentials so quickly after the 'evergreen' hype, I just don't trust them anymore.
One reason people trust Paizo over WotC is that with Paizo you know that they won't just abandon a product line up a year later. There's a steady pump out of new releases, and you know 'I bought a core book in 2009, I still got product support four years on'.
After 4.0, which was killed in mid 2010 (MM 3 / Demonomicon were the last 4.0 products), and 4.Essentials that was killed in in mid 2011, when they went foward with system neutral adventures minus stat blocks (beginning with stat-block-lite offerings like Undermountain), who's to say Next is here to stay for more than 1-2 years?
At this point I got greater trust in Goodman Games' DCC RPG than in Next. Next has no marketing support worth mentioning, a radically downsized R&D team compared to WotC in 2008, and they did a playtest minus number crunching because interacting with people in that area would have required actual working hours as opposed to doing some half-assed poll ('How did you like the Ranger feats, on a range from 1 to 10?' ... let me give you a 5! now that's really going help you redefine your Ranger feats design!). Please go to the Pathfinder fora in 2008 to see what an actual public playtest looks like. This was a mock up PR exercise, even more so than Paizo's was.
Sorry, but D&D at WotC is not a market leader anymore, and the company doesn't even pretend it is or behave like one.
WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
Quote from: Windjammer;722650WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
Would you say Pathfinder is solidly on track to be the next D&D?
Quote from: Windjammer;722650WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
He he. Harsh, but probably fair. Paizo has consistently pwned WoTC for four years now, their player base has collapsed, and Hasbro's Christmas Layoffs (TM) have destroyed their talent base also. Short of Lisa Stevens falling under a bus and Paizo being bought out by Kevin Simbieda, I can't really see a way back for WoTC-D&D at this point. Heck even I, not a big Pathfinder fan in terms of the rules crunch, have smelled the coffee and am about to start GMing my first non-Beginner Box full Pathfinder campaign! :D And I have reasonable confidence that Pathfinder will still be chugging along smoothly, supported over these next two years that I'll be running it, and that Paizo will be putting out fun and enticing product to tempt me with.
Quote from: The Traveller;722651Would you say Pathfinder is solidly on track to be the next D&D?
People - newbies - still come into my FLGS looking for "D&D", and for the past four years they've been steered over to the Pathfinder shelf by the staff (when I'm there I try to get them to buy Labyrinth Lord or 4e instead - yeah, I can be
that guy). :D
Ten years from now, people will still be coming into the store looking for 'D&D', I don't think that is in doubt. And unless Hasbro has meanwhile licensed/sold the trade mark to Paizo, they will probably still be being steered over to the Pathfinder shelf.
To this day, I personally prefer 3.5e to Pathfinder. I can't say completely why-I mean they're damn similar, but I dunno. D&D's flavor maybe? I like the class options more, the overall race options more(though I do like the LA+0 Tiefling and use it), and yeah-I guess somehow I missed the boat on Pathfinder. I don't dislike it, but it doesn't really do anything for me either.
Quote from: Windjammer;722650Who's to say the D&D division even has the budget to do proper advertising?
Since 2009, the dept. was radically downsized. Here's an interim post of mine from 2011 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315187-WotC-s-Annual-Xmas-Layoffs/page11&p=5751197&viewfull=1#post5751197) where I highlight in colour all the people that were fired (and you have to look at it in Enworld's old colour formating, with black background to see all the font...).
Since then, how many new hirings did we hear of?
WotC couldn't even be f*cked to sell a huge amount of Playtest documents at 2013 GenCon (Dragoncastle or whatever it's called). Contrast this with Paizo that sold out 10.000 copies of PFRPG Beta - in softcover - at the GenCon prior to their release year.
Where is the product line up for D&D Next? When 4E was announced (for 2008) at GenCon 2007, they had mock up book covers and an entire product range announced, including Manual of the Planes, Martial Power, and some other 2008 releases, all of which came to pass.
This time round, I have no idea of what packaging Next will be in. I have no idea how long they are going to support it.
And frankly, that smacks of a company that thinks 'hmmm, let's try this for a while and see how much we can sell initially, and then develop product later on...'.
Like they said Essentials was the 'evergreen', 'never going out of print' D&D products that will always be in print, no matter what, and a year after the print run for the DM box had sold out and they didn't bother to reprint it WAY before Next was announced. They killed off Essentials so quickly after the 'evergreen' hype, I just don't trust them anymore.
One reason people trust Paizo over WotC is that with Paizo you know that they won't just abandon a product line up a year later. There's a steady pump out of new releases, and you know 'I bought a core book in 2009, I still got product support four years on'.
After 4.0, which was killed in mid 2010 (MM 3 / Demonomicon were the last 4.0 products), and 4.Essentials that was killed in in mid 2011, when they went foward with system neutral adventures minus stat blocks (beginning with stat-block-lite offerings like Undermountain), who's to say Next is here to stay for more than 1-2 years?
At this point I got greater trust in Goodman Games' DCC RPG than in Next. Next has no marketing support worth mentioning, a radically downsized R&D team compared to WotC in 2008, and they did a playtest minus number crunching because interacting with people in that area would have required actual working hours as opposed to doing some half-assed poll ('How did you like the Ranger feats, on a range from 1 to 10?' ... let me give you a 5! now that's really going help you redefine your Ranger feats design!). Please go to the Pathfinder fora in 2008 to see what an actual public playtest looks like. This was a mock up PR exercise, even more so than Paizo's was.
Sorry, but D&D at WotC is not a market leader anymore, and the company doesn't even pretend it is or behave like one.
WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
I always find your posts interesting to read. You made a lot of good points, here. Late 90s didn't as bad for me, though, because I wasn't really plugged into the internet and didn't know what was happening.
Quote from: Windjammer;722650WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
Whereas I am incredibly excited about the direction WotC is going and am sitting on the edge of my seat for release of the next edition. The direction D&D is going looks great. WotC is chugging along the best they have in years and the future of D&D looks bright.
You honestly don't think WotC D&D is a market leader anymore? You honestly think that the 3PP are not looking at where Next is going and do not care? You honestly do not think that Paizo is planning contingencies around Next's release right now?
I have a hard time buying that line of thought. Pretty solid guess that every significant player in the industry is watching to see what happens.
Can it collapse? Sure. What do non-insiders know right now? Not much of a damn thing, just the navel-gazing of fans who like to spend their time chatting on message boards. And it is no secret that people who do not like something are more prolific internet chatterers than people who do like something.
While the D&D dev team may not have the resources it had in the past, it still has far more than any other RPG publisher. WotC's bosses at Hasbro weren't happy with the sale of 4E, even though it was at parity with Pathfinder. That tells me they're of the go big or go home mindset. Now, they could be the kind of dicks who want a team to pound their competitors into the dust with fewer resources at hand than their competitors. But I doubt it. Once they ramp up Next, I expect WotC will have the resources they need to publish lots of professionally designed books with high production values.
People talk about the annual layoffs at WotC, but from what I've seen, Paizo doesn't have an especially large full-time staff. Most of their adventure and setting book content is created by freelancers. I don't expect WotC to be any different. That's just the way the industry works these days. And considering the excellent latter-day Essentials material like the Neverwinter Nights Campaign Setting and the Madness at Gardmore Abbey was done mainly by freelancers, I don't see any reason why WotC can't rely on freelancers to generate high-quality content for Next. It's WotC core staff like Mearls and Chris Perkins who are weak at adventure writing.
Quote from: Windjammer;722650WotC is literally a 3PP now, like Ronin or Goodman Games. It's not like Paizo or Fantasy Flight. It's a shadow, and feels like we're in the late 90s, when some old leftover f*cks are there to mop up the mess, before some fresh blood moved in to do a radical make over.
I agree, with the addition that there's no plucky upstart company ready to swoop in and save D&D. Not that Hasbro would let them, anyway.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;722674I agree, with the addition that there's no plucky upstart company ready to swoop in and save D&D. Not that Hasbro would let them, anyway.
I dunno, I could see Paizo be willing to drop a pretty fat stack for the license.
Quote from: LibraryLass;722678I dunno, I could see Paizo be willing to drop a pretty fat stack for the license.
I could see that too...
(And then 3e would live forever!!! Bwahahah *hysterical sobbing*)
Quote from: LibraryLass;722678I dunno, I could see Paizo be willing to drop a pretty fat stack for the license.
I have a difficult time believing Hasbro would let the property go.
I can now picture a self-fulfilling prophecy for 5e: People who would otherwise be inclined to support it decide not to because they're sure (from all the negative chatter) that it will eventually flop and ruin any investment in it... and that decision on the part of thousands of potential customers (and their players and anyone who takes cues from them) then causes the flop.
It seems highly unlikely. Hasbro plays a very long game - remember that 4E came about because the options facing D&D were "break 50M/a in sales or go in the freezer for ten years". Although that's apparently no longer the hard-and-fast rule at Hasbro, I would bet it's the default for an underperforming property. Large media corps know the brand value of an IP; they'll keep it.
Quote from: LibraryLass;722678I dunno, I could see Paizo be willing to drop a pretty fat stack for the license.
The D&D brand is valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Paizo is a good company at what they do, but they do not have that type of market capitalization. Nor do the need the D&D brand. Pathfinder has carved itself a great niche that would not really be helped much by marrying it to the D&D brand.
Hasbro can call up Big Bang Theory and get product placement on one of the top sitcoms. Paizo cannot do the same with Pathfinder.
WotC does not even appear all that concerned about the game itself. They appear to be caring about the D&D brand. The brand has taken a hit. All the lambasted surveys about 'feel'. Those surveys are to rehabilitate the brand. D&D is way bigger than just the rpg.
Quote from: Old One Eye;722693Paizo cannot do the same with Pathfinder.
Well, not yet anyway.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722689I can now picture a self-fulfilling prophecy for 5e: People who would otherwise be inclined to support it decide not to because they're sure (from all the negative chatter) that it will eventually flop and ruin any investment in it... and that decision on the part of thousands of potential customers (and their players and anyone who takes cues from them) then causes the flop.
I agree there is a circle here. Online reception of playtest material has been lukewarm, in quantity (e.g. number of threads even on Enworld) and degree of product endorsement (contrast the 4E hysteria, over the top posts).
Weak online reception may well have caused the company to be extra careful in pumping out a too large product release out of the gate. I'm not even sure it's a mistake. The 4e core books sold pretty well, but it also was an instant turn off for a huge number of people, causing 4e splats to sell comparatively weakly.
And don't forget - it was the ungrateful fans who killed off 4e! So we're just seeing the same happen again.
Quote from: Haffrung;722671And considering the excellent latter-day Essentials material like the Neverwinter Nights Campaign Setting and the Madness at Gardmore Abbey was done mainly by freelancers, I don't see any reason why WotC can't rely on freelancers to generate high-quality content for Next. It's WotC core staff like Mearls and Chris Perkins who are weak at adventure writing.
I think NWN is more hype than substance (as with
Underdark and
DMG 2, I feel ots of people oriented their assessment based on what they were told in the product's own opening pages, not on what the book actually delivered), and I still haven't managed to actually read through Gardmore Abbey, though I agree both look awesome. But I'm surprised you dislike Perkins. Do you think as ill of his 1st level adventure with the goblin trained bear, or the reworkings of the Giants series offered some really good stuff too? I have run neither but drew from them for homebrew stuff, and was pleased with a lot of details in them.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;722685Quote from: LibraryLass;722678I dunno, I could see Paizo be willing to drop a pretty fat stack for the license.
I have a difficult time believing Hasbro would let the property go.
A license is not the same as a property. Not that I think it would happen, but it's plausible that Hasbro might decide to get out of the RPG game altogether, and so have WotC license the RPG rights out to Paizo. Paizo gets to make "D&D", WotC keeps the rights.
I mean, Adkinson did leave Hasbro because they sold the D&D video game rights out from under him. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that Hasbro might say, "We aren't getting full ROI on having an RPG line. Much better to spend no money and get a steady payday by leasing the rights."
More likely, 5e's going to do fine.
Quote from: Old One Eye;722693The D&D brand is valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Paizo is a good company at what they do, but they do not have that type of market capitalization. [...]
WotC does not even appear all that concerned about the game itself. They appear to be caring about the D&D brand. The brand has taken a hit. All the lambasted surveys about 'feel'. Those surveys are to rehabilitate the brand. D&D is way bigger than just the rpg.
That's true, but I could see them making the decision to license out the game itself if they feel that's the best way to earn money on the brand, if, say, 5e doesn't go over well. Farm out the risk of what they perceive as the unreliable part of the IP.
Edit: Basically, Iosue said what I'm trying to say more articulately.
Quote from: Iosue;722699A license is not the same as a property. Not that I think it would happen, but it's plausible that Hasbro might decide to get out of the RPG game altogether, and so have WotC license the RPG rights out to Paizo. Paizo gets to make "D&D", WotC keeps the rights.
I mean, Adkinson did leave Hasbro because they sold the D&D video game rights out from under him. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that Hasbro might say, "We aren't getting full ROI on having an RPG line. Much better to spend no money and get a steady payday by leasing the rights."
More likely, 5e's going to do fine.
That could absolutely happen - but if it does, I sincerely hope the license doesn't go to Paizo. They're far too in love with bureaucratic pixel bitching and arbitrary minutiae in their games.
Pathfinder is not as successful as 3e and at best somewhere around even with 4e. If Wizards/Hasbro had been happy with those kinds of numbers, they would never have binned 3e for 4e or 4e for 5e. I don't see giving the license to Paizo to be very likely.
Quote from: soviet;722768Pathfinder is not as successful as 3e and at best somewhere around even with 4e. If Wizards/Hasbro had been happy with those kinds of numbers, they would never have binned 3e for 4e or 4e for 5e. I don't see giving the license to Paizo to be very likely.
Pathfinder was not the new edition of D&D. As if 13th Age were named D&D 5th edition wouldn't have been immensely more successful than what it actually is.
Quote from: soviet;722768Pathfinder is not as successful as 3e and at best somewhere around even with 4e. If Wizards/Hasbro had been happy with those kinds of numbers, they would never have binned 3e for 4e or 4e for 5e. I don't see giving the license to Paizo to be very likely.
If they are still obsessed with the 5 year plan then they would have canned 4th ed no matter. And in a few years next would then be canned and preps for 6th ed will be starting.
One of the most retarded business models on earth.
Quote from: Omega;722802If they are still obsessed with the 5 year plan then they would have canned 4th ed no matter. And in a few years next would then be canned and preps for 6th ed will be starting.
One of the most retarded business models on earth.
As we speak, I own 8 hardback Players Handbooks, 5 hardback Dungeon Master Guides, and who knows how many Monster Manuals across various editions. In a couple months I will own another of each. Edition change is an excellent way to get my money, and I have been a consumer through a bunch of them.
The first year of a new edition, I am really excited and buy a bunch of stuff with little selectivity.
The second year, I start being more selective and pick up less, but still happy to follow the granddaddy of roleplaying games.
The third year, interest wanes. I will pick up a couple things if they are in my specific interest (like Monster Manuals), but will start drifting to other roleplaying games.
The fourth year, I've gotten tired of the edition and only pick up something if it is really spiffy (even Monster Manuals get iffy). Most of my rpg purchasing is other games.
The fifth year and beyond, I am totally ready to leave the edition behind. Very little D&D purchases, pretty much all non-D&D.
Im quite the opposite. Im still not done having fun with my Planescape and Dark Sun boxed sets from the 90s. I havent purchased a D&D product since it was still TSR, and honestly could go the rest if my life and still have plenty of gaming material. How 5th eould get me is doing some good new adventures.
Quote from: TristramEvans;722817Im quite the opposite. Im still not done having fun with my Planescape and Dark Sun boxed sets from the 90s. I havent purchased a D&D product since it was still TSR, and honestly could go the rest if my life and still have plenty of gaming material. How 5th eould get me is doing some good new adventures.
You are much harder for the IP holder of D&D to monetize than I am.
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;722759That could absolutely happen - but if it does, I sincerely hope the license doesn't go to Paizo. They're far too in love with bureaucratic pixel bitching and arbitrary minutiae in their games.
Not to derail the thread, but when I first saw that term "pixelbitching" on RPG.net it referred to the bad GMing practice of allowing nothing interesting to happen until the PCs solved some insanely obtuse riddle, puzzle, or mystery. It was a reference to the worst kind of point-and-click computer games.
So no offense but what are you using it to mean?
I wondered too. Maybe it is the way they run their show? Having no interest in Paizo stuff I don't know or care to a great degree. However I did find an amusing quote (http://archive.foolz.us/tg/thread/27118094).
QuoteWait, wait, wait... Rise of the Runelords is considered one of the *good* ones? We played that one for a while and gave up pretty early because of how fucking terrible it is. It was nothing but bog-standard dungeon crawls with baddies just sitting around waiting to get killed. The few pieces of quasi-interesting backstory were practically impossible for players to find out unless they're some OCD pixelbitching completionists - seriously how the fuck are they supposed to find out about the goblins and their trapped bridge accident or the pickles? Oh, and "funny" goblins and "creepy" ghouls is not a substitute for good adventure design.
We never played any of the other APs but am I to understand that they're at best on Runelords level, and likely even worse? Fuck.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;722823Not to derail the thread, but when I first saw that term "pixelbitching" on RPG.net it referred to the bad GMing practice of allowing nothing interesting to happen until the PCs solved some insanely obtuse riddle, puzzle, or mystery. It was a reference to the worst kind of point-and-click computer games.
So no offense but what are you using it to mean?
I was referring to the cumbersome nature of 3rd edition D&D mechanics. I must have been using the term incorrectly. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;722842I must have been using the term incorrectly. Sorry for the confusion.
You are my fucking hero.
I'm so tired of forum posters who can't admit they misunderstood a phrase, and instead insist that their definition is just as valid as the commonly held one.
I wanted to like Paizo's adventure paths. And I really tried. But they're shit.
About a third of the content is melodramatic backstory of NPCs that the players will probably never learn. Tragic personal histories. Unrequited love. Redemption. Stuff that you'd wince with embarrassment at in a Young Adult werewolf romance, but because it's in a D&D adventure it's Serious Drama.
Half is standard encounter grind. All the tedious monotony of the worst old-school dungeon-bashing, primped up with self-conscious novelty encounters. Weird new monsters doing unlikely and silly things in order to provoke an 'oooh' moment.
The rest is unabashed railroad. Because it seems you can't have any kind of a story without a linear plot, prescribed scenes, and canned dialog.
And it all takes place in the cheese factory of Golarian, the hackiest anachronistic mashup of every fantasy, horror, and faux-historical cliche under the sun. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered.
The production values are nice, though. So they've got that going for them.
I am like TristramEvans for I am still having a blast with all the TSR settings. And I really liked the late 90s, the modules were shit, but those settings and boxed sets... by then it felt like everyone had their own line for whatever they wanted, be it Eastern Hungry Ghosts to Decadent Symbionts from Space. I keep looking at the used RPG books I buy and it is all pre-D&D 3e, pre-nWoD, etc. The only new stuff I buy is retro OSR stuff.
System always took a backseat to passion for me in RPGs. I can fix system, I can tweak flavor, I can replace random resolution methods, I can create setting (and love to do so, though I can't dream of everything), but I can't fake passion. Bad math can make for a crappy game, yet nothing but fine-tuned math is about as fun as itemized taxes. I'm sure you could sell a terribly balanced, gimmicky game based on the selection of colored candy from a bag of M&Ms -- and if its world was at least passionate I could see myself buying it.
As for pixelbitching, no one here played Sierra games? King's Quest? It's from clicking on an icon, but missing the very specific pixel needed. Like clicking on a door, but failing to click the unshadowed portion of the doorknob (not shadowed part of the knob, nor doorknob stem, nor doorknob panel, and certainly not the door, etc,). It has expanded to needing to collect everything, talk to everyone, and then use everything in a very specific order to get to the next part.
i.e. So talk to the gnome to get the shroom, to feed to the bear, to access the honeybees, to take the honey comb, to impress the depression in the rock, to unlock the door on the fallen log, to use the fishing lure, to access the small pegasus, to use the bridle, to give to the gnome so he can get out of the way and you can access the stairway to the next level.
Anything out of sequence and it all falls apart.
It also covers being prepared for anything and everything, which includes character and party builds. So ridiculous expectations in the course of everyday life hide the most powerful of things. Very connected to Final Fantasy secret omega weapons or trick bosses who die instantly with the right combination of gear.
i.e. Your optimized build has a master craftsmanship in one art, right? Because without your party having professional cheese making, brewing, mimicry, or make-up artist to cover TN 35 you aren't going to make the goblins happy enough to laugh and spill the secret location of the pickles of destiny. And you need the pickles of destiny to get the scroll of genii farts which opens the gates to the slayer sword -- which you need to achieve 100% on this adventure (otherwise your guild will only reward you half). The slayer sword allows you to kill the gerbil lich just by being in the same room together, otherwise it is CR 55.
That is pixelbitching, as it was, as it evolved, and how it is now used. Whenever confused run this dialogue in your head,
"That's not iiit! A little more to the right. You're getting warmer! Nope, now colder. Now you're way off. Oh, now you're not even trying. But if I tell you, you won't learn anything. Try again another time?"
And you'll just know whether it is pixelbitching or not.
I'm thinking of changing my username to "Pixelbitch."
JG
As for pixel-bitching, I've used the term to describe the dungeon I've been going through recently. It's the old TSR module Pharoah. What crap. We've spent two full sessions now mapping and exploring a trapped pyramid maze. Searching every inch of wall, floor, and ceiling for secret doors. Checking everything vaguely interesting for traps. Going back over it all a second time when we've been dead-ended. We're going on literally 9 hours of this so far, with no end in sight.
I like an old-school dungeon exploration as much as the next guy. The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan is one of my favourite adventures. But Pharoah is just shit. If you're going to make a whole dungeon - and a big one - out of an ancient abandoned and trapped tomb, at least make it colourful and interesting. Atmospheric. More than just walls, secret doors, and traps. But this is just dull as fuck. Pixel-bitching is right.
Quote from: Haffrung;722844I wanted to like Paizo's adventure paths. And I really tried. But they're shit.
About a third of the content is melodramatic backstory of NPCs that the players will probably never learn. Tragic personal histories. Unrequited love. Redemption. Stuff that you'd wince with embarrassment at in a Young Adult werewolf romance, but because it's in a D&D adventure it's Serious Drama.
Half is standard encounter grind. All the tedious monotony of the worst old-school dungeon-bashing, primped up with self-conscious novelty encounters. Weird new monsters doing unlikely and silly things in order to provoke an 'oooh' moment.
The rest is unabashed railroad. Because it seems you can't have any kind of a story without a linear plot, prescribed scenes, and canned dialog.
And it all takes place in the cheese factory of Golarian, the hackiest anachronistic mashup of every fantasy, horror, and faux-historical cliche under the sun. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered.
The production values are nice, though. So they've got that going for them.
It's all true! All so CoC mind-blasting horribly true!
:rant:
It's Days of Our Lives Does White Wolf Metaplot.
Quote from: Haffrung;722844Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered
This place makes me laugh.
As for pixelbitching a dungeon, it can be avoided by a semi-competent GM handwaving in order to propel things forward. "Roll it, don't fuck it up... yeah that'll do. Moving on.."
Quote from: Haffrung;722844I wanted to like Paizo's adventure paths. And I really tried. But they're shit.
About a third of the content is melodramatic backstory of NPCs that the players will probably never learn. Tragic personal histories. Unrequited love. Redemption. Stuff that you'd wince with embarrassment at in a Young Adult werewolf romance, but because it's in a D&D adventure it's Serious Drama.
Half is standard encounter grind. All the tedious monotony of the worst old-school dungeon-bashing, primped up with self-conscious novelty encounters. Weird new monsters doing unlikely and silly things in order to provoke an 'oooh' moment.
The rest is unabashed railroad. Because it seems you can't have any kind of a story without a linear plot, prescribed scenes, and canned dialog.
And it all takes place in the cheese factory of Golarian, the hackiest anachronistic mashup of every fantasy, horror, and faux-historical cliche under the sun. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered.
The production values are nice, though. So they've got that going for them.
I think this sums up my Pathfinder problems. I don't like their writing, NPCs, and the like. However-I could run the game in my own world, I think. I mean it plays well enough, and I like the classes enough and everything(I find 3.5 has more, though, so I tend to get more choice of what I want to play-my idea of 'Tiefling Warblade with Intermediate Frost-Giant Bloodline' for a possible upcoming 3.5 game, I can make that), but jeeze, their fluff hurts my brain.
Then again-even in D&D I often make up my own stuff. We never were huge sticklers for published fantasy worlds, though I admit to having a soft spot for Mystara and Greyhawk in particular. I've played in/ran an enjoyed the Realms, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft from time to time over the years. But if it comes down to it, I make up my own stuff easy enough. It's just nice to have a system where, if I'm really busy, I can maybe pick up something /use some premade material that doesn't make me completely cringe. (I'm not saying like, 3.5 is the epitome of adventure writing/world building or anything, but I like it more than PF. :p)
Quote from: Haffrung;722844I wanted to like Paizo's adventure paths. And I really tried. But they're shit.
About a third of the content is melodramatic backstory of NPCs that the players will probably never learn. Tragic personal histories. Unrequited love. Redemption. Stuff that you'd wince with embarrassment at in a Young Adult werewolf romance, but because it's in a D&D adventure it's Serious Drama.
Half is standard encounter grind. All the tedious monotony of the worst old-school dungeon-bashing, primped up with self-conscious novelty encounters. Weird new monsters doing unlikely and silly things in order to provoke an 'oooh' moment.
The rest is unabashed railroad. Because it seems you can't have any kind of a story without a linear plot, prescribed scenes, and canned dialog.
And it all takes place in the cheese factory of Golarian, the hackiest anachronistic mashup of every fantasy, horror, and faux-historical cliche under the sun. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered.
The production values are nice, though. So they've got that going for them.
Heh heh. I have to say I think this rant is a fair criticism - but I'm gearing up to run
Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I think I can make it work. I have players lined up who like that melodrama stuff, I'm putting the work into drawing out the backstory stuff in-play, and I'm willing to excise chunks of material and add in new stuff in response to player input. This all means I'm
putting in a lot more work to this AP than if I were creating my own campaign from scratch! As a shortcut to a low prep game, Paizo APs are the worst thing since New Coke/the Delorean/the Third Reich/the Khmer Rouge. But I think it offers the potential for a satisfying campaign of a sort I would never create myself, left to my own devices.
"Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered."Lemme say this is the best description of Paizo's take on fantasy I've ever seen. Just don't make my mistake of posting on Paizo's message boards asking for ideas for making their feminist/rainbow empowerment NPC demographics make sense in terms of history, culture, the logistics of childbearing, etc. Personally I suspect Asmodeus has something to do with it...
Quote from: Old One Eye;722821You are much harder for the IP holder of D&D to monetize than I am.
Like TristramEvans, I own just about everything TSR ever published up until 1992-93 in printed form and have added most of TSR's later stuff from PDFs back when they were all available. I have already purchased far more material than I could ever use from the IP holder(s) over the years.
The funny thing is that I prefer to run homebrew adventures in my own homebrew settings, so a lot of this stuff will never be used as written (although as inspiration and as heavily-modified drop ins, they are useful). I stopped buying them because the IP owner stopped producing material that I could easily use in the editions of game I use.
I can use 3.x material, but it is more work that it is worth to do so, so I don't buy many 3.x/PF adventures or settings. 4e material is too different (and too combat-oriented) to be useful. Of course, the current IP holder doesn't even produce many adventures or settings as they prefer to print thousands of pages of edition treadmill rules splats for people who think rules need to cover everything. The fact that they stopped providing PDF versions of new releases also hurts them as I generally only buy PDFs now as my wife makes me get rid of one old print RPG item if I was to bring a new print RPG item (as she does not like RPG Collection as decor).
I do buy adventures from Frog God Games, however. They've started producing two versions of many of their adventures (in both print and PDF forms), one for Pathfinder (which can be easily used by people playing Pathfinder, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, and many D&D 3.x variants) and one for Swords & Wizardry (which means it can be used with any TSR-era version of D&D). I buy the Swords & Wizardry versions in PDF form. If a tiny company like Frog God Games can successfully do this, WOTC certainly could -- and doing so would likely "monetize" a number of people who have little or no interest in switching to whatever current edition of their version of D&D they are pushing this year.
It's possible that D&D Next may monetize me for them -- if the Next rules are close enough to TSR versions so I can use D&D Next adventures in my TSR era games without having to rewrite them or pay for half to full page stat blocks. Of course, they'd have to actually produce good adventures to sell for me to buy them instead of ignoring adventures to produce volume after volume of rules splat.
Personally I like Golarion... It's very much a "turn your brain off" kind of setting, but it's so kitchen sinky there's room to do just about any sort of adventure you want. Like Mystara, but without the weird Immortals business and the countries full of 36th-level wizards that inexplicably haven't conquered the rest of the world.
Quote from: Haffrung;722844I wanted to like Paizo's adventure paths. And I really tried. But they're shit.
About a third of the content is melodramatic backstory of NPCs that the players will probably never learn. Tragic personal histories. Unrequited love. Redemption. Stuff that you'd wince with embarrassment at in a Young Adult werewolf romance, but because it's in a D&D adventure it's Serious Drama.
Half is standard encounter grind. All the tedious monotony of the worst old-school dungeon-bashing, primped up with self-conscious novelty encounters. Weird new monsters doing unlikely and silly things in order to provoke an 'oooh' moment.
The rest is unabashed railroad. Because it seems you can't have any kind of a story without a linear plot, prescribed scenes, and canned dialog.
And it all takes place in the cheese factory of Golarian, the hackiest anachronistic mashup of every fantasy, horror, and faux-historical cliche under the sun. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college? Paizo's got that shit covered.
The production values are nice, though. So they've got that going for them.
Another vote for this being a really funny and well written post, with the sentences obviously taking the top price bolded.
I don't think the adventure paths are shit though, I really like them, and think there's still plenty of good material left behind when you (a) buy selectively and (b) excise the howlers (pretty exhaustively identified in your post). E.g. with
Serpent's Skull, I pretty much only bought the last two books and the relevant location books, plucked in Arcana Evolved's
Ruins of Intriuge as a stand in for the uninspired 'lost city', and then Jason Bulmahn's
Secrets of Xen'drik to transport the entire sandbox into the heart of Eberron's jungle continent. That's still packed with gonzo crazy, minus the railroads and NPC wankery.
So, pretty much what S'mon said about his take on Crimson Throne (aside - you got a great Loudwater campaign material btw, I followed it when it came out),
Quote from: S'mon;722862I'm putting the work into drawing out the backstory stuff in-play, and I'm willing to excise chunks of material and add in new stuff in response to player input. This all means I'm putting in a lot more work to this AP than if I were creating my own campaign from scratch! As a shortcut to a low prep game, Paizo APs are the worst thing since New Coke/the Delorean/the Third Reich/the Khmer Rouge. But I think it offers the potential for a satisfying campaign of a sort I would never create myself, left to my own devices.
PS. Haffrung, I am still curious to hear what you thought about the reworked G-series under 4E. :)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;722843You are my fucking hero.
I'm so tired of forum posters who can't admit they misunderstood a phrase, and instead insist that their definition is just as valid as the commonly held one.
What??? People do that? That's fucking stupid - words have meanings that are necessary for effectively expressing an idea.
Quote from: Windjammer;722894So, pretty much what S'mon said about his take on Crimson Throne (aside - you got a great Loudwater campaign material btw, I followed it when it came out)
Cheers - still going strong after 2.5 years, another 2.5 or so to go! :cool:
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;722913What??? People do that? That's fucking stupid - words have meanings that are necessary for effectively expressing an idea.
Semantics, the second-to-last refuge of the weak argument.
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;722913What??? People do that? That's fucking stupid - words have meanings that are necessary for effectively expressing an idea.
Its particularly bad in this hobby with Forge terms like Fantasy Heartbreaker. Ive heard people called D&D Next a "fantasy heartbreaker" in the last month, and Ron's lasting GNS legacy seems to be that no two peopleu use the terms the same.
Then theres the terms that dont yet have a codified definition, like "storygame" or even "osr".
Online gamers are a stubbornly pedantic bunch.
Quote from: daniel_ream;722611Absolutely none of those things are even remotely cognate to the way RPGs are bought by consumers. It's a great deal more like third-party software books; you don't buy the fourth edition of the llama book if you know the fifth edition is coming out shortly.
I mentioned non-fiction books. Book publishers do the same thing, they slash the prices on the fourth edition to clear out the inventory for fifth edition. That's why you see multiple copies of the same old book in the B&N bargain bin, at half-price books, at random discount book stores, etc.
Quote from: Omega;722802If they are still obsessed with the 5 year plan then they would have canned 4th ed no matter. And in a few years next would then be canned and preps for 6th ed will be starting.
One of the most retarded business models on earth.
What I continue to find interesting is how RPG publishers, and their fans, insist that somehow RPGs are some special breed that can't learn anything from how other products are produced / sold / marketed.
The truly bizarre thing is,
WotC themselves do a better job with their other lines.
MtG is still more or less the same game I first played in 1994. Axis and Allies is more or less the same game I first played in 1989. Both product lines have done well by keeping a basic core game while putting out various expansions, different flavors, and related properties, and updating the core with slightly tweaked rules and an updated presentation every so often.
The RPG lines, for whatever reason, seem to think you need to re-invent the wheel every single time.
Quote from: RandallS;722874It's possible that D&D Next may monetize me for them -- if the Next rules are close enough to TSR versions so I can use D&D Next adventures in my TSR era games without having to rewrite them or pay for half to full page stat blocks. Of course, they'd have to actually produce good adventures to sell for me to buy them instead of ignoring adventures to produce volume after volume of rules splat.
I'm in the same boat as TristramEvans and RandallS - a new set of core rules isn't really what I'm looking for (and the playtest of Next convinced me that set of rules really isn't what I'm looking for).
I already have reams and reams of rules splat; I don't need any more. I could always use more adventures, set pieces, etc. I want to see some products that get me excited and inspire adventures.
Quote from: S'mon;722862As a shortcut to a low prep game, Paizo APs are the worst thing since New Coke/the Delorean/the Third Reich/the Khmer Rouge. But I think it offers the potential for a satisfying campaign of a sort I would never create myself, left to my own devices.
I think that's where I was disappointed with Paizo's APs - I expected something I could use more or less out of the box. I don't mind customizing adventures, but if I have to change more than about 30 per cent of a published adventure, it isn't much use to me. I find it less work to make up my own adventures, at that point.
Quote from: S'mon;722862Just don't make my mistake of posting on Paizo's message boards asking for ideas for making their feminist/rainbow empowerment NPC demographics make sense in terms of history, culture, the logistics of childbearing, etc. Personally I suspect Asmodeus has something to do with it...
You did that too? Hilarious. When I meekly suggested toning down some of the over-the-top anachronisms and hewing closer to a medieval setting, James Jacobs himself disabused me of the notion that Paizo fantasy has anything to do with the historical medieval world. And as far as the fantasy market goes, he's probably right - it's a mix of superheroes, urban fantasy, adolescent wish fulfillment, horror, manga, and bits of D&D lore. I'm just not the market for that stuff.
Quote from: Windjammer;722894Another vote for this being a really funny and well written post, with the sentences obviously taking the top price bolded.
I don't think the adventure paths are shit though, I really like them, and think there's still plenty of good material left behind when you (a) buy selectively and (b) excise the howlers (pretty exhaustively identified in your post). E.g. with Serpent's Skull, I pretty much only bought the last two books and the relevant location books, plucked in Arcana Evolved's Ruins of Intriuge as a stand in for the uninspired 'lost city', and then Jason Bulmahn's Secrets of Xen'drik to transport the entire sandbox into the heart of Eberron's jungle continent. That's still packed with gonzo crazy, minus the railroads and NPC wankery.
That sounds like great fun. I found the first couple chapters of the Serpent's Skull pretty lame, but I loved the premise of the last couple chapters. But I didn't see the point in getting them if I wasn't using the first four chapters. As I remarked to S'mon, if I can't use at least 70 per cent of an adventure, the cost-benefit to me of the work tilts towards simply making my own material from scratch.
Quote from: Windjammer;722894PS. Haffrung, I am still curious to hear what you thought about the reworked G-series under 4E. :)
Haven't read it. I only recently became interested in 4E though the Essentials line, and have enough material already to run a good long campaign, with Madness at Gardmore Abbey as the centrepiece. I've heard mixed things about the new G-series - that it has some cool sandbox encounters and setting ideas, but that it's quite a grind played as-is. If we do reach high-level in 4E, I'll probably check it out. What were your impressions?
Quote from: S'mon;722862Just don't make my mistake of posting on Paizo's message boards asking for ideas for making their feminist/rainbow empowerment NPC demographics make sense in terms of history, culture, the logistics of childbearing, etc. Personally I suspect Asmodeus has something to do with it...
Quote from: Haffrung;723067You did that too? Hilarious. When I meekly suggested toning down some of the over-the-top anachronisms and hewing closer to a medieval setting, James Jacobs himself disabused me of the notion that Paizo fantasy has anything to do with the historical medieval world. And as far as the fantasy market goes, he's probably right - it's a mix of superheroes, urban fantasy, adolescent wish fulfillment, horror, manga, and bits of D&D lore. I'm just not the market for that stuff.
Yeah, heaven forbid Paizo use fantasy to justify being inclusive. :rolleyes:
Quote from: LibraryLass;723117Yeah, heaven forbid Paizo use fantasy to justify being inclusive. :rolleyes:
I cant tell who you're responding to here
Quote from: Haffrung;723067I've heard mixed things about the new G-series - that it has some cool sandbox encounters and setting ideas, but that it's quite a grind played as-is. If we do reach high-level in 4E, I'll probably check it out. What were your impressions?
Mixed is definitely right. I can't speak to the complete package, because I haven't even finished reading the last two of the four, much less ran them in their entirety, which I don't think I ever will.
I ran a very long campaign around
Revenge of the Giants, which I think is very, very hilarious as a base line. (The book's opening teaser should be read in this spirit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZzcEJQ8Hnw). The whole "monastery at the end of the world training the Great Warrior(s) who'll save the world" is very Kung Fu Panda'ish.) That's a radically incomplete campaign, because it's mostly encounters with a very thin story only, and the rooms themselves often lack flavour. So I simply nicked a lot of detail from Perkins' revamped G-series. One example I absolutely loved was the hill giants' kitchen, where the kitchen servants start to fight with their kitchen gears (pans and all) upon noticing the PC intruders. There's also some useful random tables on giant loot (e.g. an oversized comb with some steely hair in it) that enrich any giant-ish scenario you're running, regardless of edition. So that's the extent to which I'm prepared to recommend it.
And oh, the reworked G-series holds a special place in my book for being the first to abandon the Delve format entirely. Instead of individual room maps with starting positions for monsters, 4E saw a (very late) return to 'one overall dungeon map, with monsters moving around, and dungeon dynamics changing on the fly'. That too helped me loads to re-introduce a more 1E'ish feel to 4E giants modules, where 'Revenge' had too much of the "monsters in neighbouring rooms will assume that their pals are doing just fine, even when hearing noises of a fight" attitude.
Quote from: TristramEvans;723120I cant tell who you're responding to here
I figured it was Haffrung.
Personally, I like having relationships and backstory for NPCs. While the Paizo APs may assume a linear plot development, this type of information is invaluable for extending the adventure beyond what is presented and/or running things well even if they go off the rail.
Backstory is helpful to have, even if the PCs never encounter it, if for no other reason than making it up on the fly is REALLY HARD.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722935Semantics, the second-to-last refuge of the weak argument.
Oh! You misspelled "Oberoni" - you're entire argument is now rendered completely void, making me the undisputed winner of the internet and you now owe me a coke. In a glass with ice please...
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;723153Oh! You misspelled "Oberoni" - you're entire argument is now rendered completely void, making me the undisputed winner of the internet and you now owe me a coke. In a glass with ice please...
Sure, with or without a lemon slice?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;723161Sure, with or without a lemon slice?
You snort coke with lemon slices? :O
Quote from: TristramEvans;723120I cant tell who you're responding to here
Haffrung and the bit he quoted from S'Mon.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723164You snort coke with lemon slices? :O
It is a rather gauche fashion among the continent.
Anyway, there is a difference between fleshed out NPCs and melodramatic contrivance. One noticeably sucks up more page count for less return. Daytime soap opera learned the secrets to eternal life through it.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723178It is a rather gauche fashion among the continent.
Anyway, there is a difference between fleshed out NPCs and melodramatic contrivance. One noticeably sucks up more page count for less return. Daytime soap opera learned the secrets to eternal life through it.
I
am from continent.
Agreed. Let me put this somewhat into perspective how I see things:
A lumberjack who's married with a girl of his dreams isn't interesting.
A lumberjack who has a drinking problem and often beats up the girl of his dreams, who is a witch and wonders whether or not curse him for it (might hire the players to bring her ingredients), is. Especially if said lumberjack isn't complete scum, just a man who has a serious problem and can't deal with it. Or, after he's cursed, beg PCs to help him.
A gay dragon isn't an interesting NPC.
A gay dragon who's looking to marry his sister with an exiled prince/claimant etc etc. of Kingdom Y, which was once ruled by said dragon's family, so that his bloodline continues to rule the kingdom, due to royal marriage, is. Especially if said claimant is a PC whose goal is, well, to rule said Kingdom (that one's from practice, heh).
While not every NPC has to have some 'high drama' to merit their inclusion, there should be some ideas for why the PCs might care. Social conflicts between NPCs can involve the PCs down the road.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723178It is a rather gauche fashion among the continent.
Anyway, there is a difference between fleshed out NPCs and melodramatic contrivance. One noticeably sucks up more page count for less return. Daytime soap opera learned the secrets to eternal life through it.
I really see a place for both depending on the setting and game. I also think you can have melodramatic npcs without expanding the word count if you want brevity (just keep it succinct). I can go either way really. Some game are want npcs who are firmly grounded and feel real, other times i want wild npcs with big personalities and elaborate dreams. When I do historical Rome, my NPCs tend to be stark but not outrageous and not involved in crazy drama (the motives and personal lives are pretty down to earth, provided it isn't a despotic emperor or something). I have other campaigns though where things are a bit more over the top. i do a one armed swordsman inspired adventure where there was a tangled web of secret desires and grudges.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723183While not every NPC has to have some 'high drama' to merit their inclusion, there should be some ideas for why the PCs might care. Social conflicts between NPCs can involve the PCs down the road.
Usually when i make an npc, i ask myself what the character wants and why. It isn't much of a system but it usually leads me to have the info i need to run the character when play begins.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;723185I really see a place for both depending on the setting and game. I also think you can have melodramatic npcs without expanding the word count if you want brevity (just keep it succinct). I can go either way really. Some game are want npcs who are firmly grounded and feel real, other times i want wild npcs with big personalities and elaborate dreams. When I do historical Rome, my NPCs tend to be stark but not outrageous and not involved in crazy drama (the motives and personal lives are pretty down to earth, provided it isn't a despotic emperor or something). I have other campaigns though where things are a bit more over the top. i do a one armed swordsman inspired adventure where there was a tangled web of secret desires and grudges.
It's fine as long as there's an adventure to that tangled web, so to speak - so either players aren't a conventional party (as in one team, but just a group of people who's in one mess together, but each has their own agendas), or it's a solo adventure. Or if there's a place for a team of people/outside intervention into the whole mess, that'd be reasonable and of interest to the players - if a Duke of Z asks the players to arrange the marriage of his daughter, they'll be more interested in the affair than if they arrive on the wedding out of the blue.
Yeah... a little further than I would need in a module. Fleshed out merely means to me a personality, a duty/job, a worry, and a dream. Anything overly complex may be useful, but just as likely will be cut -- or never show up in play.
So taking your lumberjack example: a lumberjack who married the girl of his dreams. A touch dry, but a job and a dream fulfilled are there, it just needs a touch more. A reserved lumberjack who married the girl of his dreams, suffers occasional jealousy. Cool, a personality, a job, a dream fulfilled, and a worry. About as succinct as it gets, but communicates enough for me as GM to do anything with it. Fleshed and flexible, not overly saddled with baggage (which I may or may not want in my setting).
Melodramatic contrivance gets into extraneous complications, making ordeals routine. It's artificial because everything screams for attention; there is no baseline quotidian life. This has nothing to do with egalitarian representation, but everything to do with juvenile writing. It's the purple prose of situational context.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723190Yeah... a little further than I would need in a module. Fleshed out merely means to me a personality, a duty/job, a worry, and a dream. Anything overly complex may be useful, but just as likely will be cut -- or never show up in play.
So taking your lumberjack example: a lumberjack who married the girl of his dreams. A touch dry, but a job and a dream fulfilled are there, it just needs a touch more. A reserved lumberjack who married the girl of his dreams, suffers occasional jealousy. Cool, a personality, a job, a dream fulfilled, and a worry.
Melodramatic contrivance gets into extraneous complications, making ordeals routine. It's artificial because everything screams for attention; there is no baseline quotidian life. This has nothing to do with egalitarian representation, but everything to do with juvenile writing. It's the purple prose of situational context.
I was more thinking along the lines how personality quirks'd be material for adventures - not every NPC needs one, sure. But if there's a paragraph dedicated to his personal life, I expect this is some adventure hook, or he's an NPC designed to accompany the party. I don't need an alcoholic father information, unless the NPC's supposed to hire the party to dispatch his father for years of abuse.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723191I was more thinking along the lines how personality quirks'd be material for adventures - not every NPC needs one, sure. But if there's a paragraph dedicated to his personal life, I expect this is some adventure hook, or he's an NPC designed to accompany the party. I don't need an alcoholic father information, unless the NPC's supposed to hire the party to dispatch his father for years of abuse.
Hmm, I see this rarely successful in modules. Too often it comes off as just bad writing, padding page count. At most I would reserve it for major NPC players, but as noted it has to be currently relevant.
Honestly, if this technique was better used I would agree. But after sifting through so much fail, I think the time for criticism and restraint is due. At this point I would run embedded NPC hooks through terse bullet points.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723190Melodramatic contrivance gets into extraneous complications, making ordeals routine. It's artificial because everything screams for attention; there is no baseline quotidian life. This has nothing to do with egalitarian representation, but everything to do with juvenile writing. It's the purple prose of situational context.
I don't know, i would frankly rather have interesting things going on sometimes as a player. It is a matter of taste, but i don't see it as jvenile or purple prose to have lots of interesting possibilites in the form of NPCs. I do think you want to avoid redundancy or making it too omnipresent, but i wouldn't avoid it as GM if it fit the game and kept things fun.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723195Hmm, I see this rarely successful in modules. Too often it comes off as just bad writing, padding page count. At most I would reserve it for major NPC players, but as noted it has to be currently relevant.
Honestly, if this technique was better used I would agree. But after sifting through so much fail, I think the time for criticism and restraint is due. At this point I would run embedded NPC hooks through terse bullet points.
I hear you - as I said, I agree you caught me that I went a bit too much with the lumberjack, while criticising same behaviour. Then again, I'm used to Warhammer's style of describing villages, where most NPCs have a few quirks, and longer paragraphs are dedicated to potential events/hooks which are spelled out more...foolproof? As in there were ready adventures or "scenes" based off the quirks described to the characters (for example, in Death's Dark Shadow, there was an adventure where the PCs would accidentally stumble upon a pair of forbidden lovers while guarding cattle, and it'd be up to them whether to just shrug and get back to their work, blackmail the couple or perhaps help them settle the issue).
I do agree with you though that if the bartender is just there to pour drinks, there's no need to write a paragraph long explanation for his behaviour.
As for the dragon example I gave - I was more making a cool troubled NPC, more than looking to fill in my personal quota ;). I just thought it'd be a cool twist on the usual problems of low fertility of dragons. Said dragon was one of major factions running things in the kingdom, a bandit lord fighting Romans (or Remans as they were called). Sadly, the game fell apart before they met him.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;723200I don't know, i would frankly rather have interesting things going on sometimes as a player. It is a matter of taste, but i don't see it as jvenile or purple prose to have lots of interesting possibilites in the form of NPCs. I do think you want to avoid redundancy or making it too omnipresent, but i wouldn't avoid it as GM if it fit the game and kept things fun.
For me, as I said, it's a simple question - will this quirk come up during a game? Will the backstory influence the behaviour of an NPC significantly enough to warrant it? That's when I like them - when a tired veteran has a bit of a backstory describing his service with the druids, with a note that given a chance, he'd gladly serve one again - as a hook for the players to recruit a powerful bodyguard, for example.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723189It's fine as long as there's an adventure to that tangled web, so to speak - so either players aren't a conventional party (as in one team, but just a group of people who's in one mess together, but each has their own agendas), or it's a solo adventure. Or if there's a place for a team of people/outside intervention into the whole mess, that'd be reasonable and of interest to the players - if a Duke of Z asks the players to arrange the marriage of his daughter, they'll be more interested in the affair than if they arrive on the wedding out of the blue.
Sometimes there will be, sometimes there may not be. It depends on the angle the pcs are taking in the situation. Some of it ends up being stuff the pcs exploit to get what they are after. I just find it helpful to have details like this when the players are really digging around in an area. That doesn't mean every shop keeper is secretly plotting to kill the wife of his secret lovechild, but it does mean in most places you can find stuff like this if you ask around and look for it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;723200I don't know, i would frankly rather have interesting things going on sometimes as a player. It is a matter of taste, but i don't see it as jvenile or purple prose to have lots of interesting possibilites in the form of NPCs. I do think you want to avoid redundancy or making it too omnipresent, but i wouldn't avoid it as GM if it fit the game and kept things fun.
You have got to be kidding me that you cannot see the difference between a fleshed and quotidian NPC with potential hooks and... where the fuck is it... tricorn hat wearing single mother pirate drow seeking frankenstein's monster asylum escapee in an effort to redeem in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin half-brother all the while putting her son through barber's college.
One is more purple than Prince.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723203You have got to be kidding me that you cannot see the difference between a fleshed and quotidian NPC with potential hooks and... where the fuck is it... tricorn hat wearing single mother pirate drow seeking frankenstein's monster asylum escapee in an effort to redeem in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin half-brother all the while putting her son through barber's college.
One is more purple than Prince.
That is a rather extreme example but i never said i couldn't see the difference. like i said, i see a place for both the "quotidian" approach and a more melodramatic approach. For me it would depend on the setting and the kind of game I am trying to run. I do occassionally like games where you have characters that could easily come out of 24 or a chinese soap opera. Call it purple prose if you like. It is gaming, not writing, so i am not too worried about that.
Even if you do run melodrama, the writing doesn't have to be so obfuscated, let alone entwined. It really shits up a module and makes it a pain to unbraid for something useful. At least with bullet points things are highlighted and not always connected.
Drow pirate woman: loves her tricorn hat, is a single mom, has a meso-american half-brother paladin (*sigh*...), currently doing good deeds to redeem in half-brother's eyes, etc.
And still there are better ways melodrama. There is such a thing as too much.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723201For me, as I said, it's a simple question - will this quirk come up during a game? Will the backstory influence the behaviour of an NPC significantly enough to warrant it? That's when I like them - when a tired veteran has a bit of a backstory describing his service with the druids, with a note that given a chance, he'd gladly serve one again - as a hook for the players to recruit a powerful bodyguard, for example.
For me it should certainly be something that could potentially come up in play, though it wouldn't have to lead to an actual adventure to be included. There are also details that might simply be part of my own explanation for how the noc got from point A to B and only come up if the players happen to ask about (which is info i like to have on hand). If i am running an investigation for instance, i find it really helps to have some of this stuff fleshed, because the players are going to be aksing aobut everyone, not just the prime suspect.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723222Even if you do run melodrama, the writing doesn't have to be so obfuscated, let alone entwined. It really shits up a module and makes it a pain to unbraid for something useful. At least with bullet points things are highlighted and not always connected.
Never suggested it should be obfuscated. I like to have as much as is needed to convey things clearly. If it is a major npc i know i need to be familiar with prior to play, longer entries wont bother me, but for everyone else, i think keeping it to the point and bullet pointed (or at least down to a single pargraph or two) is best).
QuoteDrow pirate woman: loves her tricorn hat, is a single mom, has a meso-american half-brother paladin (*sigh*...), currently doing good deeds to redeem in half-brother's eyes, etc.
Well, that is an example i probably wouldn't go for. I was thinking more of my wuxia sandbox, where i had an area based loosely out of the one armed swordsman. Basically the village was being tormented by a living ghost (a phantom created by an aggreived person who is still alive while they dream) because the daughter of the master of the golden sabre school had cut off the arm of her father's top disciple when he rejected her affections. However she lied about the events and said she caught him stealing from her father's treasury. She also convinced some of the other students (who adored her) to lie about the disciples' attempted theft. The disciple in turn left to live in a rice farming community to the south hoping to recover before setting off in search of an object called the emerald arm, but his grudge kept emerging at night as a one-armed phantom. To me that has a good deal of melodrama, is a bit over-the-top, but was fitting for the genre and gave the pcs plenty of things to dig into.
QuoteAnd still there are better ways melodrama. There is such a thing as too much.
I do agree you can go too far. I guess my point though is where that line is depends on the style of game you are shooting for.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723183While not every NPC has to have some 'high drama' to merit their inclusion, there should be some ideas for why the PCs might care. Social conflicts between NPCs can involve the PCs down the road.
I don't mind drama, social conflict, and a bit of backstory. But I can't stand characters in fantasy settings (this goes for novels as well as RPGs) who have modern attitudes and behaviours.
As someone who reads a lot more history than fiction, I can't help but be aware of which attitudes held by modern people are recent notions, and only came about because of specific social and technological innovations. When those attitudes are exhibited alongside world settings where they could not possibly arise, they stand out for me like a sore thumb. And they seem absurd.
So if the backstory of the innkeeper in a D&D module has attitudes that are straight out of the last 21st century, it's as jarring and unwelcome to me as if that same inkeeper has a motorcycle parked outside the inn to ride home to his condo in and watch netflix. Put a Victorian-era asylum in an adventure, or pirates who act like videogame characters, and you may as well throw in maxim guns.
I'm more of a sword and sorcery guy. I like my fantasy settings to be like the historical medieval or ancient world, but much more dangerous, brutal, and weird. By making cheesy, modern, anachronistic characters and their cheesy, modern, anachronistic personal drama central to their adventures, Paizo makes them pretty much as unusable for my D&D as if they included motorcycles, cell phones, and machine guns.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723117Yeah, heaven forbid Paizo use fantasy to justify being inclusive. :rolleyes:
I wasn't trying to stop them doing that shit - I actually don't even mind it. I just wanted ideas on it making some kind of sense in-world. Apparently you guys don't like that kind of request.
Quote from: Haffrung;723253I don't mind drama, social conflict, and a bit of backstory. But I can't stand characters in fantasy settings (this goes for novels as well as RPGs) who have modern attitudes and behaviours.
As someone who reads a lot more history than fiction, I can't help but be aware of which attitudes held by modern people are recent notions, and only came about because of specific social and technological innovations. When those attitudes are exhibited alongside world settings where they could not possibly arise, they stand out for me like a sore thumb. And they seem absurd.
I'll accept any half-assed reason why Korvosa, Sandpoint etc are run by a bunch of Hilary Clinton career women types as Mayors, Generals, etc. But give me something to work with!
Quote from: S'mon;723276I'll accept any half-assed reason why Korvosa, Sandpoint etc are run by a bunch of Hilary Clinton career women types as Mayors, Generals, etc. But give me something to work with!
What is your issue with them, to be precise?
Quote from: S'mon;723276I'll accept any half-assed reason why Korvosa, Sandpoint etc are run by a bunch of Hilary Clinton career women types as Mayors, Generals, etc. But give me something to work with!
Is there any pressing reason why there shouldn't be?
Quote from: Rincewind1;723281What is your issue with them, to be precise?
Quote from: LibraryLass;723281Is there any pressing reason why there shouldn't be?
This thread is fraying faster than a rope in a thriller.
(although I must admit I'm curious to see his answer)
Quote from: LibraryLass;723288Is there any pressing reason why there shouldn't be?
In general in the past you had high infant mortality (often 50% dead before the age of three), occasional plagues wiping out a big chunk of the population. That means you needed high fertility rates just to keep the population stable.
On top of that young children were more susceptible to childhood illnesses and therefore needed more nursing. Because of a lack of good alternatives to breast milk that won't cause malnutrition in the past, it was harder to for women to get away from the kids long enough to pursue a career unless they had a wet nurse.
So high infant mortality and a lot of time spent taking care of newborns that you need a woman nearby for (because of poor alternatives to breast milk).
That means massive time sinks for women that derail a lot of people's careers or make it hard for them to get started. That means the important people in most career tracks are men (because more time to spend advancing in their careers) and then, boom, hello patriarchy. Patriarchy is a nasty thing but there's a reason it developed in so many societies historically. Just like feudalism is a nasty thing but it existed for a reason and not only because people are assholes.
Then if you have females engaged in warfare and feud violence to the same extent as pre-modern males (in which rates of death by violence were generally absolutely horrific) due to being involved equally in the military a lot on top of the equally horrific death rates you get from maternity related death in pre-modern women then you get more demographic problems...
So at least to me to have a more just and egalitarian pre-modern society you need something along the lines of:
-Much lower infant mortality and/or medical care in general. That alone solves most of the problems. It's amazing how quickly dropping infant mortality translates into female empowerment in so many societies around the world.
-Birth control also helps a lot if you also have better healthcare then you can have the birthrate fall without sending the birth rate below replacement.
-An elitist system in which lower status women take up the slack in terms of child bearing/rearing. So wet nurses, wet nurses everywhere and/or a nunocracy. Hmmm, a nunocracy would be awesome. I'm putting that in my next campaign.
You can do a lot of ameliorate inequality for women by tinkering with the details, but if there's something that looks more modern you have to put in some of the reasons that made gender equality become more prevalent in the modern world. If you just yank out the patriarchy and keep everything else the same, it feels like having a medieval society with no landlords, just a lot of freeholders while keeping all of the trappings of feudalism. It just feels weird, at least to me.
Not really hard to do. Just need enough clerics with cure disease and some birth control herbs, but some justification helps.
I don't have much use for the twee anachronistic "inclusive" pastiche crap either, myself, but that's not the real problem with Paizo's purple prose. The problem is that it loads the characters and adventure down with a freaking armory of Chekhov's Guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun). If the adventures were sandboxes this would be fine, but in a constrained Adventure Path they're just junking up the storyline with distractions.
Quote from: Daztur;723303Then if you have females engaged in warfare and feud violence to the same extent as pre-modern males[...]
Then you're going to have an awful lot of dead women.
Seriously, sexual dimorphism is a thing which exists. Going on about the real sociohistorical roots of patriarchy and ignoring the fact that men are just plain better at hunting and killing things is just...bizarre.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723308Then you're going to have an awful lot of dead women.
Seriously, sexual dimorphism is a thing which exists. Going on about the real sociohistorical roots of patriarchy and ignoring the fact that men are just plain better at hunting and killing things is just...bizarre.
Well for fantasy campaigns I don't think sexual dimorphism matters too much because so many of the ways of killing things don't depend on strength.
It's more that we forget what it's like to have to raise 6 kids on average just to keep the population up. As a parent I know what a massive time sink having two is. Six just makes me shudder and you NEED that or pretty close to that or disease starts eating into your population in a peasant farming society.
And sharing child reading duties is hard without a good replacement for human breast milk, you need to stick around to keep them fed and it's really hard to stick around six kids and advance your career at the same time. Really really really hard.
But throw some magic at that and you can come up with rationales for more gender equality, but you really need some rationale.
Quote from: Daztur;723309Well for fantasy campaigns I don't think sexual dimorphism matters too much [...]
Yeah, the "because elves" argument.
If you can handwave away sexual dimorphism, then I (or anyone else) can handwave away viviparous reproduction, infant mortality, or poor nutrition.
Which is fine, but let's just be clear that that's what we're doing here: picking and choosing which parts of reality we don't want to have screwing up our fantasy utopia.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723312Yeah, the "because elves" argument.
If you can handwave away sexual dimorphism, then I (or anyone else) can handwave away viviparous reproduction, infant mortality, or poor nutrition.
Which is fine, but let's just be clear that that's what we're doing here: picking and choosing which parts of reality we don't want to have screwing up our fantasy utopia.
I believe he was arguing that in a setting in which a person can literally
unmake reality with the correct sequence of words the sexual dimorphism that actually exists would, by nature, be less relevant.
I think that's a logical consequence of the setting, not handwaving.
Quote from: Haffrung;723253I don't mind drama, social conflict, and a bit of backstory. But I can't stand characters in fantasy settings (this goes for novels as well as RPGs) who have modern attitudes and behaviours.
As someone who reads a lot more history than fiction, I can't help but be aware of which attitudes held by modern people are recent notions, and only came about because of specific social and technological innovations. When those attitudes are exhibited alongside world settings where they could not possibly arise, they stand out for me like a sore thumb. And they seem absurd.
So if the backstory of the innkeeper in a D&D module has attitudes that are straight out of the last 21st century, it's as jarring and unwelcome to me as if that same inkeeper has a motorcycle parked outside the inn to ride home to his condo in and watch netflix. Put a Victorian-era asylum in an adventure, or pirates who act like videogame characters, and you may as well throw in maxim guns.
I'm more of a sword and sorcery guy. I like my fantasy settings to be like the historical medieval or ancient world, but much more dangerous, brutal, and weird. By making cheesy, modern, anachronistic characters and their cheesy, modern, anachronistic personal drama central to their adventures, Paizo makes them pretty much as unusable for my D&D as if they included motorcycles, cell phones, and machine guns.
This is just an excuse for me to post this image. (http://i40.tinypic.com/2r7r5w7.png) (Damned if I can get the BBcode to resize it.)
Laughs aside, is this the thin end of the "gamist/simulationist" wedge? We can have all this because "it's just a game?"
And, if that is the case and it is just a game, should there be an insistence on "balanced social inclusion"?
If a setting takes that many liberties with pre-industrial inspiration, why does anyone care if there are an acceptable quota of "the current zeitgeist" within it?
Quote from: tanstaafl48;723314I believe he was arguing that in a setting in which a person can literally unmake reality with the correct sequence of words the sexual dimorphism that actually exists would, by nature, be less relevant.
That argument applies equally well to anything you don't happen to like about the inequity of life in the middle ages. Infant mortality? Pshaw - magic! Viviparous reproduction? Pshaw - magic! Poor nutrition, sanitation, lives of the peasantry nasty, dull, brutish and short? Pshaw - magic!
It's no argument at all, because unless you posit some hard and fast rules about what exactly magic can and can't do, and how common it is, you can just say anything you like about the setting.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723319That argument applies equally well to anything you don't happen to like about the inequity of life in the middle ages. Infant mortality? Pshaw - magic! Viviparous reproduction? Pshaw - magic! Poor nutrition, sanitation, lives of the peasantry nasty, dull, brutish and short? Pshaw - magic!
It's no argument at all, because unless you posit some hard and fast rules about what exactly magic can and can't do, and how common it is, you can just say anything you like about the setting.
But the debate started about Paizo's setting, no? And how it was weird that the starting town had a bunch of female leaders despite a nominally medieval setting?
So... in that case the hard and fast rules
are defined. They're the Pathfinder rules for about fifth level spellcasters. And given those rules for how magic works and how common it is I don't think a set of female leaders in one random town is particularly odd (whether or not the rest of the setting is consistent with those rules is another matter entirely.)
I'm not trying to make a general point about all fantasy settings forever.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723319That argument applies equally well to anything you don't happen to like about the inequity of life in the middle ages. Infant mortality? Pshaw - magic! Viviparous reproduction? Pshaw - magic! Poor nutrition, sanitation, lives of the peasantry nasty, dull, brutish and short? Pshaw - magic!
It's no argument at all, because unless you posit some hard and fast rules about what exactly magic can and can't do, and how common it is, you can just say anything you like about the setting.
OK, but in Pathfinder there
are hard and fast rules about what magic can do - and as well as other hard and fast rules that show differences from reality. Among other things, healing magic is very common and can heal most bleeding, and extraordinary individuals are common in a way different than real life.
Pathfinder is not at all a simulation of medieval reality - nor was any version of D&D. Even if you use no magic and have only males in your game, the results are deliberately far different from historical reality. They resemble more closely some modern fantasy fiction, though with their own unique spin.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having historical gender roles. However, if you enforce traditional gender roles in the name of realism, but don't change the massive other differences from medieval reality, then you're picking and choosing which parts reality to enforce to get the fantasy you want.
I use women interchangeably with men in my adventures, because I figure "why not?" No compelling reason, socially, why a fantasy kingdom needs to follow the same pattern of male-based society that our own history adopted. I dont find it necessary to come up with a special reasoning behind that. Ill admit I dont generally concern myself with the sexuality of my NPCs barring a specific reason to do so, as theres frankly just more important things going on. I assume a small percentage of the populace is gay, but it doesnt really affect anything else. I dont use transexual NPCs for reasons Ive gone into before.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723203You have got to be kidding me that you cannot see the difference between a fleshed and quotidian NPC with potential hooks and... where the fuck is it... tricorn hat wearing single mother pirate drow seeking frankenstein's monster asylum escapee in an effort to redeem in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin half-brother all the while putting her son through barber's college.
One (the latter) is more purple than Prince.
Actually I think it's about a tossup.
JG
Quote from: LibraryLass;723288Is there any pressing reason why there shouldn't be?
Do you want me to give reasons why such characters didn't exist in world history until the later part of the 20th century? I'm more interested in in-world reasons why they might exist in Golarion. But I already learned from asking this on the Paizo boards that you guys always refuse to give reasons and try to reframe the discussion, as you just did there. You seem to be threatened by what ought to be a pretty neutral question AFAICS.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723308Then you're going to have an awful lot of dead women.
Seriously, sexual dimorphism is a thing which exists. Going on about the real sociohistorical roots of patriarchy and ignoring the fact that men are just plain better at hunting and killing things is just...bizarre.
This is the kind of thing they always refuse to address. I tend to assume that in these fantasy worlds the PC-type warrior female NPCs aren't strength-limited the way real world women are. Maybe being a PC-class character means you're inherently magical and unconstrained by real world limits. Some fantasy females like Xena and Red Sonja tend to have more or less explicit magical justifications like that.
I think you also probably need post-1950s style reliable contraception, safe abortion, and low infant mortality, as you suggested. And at the same time the society still needs to have a large class of traditional women still having babies, otherwise the slow-breeders will be replaced by any nearby group of humans or non-humans that continues to fast-breed. Although massively superior technology or magical power might help there, a bit like how Western military tech superiority compensates for lack of soldiers vs less developed nations in recent decades.
Quote from: tanstaafl48;723314I believe he was arguing that in a setting in which a person can literally unmake reality with the correct sequence of words the sexual dimorphism that actually exists would, by nature, be less relevant.
I think that's a logical consequence of the setting, not handwaving.
No. It would be irrelevant to the Witch Queen who can unmake reality with a word. It would remain entirely relevant to the other ten thousand women who can't do that.
Or it could be that everybody in the setting is a PC adventurer type with several class levels. I think the Paizo stuff tends that way. The trouble there is that the setting then shouldn't look anything like the real world at all, it'd be more like The Singularity, The Dancers At The End of Time, or some kind of Star Trekky thing.
Quote from: S'mon;723351Do you want me to give reasons why such characters didn't exist in world history until the later part of the 20th century? I'm more interested in in-world reasons why they might exist in Golarion. But I already learned from asking this on the Paizo boards that you guys always refuse to give reasons and try to reframe the discussion, as you just did there. You seem to be threatened by what ought to be a pretty neutral question AFAICS.
I asked you a neutral question, actually. Because if your concern is that the world doesn't react in surprise to the fact that there is a woman in charge (everyone just merrily holds hands and only sexists are probably in Hellghast or however their Naziesque civilisation is called), I would agree. But if you'd argue that there were no female rulers, I'd have to disagree with you strongly.
i tend not to focus on child bearing policies in a fantasy setting if they do not include deep ones or drow mating rituals.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723370I asked you a neutral question, actually. Because if your concern is that the world doesn't react in surprise to the fact that there is a woman in charge (everyone just merrily holds hands and only sexists are probably in Hellghast or however their Naziesque civilisation is called), I would agree. But if you'd argue that there were no female rulers, I'd have to disagree with you strongly.
I can't parse this.
Quote from: S'mon;723375I can't parse this.
I think it was a simple question - does your issue lie with lack of different attitudes towards female rulers by their male counterparts (mostly), or is it an issue with existence of female rulers at all (or their commonality)?
When it comes to historical anachronisms in settings, for me it depends on the setting. In something like Harn, i expect things to stay close to the history that inspired it. But if it is forgotten realms, I expect a lot of modern ideas to creep in and am fine with it. I read mainly history and it was my major in college but I find I can turn that off when gaming or at the movies.
It is interesting I remember reading somewhere the reason Howard used the Hyborean Age was to give himself room for creativity so he didn't have to research every square foot. I think there is value in that approach to fantasy, because when I start doing historical research, it is lots of fun, but can really slow down the creative flow. So I may find some really precise details about social customs in a particular place and time, but for all that effort, i ciuld have just made something up and my players wouldn't have cared either way (whoch would mean more time to work on other aspects of the setting).
The setting I'm running now is pretty egalitarian on gender issues since it's pretty kitchen skin/dripping in magic so that mundane disease isn't a big issue and sexual dimorphism is pretty much a rounding error when you're dealing with ettins and dragons and whatnot.
However when you take a setting that's closely based on something historical and then excise sexism out without excising any of the reasons that sexism existed in that society then it rubs me the wrong way a bit. Guess I'm too much of a history geek, having a society that's obviously based on something pre-modern but with people with very modern ways of thinking just gets under my skin. Kind of like the magically not racist CSA in Deadlands...
Quote from: Daztur;723392However when you take a setting that's closely based on something historical and then excise sexism out without excising any of the reasons that sexism existed in that society then it rubs me the wrong way a bit. Guess I'm too much of a history geek, having a society that's obviously based on something pre-modern but with people with very modern ways of thinking just gets under my skin. Kind of like the magically not racist CSA in Deadlands...
I used to feel this way. But I found it was ruining things like movies and books for me (and I was seriously interfering with my wife's enjoyment of them too). For example when i first saw A Knight's Tale, i hated it. The people were singing modern songs, behaving in modern ways at times and the Nike logo even made an apoearance. Now I can watch and enjoy something like this. I find a lot of this stuff only bothers me if I am actively looking for it. And anachronisms can be fun, even leading to a whole new kind if setting if done well.
Don't get me wrong, i do like gritty historical and well researched settings too. But if a setting isn't striving for that, I am not going to hold innacuracies or anachronisms against it these days.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;723393I used to feel this way. But I found it was ruining things like movies and books for me (and I was seriously interfering with my wife's enjoyment of them too). For example when i first saw A Knight's Tale, i hated it. The people were singing modern songs, behaving in modern ways at times and the Nike logo even made an apoearance. Now I can watch and enjoy something like this. I find a lot of this stuff only bothers me if I am actively looking for it. And anachronisms can be fun, even leading to a whole new kind if setting if done well.
Don't get me wrong, i do like gritty historical and well researched settings too. But if a setting isn't striving for that, I am not going to hold innacuracies or anachronisms against it these days.
Oh, I've learned the same kind of lesson. I used to run D&D closely based on historical settings and ran an adventure based on Icelandic trial proceedings that I got out of the Sagas. These days I have swarms of flying piranhas, mile high cliffs, roads made out of human bone meal that have come alive, and dwarves who wear iron masks and full body robes so the light of the sun never falls on their skin and I find it a hell of a lot more fun.
But a lot of settings just hit the uncanny valley for me. I love complete ahistorical wackiness but if something is obviously based on a single historical setting without a lot of crazy kitchen sink or gonzo thrown on then anachronism and modern attitudes just annoy me.
A Knight's Tale or 300 are fine as they're obviously goofball but having people in Ridley Scott's historical movies start advocating for modern-sounding democracy just drove me crazy and made it a lot harder for me to enjoy them.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;723393I used to feel this way. But I found it was ruining things like movies and books for me (and I was seriously interfering with my wife's enjoyment of them too). For example when i first saw A Knight's Tale, i hated it. The people were singing modern songs, behaving in modern ways at times and the Nike logo even made an apoearance. Now I can watch and enjoy something like this. I find a lot of this stuff only bothers me if I am actively looking for it. And anachronisms can be fun, even leading to a whole new kind if setting if done well.
Don't get me wrong, i do like gritty historical and well researched settings too. But if a setting isn't striving for that, I am not going to hold innacuracies or anachronisms against it these days.
I understand you Brendan, and I often have a similar reaction (though my allergy for ahistorical stuff is still strong ;)). On the other hand though, I dislike when you have people who think just like us in different worlds - whether they are better than us, or worse, I just like some change in thought. I played briefly in a Warhammer 2e group with which I parted ways after I was lambasted for distrusting a Chaos magician seeking redemption as it broke plot...to which I responded - why'd you assume we'd trust a former Chaos sorcerer in the first place?
Quote from: Daztur;723395Oh, I've learned the same kind of lesson. I used to run D&D closely based on historical settings and ran an adventure based on Icelandic trial proceedings that I got out of the Sagas. These days I have swarms of flying piranhas, mile high cliffs, roads made out of human bone meal that have come alive, and dwarves who wear iron masks and full body robes so the light of the sun never falls on their skin and I find it a hell of a lot more fun.
But a lot of settings just hit the uncanny valley for me. I love complete ahistorical wackiness but if something is obviously based on a single historical setting without a lot of crazy kitchen sink or gonzo thrown on then anachronism and modern attitudes just annoy me.
A Knight's Tale or 300 are fine as they're obviously goofball but having people in Ridley Scott's historical movies start advocating for modern-sounding democracy just drove me crazy and made it a lot harder for me to enjoy them.
To be fair, Pathfinder's Golarian (sp?) is a kitchen sink fantasy...and the form of kitchen sink I generally tend to avoid (I don't dislike all of them, I just think sometimes the mix is better, sometimes worse).
QuoteDon't get me wrong, i do like gritty historical and well researched settings too. But if a setting isn't striving for that, I am not going to hold innacuracies or anachronisms against it these days.
That's where I'm at-it depends on just how realistic you're trying to be. If you're trying for honest to gods realism and say as much, then yeah, I'll probably find inaccuracies more annoying. if you're going the Knight's Tale route, I won't care too much.
Now, I kinda like stuff to make sense *within a setting itself.* If the humans in Grayland are really really prejudice against the green people of the water but like the blue people of the mountains, I'd like to perhaps know why, for an example.
Now as for PF's methods-it's not that I dislike kitchen sink settings or trying to mix things in for more representation at all, it's simply how the adventures are written that I find not really my thing-as well as a lot of the NPCs, but I fully admit to finding NPCs in many published settings not my cup of tea often. I'd say Shadowrun 1e-2e has what is probably the biggest percentage of named and storied NPCs that I actually like in any system, and there is definitely quite a decent percentage as well. Most of the time there's no real dislike, there's more just a bland neutrality that I feel.
Wonder if WotC is betting the entire house on stuff like this:
Fox to Bring 'Magic: The Gathering' to the Big Screen (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fox-bring-magic-gathering-big-670529)
Quote from: S'mon;723354This is the kind of thing they always refuse to address. I tend to assume that in these fantasy worlds the PC-type warrior female NPCs aren't strength-limited the way real world women are. Maybe being a PC-class character means you're inherently magical and unconstrained by real world limits. Some fantasy females like Xena and Red Sonja tend to have more or less explicit magical justifications like that.
Quote from: S'mon;723355No. It would be irrelevant to the Witch Queen who can unmake reality with a word. It would remain entirely relevant to the other ten thousand women who can't do that.
Or it could be that everybody in the setting is a PC adventurer type with several class levels. I think the Paizo stuff tends that way.
I've never really thought about this question, but these remarks, here, seem to suggest to me an excluded middle. There's a few women NPCs in leadership roles in Golarion, just as there's only few men NPC in leadership roles in Golarion. I tend to construe both as, either retired adventurers, or as having gained XP from their experience in public office etc. And yes, going for the idea that, IF a female character sets off on the career as an adventurer, let's assume her physical stats are not too far behind the men's (to the extent this matters at all), would suffice to set this in perspective.
Again, I don't think anyone (exempting certain Paizo designers of course) would want to go for the '10.000s of women' type of claim (though I note that certain societies on Golarion tend to either the post-1789 era, e.g. Andora, or even towards the matriarchial, e.g. Cheliax, so it's not as if all of Golarion is faux medieval and patriarchical). A fairly sizeable minority suffice of high powered female NPCs suffice (a mayor here, a mayor there: a group of Incantatrix'es here, some high ranked Clerics there),
as they do on the men's side. Same with FR - yes you have a sizable number of high level NPCs, male and female, but these don't have strong repercussions on the demographic make-up or other fundamental issues on demographic issues like healthcare, child birth ratio, abortion, etc. I really don't get why the two sets of themes are so strongly correlated here.
Finally, I'd like to take this occasion to, how ever briefly, return to the ostensive thread title. The whole idea that a setting teems with retired adventurers (not too many, but they are a recurrent phenomenon) was yanked by D&D 4E's idea that NPCs couldn't and shouldn't possibly have class levels. You meet Elminster in 4E, no way he has certain items, spell books, or rogue levels accumulated over the years. I admit, players - rightly - hate Mary Sue NPCs, but there's also something to be said about the charm, for the DM, of having a NPC stat block that tells him a lot about the character's progression, male or female. That's one of the (I guess, few) story related reasons why mechanical continuity of PCs and NPCs makes sense.
Thoughts?
...and, one more thing. While I recognize Paizo really took the emancipation of D&D NPCs from medieval/related stereotypes many steps farther than WotC, the basic premises were certainly observeable in D&D 3.5 too. There's even an explicit statement to that effect in DMG II, pages 81-82:
QuoteA successful DUNGEONS & DRAGONS setting is neither an
authentic portrayal of medieval history nor an exercise
in logical extrapolation from a fantastic premise. Instead,
think of it as a medieval-flavored game environment.
Your players expect to play in a world resembling the
Middle Ages, but with the harsh, brutal, depressing,
and serious elements stripped out. They want to explore
an idealized realm of virtuous kings, shining armor,
colorful tournaments, towering castles, and fearsome
dragons. The setting might have its dark and challenging
corners, but overall it offers a positive, escapist vision of
good against evil.
Historical accuracy should be ignored when it interferes
with the game's spirit of light-hearted fun. For example,
out of respect for real-world beliefs, D&D includes only
imaginary faiths. Few players want to explore a genuine
medieval world view, in which issues of faith dominate all
thought and culture.
Nor would a strictly realistic economic system provide
much entertainment. The cartloads of gold adventurers
constantly haul out of dungeons is a fun game element,
not a logical one. Had such vast quantities of wealth
turned up in the real medieval world, its social structure
would have been overturned nearly overnight. Kings and nobles held power because they were the landowners
in an agriculturally based economy. Realistically, they
shouldn't be in charge in a D&D world, but they are,
because they're integral to the fantasy. Escapism trumps
literal logic.
Likewise, your basic D&D world is usually a kitchen
sink, using the imagery not only of the Middle Ages but
also from ancient cultures across thousands of years of
history. Dark Ages barbarians rub shoulders with Japanese
samurai and pseudo-Egyptian priests. It mixes the elves
and dwarves of epic fantasy fi ction with the mighty-thewed
warriors of pulp magazine sword and sorcery.
If you were writing a novel, you wouldn't want to invent
a world that was merely a collection of popular clichés
about the medieval and ancient periods. You would
want to either evoke one particular period in a fresh and
surprising way, or create an exotic place and time entirely
from scratch. In a game, though, clichés are useful. They
act as a kind of shorthand, making it easier for you to
describe your setting in a few simple phrases and images.
Your players already like and understand them. Don't let
a misplaced sense of literary snobbery get in the way of
a good time.
And, even more directly, a sidebar on p.82:
QuoteEQUALITY AND HISTORY
In the Middle Ages, as in most periods of human history, strict
conventions governed the roles of men and women. Men fought,
governed, ran businesses, created art, and determined religious
doctrine. Women enjoyed responsibility and influence only in
their own households. A few notable women flouted convention
to wield as much influence as men. Examples include the teenaged
military leader Joan of Arc; the queen and politician Eleanor
of Aquitaine; and the mystic and composer Hildegard of Bingen.
They broke the rules, but most women led constrained lives.
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game treats male and female characters
equally. Women are just as capable as men and face no
barriers to careers as dungeon raiders. This choice keeps step
with modern sensibilities. No gamer should have to play a male
PC to have a good time.
A world with full legal and social equality between the sexes
would differ significantly from the Middle Ages. The eldest royal
heir would ascend to the throne, regardless of gender. Powerful
lords would be duchesses as often as dukes. Religious hierarchies
could well be integrated.
Some favorite fairy-tale plots go out the window in an egalitarian
Middle Ages. Princesses would become accomplished
warriors, perfectly capable of rescuing themselves from dragons.
Heroes performing great feats would not be rewarded with marriages
to fair maidens.
Most players want you to strike a balance between freedom
from sexism and historical flavor. Play it by ear, fudge as necessary,
and don't look too hard at the contradictions. When a
realistic portrayal of historical sexism would annoy or depress
your players, tone down the history. When the details of an
equal-opportunity world seem too modern or out of step with
the medieval atmosphere, revert to history. In general, players
dislike having sexist rules applied to themselves but don't mind
so much when those rules involve NPCs—provided that any discrimination
is presented as a normal element of a stable society,
not as brutal or demeaning.
Book authors were: JESSE DECKER, JAMES JACOBS, ROBIN D. LAWS,
DAVID NOONAN, CHRIS THOMASSON
Quote from: Rincewind1;723397I understand you Brendan, and I often have a similar reaction (though my allergy for ahistorical stuff is still strong ;)). On the other hand though, I dislike when you have people who think just like us in different worlds - whether they are better than us, or worse, I just like some change in thought. I played briefly in a Warhammer 2e group with which I parted ways after I was lambasted for distrusting a Chaos magician seeking redemption as it broke plot...to which I responded - why'd you assume we'd trust a former Chaos sorcerer in the first place?
).
That is understandable. I am definitely not trying to change your mind if you get upset about innacuracies or people thinking like moderns. Just sharing my current viewpoint. So if you feel this way, by all means, continue to do so. I think this stuff is very individual.
For me, it just depends. While i do enjoy stuff that is firmly rooted in history and has strong internal consistency, i am also on board for stuff like hercules and xena. The way i look at it is they just offer different things. The later treats history more as a starting point, but takes off in any direction it feels like (with tons of modern thinking and anachronisms). That can be fun for me. At the same time, if the setting is striving for something more realistic but misses, i will tend to be more critical.
I wasn't always like this though. It feels like i just started to relax more about these details when i got into my thirties for some reason (in my twenties i was the guy complaining loudly during Gladiator or A Knight's Tale).
Quote from: Rincewind1;723397I understand you Brendan, and I often have a similar reaction (though my allergy for ahistorical stuff is still strong ;)). On the other hand though, I dislike when you have people who think just like us in different worlds - whether they are better than us, or worse, I just like some change in thought. I played briefly in a Warhammer 2e group with which I parted ways after I was lambasted for distrusting a Chaos magician seeking redemption as it broke plot...to which I responded - why'd you assume we'd trust a former Chaos sorcerer in the first place?
chaos sorcerer as in two-headed, snake-eyed, blasphemies spouting, polymorphous perverse, bloodthirsty, cannibalistic harbinger of doom? man, you shouldn't have left the party, you should have turned them to witchfinder general and have them 'redeemed'.
Quote from: Windjammer;723400Finally, I'd like to take this occasion to, how ever briefly, return to the ostensive thread title. The whole idea that a setting teems with retired adventurers (not too many, but they are a recurrent phenomenon) was yanked by D&D 4E's idea that NPCs couldn't and shouldn't possibly have class levels. You meet Elminster in 4E, no way he has certain items, spell books, or rogue levels accumulated over the years. I admit, players - rightly - hate Mary Sue NPCs, but there's also something to be said about the charm, for the DM, of having a NPC stat block that tells him a lot about the character's progression, male or female. That's one of the (I guess, few) story related reasons why mechanical continuity of PCs and NPCs makes sense.
Thoughts?
That's one thing 4E got right. The inclusion of full stat blocks for every NPC is one of the most tiresome things about D&D 3.x. It bloats page counts with extraneous information, and makes it fiddly and difficult to run NPCs in combat. For me, an NPC's background and history don't need mechanical stat support. The only thing I need to know, mechanically, about an NPC is what he will likely do in an encounter.
Quote from: Windjammer;723400Finally, I'd like to take this occasion to, how ever briefly, return to the ostensive thread title. The whole idea that a setting teems with retired adventurers (not too many, but they are a recurrent phenomenon) was yanked by D&D 4E's idea that NPCs couldn't and shouldn't possibly have class levels. You meet Elminster in 4E, no way he has certain items, spell books, or rogue levels accumulated over the years. I admit, players - rightly - hate Mary Sue NPCs, but there's also something to be said about the charm, for the DM, of having a NPC stat block that tells him a lot about the character's progression, male or female. That's one of the (I guess, few) story related reasons why mechanical continuity of PCs and NPCs makes sense.
Thoughts?
The idea that there are no other classed npcs in the whole world was an irritating part of 4E that went hand in hand with scaling
everything to such a ridiculous level that certain world entities couldn't come into conflict with each other without the benefit of narrative constructs.
The original game assumed the PCs were the most agressive/proactive adventuring types in the area but certainly not the only ones. Some of the most intense, shit yer britches encounters can be against enemy npc characters. The classic slave lords come to mind here.
The retired fighter who runs a bar is a classic D&D staple.
I don't think every single NPC needs a class/level like 3E commoners but a few classed individuals here and there that gave up the adventuring life to do something else makes perfect sense. It makes even more sense when adventurers are viewed as they were in the original game- as fortune seekers and NOT universally as heroes. From a common sense perspective why would someone keep exposing themselves to hideous death after acquiring enough wealth to live like royalty forever?
Thrill seekers (such as the PCs) might, but for those that were in it for the money, being mid-level and sitting on a heap of treasure certainly looks like a good stopping point. :)
I think it's fair to say that while variations and elaborations have met with mixed reception, a common set of essentials has proven popular for 40 years. 3E/Pathfinder with all the bells and whistles is not quite my cup of tea, but I can't really call it a radical departure compared with an old D&D game using (say) many things from The Dragon or The Arduin Grimoire.
Countless DMs have found it convenient to tailor the D&D framework to their taste while still being able to use materials published in the Common Tongue.
A caveat here is that such easy modification presumes not placing such a high priority on some kinds of game balance as 4E enthusiasts do. That priority brings in a high dependence on an official canon, which at first glance may be commercially attractive.
However, it went against the long established spirit of the game in the eyes even of many 3E fans. There's a sense, important enough to many D&Ders, in which it undermined the original appeal of the game as an alternative to board games.
It's great that 3E was able to appeal to, for instance, Justin Alexander, who had by his own account been rather disparaging of D&D. What makes it great is that this did not require turning the game into something that repelled many who already loved it. (Those who immediately anathematized it as an illegitimate offspring had for the most part, I think, already done the same to 2E AD&D.)
People who don't like D&D have other games to suit them already. Trying to please them by radically changing D&D is likely to produce something neither fish nor fowl, doubling down on the disadvantages of a "fantasy heartbreaker" (while getting some market share on the basis of the now weakened brand).
Anyway, that's how it looks to me.
I like your avatar Varek Azzur. Takes me back.
Anachronisms don't tend to bother me anymore. Very few campaigns have been strictly historical - even those with a historical basis tend to include fantastic elements. Even without those, there has been a base assumption that people pretty much understand basic medicine. Death in child-birth only happens when it makes a dramatic story for a PC/NPC.
I prefer a more inclusive game that considers modern sensibilities. As a product of the modern world and possessing modern sensibilities, I enjoy the game more when they're not constantly being assaulted. For example, I tend not to include 'good' slave-owning societies, and if they're not in a negative light, the slave-owning part is still not good (even in a Viking style setting).
Further, people are people and always have been. Medieval society was far more tolerant of some behaviors than many assume. While the sexuality of NPCs may not matter to the game, I am personally in favor of including a variety of sexual preferences both for the sake of historical accuracy and versimilitude. Now, whether individual societies are tolerant or not may vary based on the campaign setting. Similarly, while the world includes some places where men are dominant, it includes some where females are dominant. The default assumption for most of my socieites are that men and women are equal, but I will adjust that assumption at times to create a unique feel for a society.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723377I think it was a simple question - does your issue lie with lack of different attitudes towards female rulers by their male counterparts (mostly)
Still doesn't make sense. By "by" do you mean "compared to"?
Anyway I already said my piece - I'm ok with ahistorical sex roles, but I want reasons for them.
Quote from: Daztur;723395A Knight's Tale or 300 are fine as they're obviously goofball but having people in Ridley Scott's historical movies start advocating for modern-sounding democracy just drove me crazy and made it a lot harder for me to enjoy them.
I have the exact same feeling. I can accept Knight's Tale or 300 on their own terms, but Kingdom of Heaven or Scott's Robin Hood really hit the nadir of the Uncanny Valley.
Quote from: Windjammer;723400I note that certain societies on Golarion tend to either the post-1789 era, e.g. Andora, or even towards the matriarchial, e.g. Cheliax,
Yep - and the female-dominated bits of Varisia all seem to be Cheliaxan colonies. I think it would be very easy to have this make sense. But people get all huffy when I ask for some ideas on the origins of Cheliaxan gynocracy.
Quote from: Windjammer;723401.
And, even more directly, a sidebar on p.82:
Yeah, I remember reading that and thinking the advice about sex role differentation for most NPCs, but not for PCs, was good advice and helped firm up my ideas of how to present D&D-medieval societies. As you say though, Golarian takes it a few steps further than (eg) FR, and departs far enough from even fantasy-medievalism that it starts to potentially be problematic.
If I'm even allowed to say 'problematic' from the 'Right'. :D
Quote from: S'mon;723482Still doesn't make sense. By "by" do you mean "compared to"?
Anyway I already said my piece - I'm ok with ahistorical sex roles, but I want reasons for them.
Urgh (I don't know if you're trolling me or I wrote gibberish - I mean by as in "An opinion held by" ;)). I meant - is your problem based on the grounds that male leaders treat female leaders on Glorathion as equals, or is your issue based around the very notion of existence of female leaders?
Quote from: Rincewind1;723496Urgh (I don't know if you're trolling me or I wrote gibberish - I mean by as in "An opinion held by" ;)). I meant - is your problem based on the grounds that male leaders treat female leaders on Glorathion as equals, or is your issue based around the very notion of existence of female leaders?
Golarion has historical type female leaders, such as the Queen of Cheliax. Western Europe had (a few) female monarchs, too. No 'historical' problem there. But (parts of?) Golarion also have the majority of lower tier bureaucratic type leader positions, mayors and watch commanders, be female staffed - much moreso than anywhere IRL outside of a few left-coast US cities. San Francisco can have a female police chief, but it'd be really surprising if a woman headed the NYPD or the London Met. It's this tranche of bureaucratic female leaders where Golarion departs most radically from history and even from prior fantasy tropes, so that's where I'm most interested in justifications.
I guess maybe it's a bit like the Hollywood trope of every judge being black, and probably played by Morgan Freeman - I've noticed that 'lower tier' NPCs, such as mundane guardsmen and sergeants, tend to be male, but the 'boss' characters telling the PCs what to do are usually female. As far as the writers fantasising about black judges and female generals/mayors are concerned, they probably think it shouldn't need any in-world justification, and they even get angry when the trope (which they created) gets pointed out.
I still don't see why it should need any particular justification.
But if you're that desperate for one... yeah, because elves. More specifically because the Adept NPC class. When potentially any village priestess or wisewoman can potentially cure diseases and injuries with magical efficiency, infant mortality is going to plummet. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere or other PF's got some kind of contraceptive herb or alchemical mixture detailed too-- I know that in 3.x Forgotten Realms there were at least two. So there you go, there's the two big ones, adding in there's a perfectly good chance that anyone of any sex is going to be born a sorcerer or an oracle and naturally develop the power to unmake the world with the right combination of words.
Update: I checked the equipment section of the Pathfinder SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/herbs-oils-other-substances) for contraceptives. Turns out there are two: Bachelor Snuff works on males for 1d3 days at 1GP/dose; Night Tea works on females for one day at 1 SP/dose-- putting it within the suggested upkeep costs of anyone other than a homeless beggar.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723521I still don't see why it should need any particular justification.
Neither do I. Unless its a historical setting, theres nothing inherent in human nature that would preclude it. And its not like one cant find numerous historical examples anyways.
I generally assume biomechanics work differently in fantasy worlds. After all, you frequently have for example spiders the size of ponies and enormous flying dragons, both of which violate what we know about biology way more than male/female dimorphism does. So I'm willing to go along with rough female physical equality and say that humans have a touch of whatever lets giant spiders happen, especially because the alternative is mostly less interesting (like, who's really interested in dealing with, say, dowries in a fantasy game? eh)
This is not the same argument as "dragons, therefore anything" BTW.
Quote from: Imp;723537(like, who's really interested in dealing with, say, dowries in a fantasy game? eh)
I am, but I do love to play Mount & Blade: RPG edition.
Quote from: Imp;723537I generally assume biomechanics work differently in fantasy worlds. After all, you frequently have for example spiders the size of ponies and enormous flying dragons, both of which violate what we know about biology way more than male/female dimorphism does. So I'm willing to go along with rough female physical equality and say that humans have a touch of whatever lets giant spiders happen, especially because the alternative is mostly less interesting (like, who's really interested in dealing with, say, dowries in a fantasy game? eh)
This is not the same argument as "dragons, therefore anything" BTW.
The problem with getting rid of it completely is that it makes humans not-human, and it prevents a lot of traditional fantasy tropes. And some players, especially female players, do actually want to play PCs with normal human female strength (in 4e the lowest they can get is STR 8, per RAW, which is just about ok). So I tend to like the 3e DMG2 approach that PCs and some NPCs are Xena-like exceptions to the laws of physics, but for most people muscle mass determines STR, and women still have less muscle than men.
I have toyed a bit with the idea that in some worlds like Forgotten Realms human sexual dimorphism is less than IRL, though, and that this contributes to increased sex equality.
Quote from: S'mon;723565The problem with getting rid of it completely is that it makes humans not-human, and it prevents a lot of traditional fantasy tropes. And some players, especially female players, do actually want to play PCs with normal human female strength (in 4e the lowest they can get is STR 8, per RAW, which is just about ok). So I tend to like the 3e DMG2 approach that PCs and some NPCs are Xena-like exceptions to the laws of physics, but for most people muscle mass determines STR, and women still have less muscle than men.
I have toyed a bit with the idea that in some worlds like Forgotten Realms human sexual dimorphism is less than IRL, though, and that this contributes to increased sex equality.
RAW it
is less. A female character is just as capable of having 18 STR as a male one.
And as was pointed out, any dimorphism in human strength is going to amount to a rounding error compared to a giant or dragon.
Also... "it makes humans not-human"? Fucking really? It's not the ability to chuck fireballs from their eyes and lightning bolts from their arse, it's women being able to achieve very slightly higher levels of muscle mass and choose when they do and don't have babies?
Oh you and your silly facts and logic, LL.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723583Also... "it makes humans not-human"? Fucking really? It's not the ability to chuck fireballs from their eyes and lightning bolts from their arse, it's women being able to achieve very slightly higher levels of muscle mass and choose when they do and don't have babies?
I didn't mention the latter. Male upper body strength is between 60% (sedentary) and 100% (physically trained/labouring) higher than women, which is not a very slight difference, it's enormous. Humans are the most dimorphous ape, in terms of muscle mass and strength, even more than is visually apparent, since women carry more fat.
If every human in a setting could fireball/lightning bolt then yes, they'd not resemble real humans either. Typical D&D setting has that the preserve of a tiny minority. Likewise you can have a tiny minority of Xenas, and still have a human society somewhat resembling the real world. You can't have equal strength and have something much resembling the real world, especially not a pre-industrial world.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723583RAW it is less. A female character is just as capable of having 18 STR as a male one.
RAW is for making PCs.
Quote from: Rincewind1;723539I am, but I do love to play Mount & Blade: RPG edition.
Yeah those kinds of details can be fun. I went a bit overboard on historical stuff in my Viking campaign but the players had a lot of fun abusing Icelandic inheritance law to screw a kid out of his inheritance after killing his father.
Quote from: S'mon;723596I didn't mention the latter. Male upper body strength is between 60% (sedentary) and 100% (physically trained/labouring) higher than women, which is not a very slight difference, it's enormous. Humans are the most dimorphous ape, in terms of muscle mass and strength, even more than is visually apparent, since women carry more fat.
If every human in a setting could fireball/lightning bolt then yes, they'd not resemble real humans either. Typical D&D setting has that the preserve of a tiny minority. Likewise you can have a tiny minority of Xenas, and still have a human society somewhat resembling the real world. You can't have equal strength and have something much resembling the real world, especially not a pre-industrial world.
And what do you know, most fantasy settings DON'T resemble the pre-industrial world except in very superficial ways.
When I'm playing Fallout or Mass Effect and 50% of the humans I'm shunning down are female I feel a bit bad.
None of which has anything to do with why 4e failed.
Haffrung branched a thread off for talking shit in. This isn't it.
As a long time fan of Renaissance Pictures work, I feel obligated to point out that it was strongly implied (as in "it was canon until somebody pointed out that deific incest, while entirely in keeping with Greek mythology, wasn't going to play in Poughkeepsie so they tiptoed carefully away from it") that Xena is a demigod. Ares' daughter, conceived when he took the form of her mother's soldier husband.
I'm still struggling with the implication in the statement "Why did 4E fail". I don't think that it did, nor do I think that Next represents anything more than WotC releasing D&D editions on a schedule that's closer to what other RPG publishers have been doing for a long time.
Quote from: daniel_ream;723626I'm still struggling with the implication in the statement "Why did 4E fail". I don't think that it did, nor do I think that Next represents anything more than WotC releasing D&D editions on a schedule that's closer to what other RPG publishers have been doing for a long time.
Frankly, that's about what I'd say too. I think it may well have fallen somewhere short of Hasbro's goals, but all the evidence I've seen-- which is no more than anyone else, admittedly-- suggests that by any other metric it did just fine.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723638Frankly, that's about what I'd say too. I think it may well have fallen somewhere short of Hasbro's goals, but all the evidence I've seen-- which is no more than anyone else, admittedly-- suggests that by any other metric it did just fine.
Going from the top brand (by far) in in the industry to 2nd place is just fine?
It's not even like when White Wolf swept in with Vampire in the '90s. That was something different. 4e managed to lose its market share to what is essentially 3.75.
Even if you argue it still held the lead, that it's even close is nothing short of a disaster on Hasbro/WOTC's part. 4e was a colossal blunder that probably damaged the brand forever. 5e likely isn't going to fix anything.
Indeed, while it can be argued that in terms of sheer book sales, 4e was a success, the fact still remains it went from basically the only RPG that everyone knew....to #2. It failed to keep its market position.
The good will of the fans was cashed in for those books sales, it won't happen again; 4e is the shortest lived edition of the game, which is another metric by which 4e failed.
And this is above and beyond what it did to the fans.
Quote from: JeremyR;723639Going from the top brand (by far) in in the industry to 2nd place is just fine?
It's not even like when White Wolf swept in with Vampire in the '90s. That was something different. 4e managed to lose its market share to what is essentially 3.75.
Even if you argue it still held the lead, that it's even close is nothing short of a disaster on Hasbro/WOTC's part. 4e was a colossal blunder that probably damaged the brand forever. 5e likely isn't going to fix anything.
It certainly pulled numbers that'd make any other RPG publisher besides WOTC or post-PF Paizo plotz. I seem to recall at least the PHB1 making the New York Times' bestseller list.
Quote from: Doom;723642Indeed, while it can be argued that in terms of sheer book sales, 4e was a success, the fact still remains it went from basically the only RPG that everyone knew....to #2. It failed to keep its market position.
The good will of the fans was cashed in for those books sales, it won't happen again; 4e is the shortest lived edition of the game, which is another metric by which 4e failed.
And this is above and beyond what it did to the fans.
It's got 3.0 beat by at least a couple years and it equaled 3.5. And it's still probably the only RPG most people could name. Yes, Pathfinder's bigger... in the RPG market. Which... let's not kid ourselves, is an awfully small pond to be the big fish in. D&D is still the name the casuals know.
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;722913What??? People do that?
That's fucking stupid - words have meanings that are necessary for effectively expressing an idea.
Yeah, it's incredibly fucking stupid, and it's the main reason - not the moderators, not the social justice warriors - I spend so little time at
Big Purple anymore. I'm just tired of posters who have no fucking clue what they're talking about insisting that their definitions are just as valid as anyone else's because
language drift.
It's fucking pathetic. No one seems able to say, 'Oh, yeah, I guess I was using that wrong - thanks.'
Quote from: JeremyR;723639Going from the top brand (by far) in in the industry to 2nd place is just fine?
It's not even like when White Wolf swept in with Vampire in the '90s. That was something different. 4e managed to lose its market share to what is essentially 3.75.
Even if you argue it still held the lead, that it's even close is nothing short of a disaster on Hasbro/WOTC's part. 4e was a colossal blunder that probably damaged the brand forever. 5e likely isn't going to fix anything.
It certainly pulled numbers that'd make any other RPG publisher besides WOTC or post-PF Paizo plotz. I seem to recall at least the PHB1 making the New York Times' bestseller list.
Quote from: Doom;723642Indeed, while it can be argued that in terms of sheer book sales, 4e was a success, the fact still remains it went from basically the only RPG that everyone knew....to #2. It failed to keep its market position.
The good will of the fans was cashed in for those books sales, it won't happen again; 4e is the shortest lived edition of the game, which is another metric by which 4e failed.
And this is above and beyond what it did to the fans.
It's got 3.0 beat by at least a couple years and it equaled 3.5. Sure, it lost ground, and no publisher is going to be happy about that, but outside of the (fairly small) pool that is the RPG market, talking about Pathfinder will still get you a lot more blank stares than D&D.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723657. . . - utside of the (fairly small) pool that is the RPG market, talking about Pathfinder will still get you a lot more blank stares than D&D.
Outside the fairly small pool that is the rpg market is a bunch of people who don't buy or play roleplaying games, so whether or not they know
D&D as a brand is pretty fucking irrelevant if your goal is to actually sell products to gamers.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;723659Outside the fairly small pool that is the rpg market is a bunch of people who don't buy or play roleplaying games, so whether or not they know D&D as a brand is pretty fucking irrelevant if your goal is to actually sell products to gamers.
Admittedly, you have me there.
But I don't think that (based on last month's press release) selling products to gamers is necessarily Hasbro's goal with the D&D brand even if 5e is an unprecedented success on the level of the Moldvay basic set.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723661But I don't think that (based on last month's press release) selling products to gamers is necessarily Hasbro's goal with the D&D brand even if 5e is an unprecedented success on the level of the Moldvay basic set.
I'm quite sure that Whizbros goal is to expand the market, to bring in new blood or fresh meat or whatever, in no small part because Paizo is cleaning their clocks head-to-head in the current market.
In face, Paizo is beating Whizbros with Whizbros' own discarded rules.
Now, tell me again how well 4e did?
Quote from: S'mon;723355No. It would be irrelevant to the Witch Queen who can unmake reality with a word. It would remain entirely relevant to the other ten thousand women who can't do that.
Or it could be that everybody in the setting is a PC adventurer type with several class levels. I think the Paizo stuff tends that way. The trouble there is that the setting then shouldn't look anything like the real world at all, it'd be more like The Singularity, The Dancers At The End of Time, or some kind of Star Trekky thing.
I think it's already BEEN established that Pathfinder (and many D&D worlds) doesn't much resemble the real world, and in any case, just as most male NPCs don't even have player character classes, we can't assume that every female NPC is above the "natural" restrictions of her sex. Obviously most female PCs are, for the same reason that
male PCs are above the restrictions one would expect of a psuedo-medieval setting. It's just that much more obvious in the case of female PCs.
JG
Quote from: One Horse Town;723609None of which has anything to do with why 4e failed.
That question's already been answered.
It didn't "fail" as a game. It's pretty good for what it does. It's just that what it does isn't what had been regarded as D&D. ;)
It didn't fail in financial terms, if for no other reason than that it was branded D&D and promoted by Wizards. Of course, because it was promoted by WotC, and they are now in turn owned by the even larger Hasbro, their idea of "financially successful" is beyond the level of 90% of the game industry and probably beyond what even they can realistically expect from the economy right now.
JG
Quote from: Black Vulmea;723665I'm quite sure that Whizbros goal is to expand the market, to bring in new blood or fresh meat or whatever, in no small part because Paizo is cleaning their clocks head-to-head in the current market.
In face, Paizo is beating Whizbros with Whizbros' own discarded rules.
Now, tell me again how well 4e did?
You misunderstand me. I think they want to use it as, in their own words, a multiplatform franchise. Video games, maybe (god willing, if you ask me) a cartoon on the Hub, that sort of thing. All of which is simply a better investment than even the most successful RPG of all time could be.
4e did well enough to last as long as its immediate predecessor did.
Quote from: LibraryLass;7236704e did well enough to last as long as its immediate predecessor did.
4e had its lunch money stolen by its immediate predecessor.
And its immediate predecessor presently leads the market.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7236754e had its lunch money stolen by its immediate predecessor.
And its immediate predecessor presently leads the market.
When people used to ask me about Pathfinder I told them I had not yet seen the movie... And that is the reaction other got too. Mention Dungeons and Dragons though in general people will have heard of it. Maybee via the movies, maybee via the cartoon, perhaps the SSI PC games or later Neverwinter ones.
Pathfinder does not yet have that level of recognition. Rifts still has more recognition than PF.
That will likely change if Pazio ever attains any sort of defines presence with movies or PC games. Also assuming Pazio does not somehow royally screw up at some point.
Bemusingly, Likely the reason Pathfinder saw its surge was due to 4th eds failure. Pazio was there to catch anyone on the rebound.
Quote from: LibraryLass;7236704e did well enough to last as long as its immediate predecessor did.
No, no it didn't.
Quote from: James Gillen;723668That question's already been answered.
It didn't "fail" as a game. It's pretty good for what it does. It's just that what it does isn't what had been regarded as D&D. ;)
I agree.
QuoteIt didn't fail in financial terms, if for no other reason than that it was branded D&D and promoted by Wizards. Of course, because it was promoted by WotC, and they are now in turn owned by the even larger Hasbro, their idea of "financially successful" is beyond the level of 90% of the game industry and probably beyond what even they can realistically expect from the economy right now.
JG
I don't agree. D&D4 sold well compared to other RPGs. Compared to D&D3, it was a fiasco. If D&D4 hadn't had written D&D on the cover, it would have been just "another" fantasy RPG.
It's interesting what you say about Hasbro, because I think that's what happened with D&D3. D&D3 was a big success for the RPG industry, but perhaps not for Hasbro, who are used to games selling way more.
Quote from: LibraryLass;7236704e did well enough to last as long as its immediate predecessor did.
No, it didn't. D&D3 did very well for the RPG industry, but Hasbro thought it was not enough, so they came up with D&D4. Hasbro thought they could make fans love D&D4, hence their campaign against D&D3 and TSR D&D (they stopped selling PDFs of previous versions of D&D, this move is so retarded I have no words). We all know how this turned out, the fans of D&D3 wanted D&D3, not D&D4, so when Paizo appeared with Pathfinder under its arm, they migrated en masse.
With D&D4, Wizards of the Coast has lost its position of leadership, so they intend to nuke it from orbit and release a new edition as soon as possible.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7236754e had its lunch money stolen by its immediate predecessor.
And its immediate predecessor presently leads the market.
You said it better than me.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7236754e had its lunch money stolen by its immediate predecessor.
And its immediate predecessor presently leads the market.
Best description of the situation I've seen.
Quote from: LibraryLass;723670... maybe (god willing, if you ask me) a cartoon on the Hub...
That doesn't seem like the direction the Hub is headed in, and even if it was looking for more standard fantasy fare I think it would greenlight a
Magic: The Gathering cartoon before a D&D one.
Quote from: Omega;723670Pathfinder does not yet have that level of recognition. Rifts still has more recognition than PF.
Really? That just doesn't sound right.
Quote from: Omega;723701Pathfinder does not yet have that level of recognition. Rifts still has more recognition than PF.
Huh? You must be kidding me.
QuoteBemusingly, Likely the reason Pathfinder saw its surge was due to 4th eds failure. Pazio was there to catch anyone on the rebound.
Of course. The currect situation is WotC's fault, if they hadn't fucked up with D&D4, we would never have seen Pathfinder. Although I must admit that Paizo did things well.
In the end, does it matter? Its enough that 4e at least seemed to be a learning experience for WoTC and they're at least making an effort to return to a system that actually resembles D&D. Will that win them back the #1 spot in the industry? No idea. But I cant understand why that would matter to anyone except Hasbro; as a gamer, one now has ready, affordable access to every edition of the system ever published, and more. The brand name "D&D" isnt, or at least I dont think should be, what's important anymore.
Quote from: LibraryLass;7236704e did well enough to last as long as its immediate predecessor did.
What on Earth are you talking about?
4E came out in 2008. This means that, if you are willing to be very generous and overlook the fact that 4E releases have come to a crawl (and, to my knowledge, releases of stuff which are
exclusively 4E rather than being dual-statted has come to a complete stop) for over a year now, 4E's lifespan is 2008-2014, or 6 years. 3E has it beat by 2 years. (On top of that, by that measure 2E has it beat by 5 years, and 1E by 6.)
Unless you're taking 3.5E as the immediate predecessor. But if we're considering the lifespan of 3.5E and 3.0E separately, it's unfair not to also consider the lifespan of pre-Essentials and post-Essentials 4E separately - neither of which lasted as long as 3.5 did.
Quote from: Warthur;7237244E came out in 2008. This means that, if you are willing to be very generous and overlook the fact that 4E releases have come to a crawl (and, to my knowledge, releases of stuff which are exclusively 4E rather than being dual-statted has come to a complete stop) for over a year now, 4E's lifespan is 2008-2014, or 6 years.
According to this list (http://dnd4.com/release), which seems accurate AFAICT, the last print product for 4e was a bit of shovelware in May 2012 - that's less than 4 years.
3e print product was mid 2000 to I think early 2008 under WoTC? I always used my 3.0 DMG & MM with a 3.5 PHB, so I'd agree 3e was the same game all through, no more different in practice than 4.0e and 4e Essentials.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;723665I'm quite sure that Whizbros goal is to expand the market, to bring in new blood or fresh meat or whatever, in no small part because Paizo is cleaning their clocks head-to-head in the current market.
In face, Paizo is beating Whizbros with Whizbros' own discarded rules.
Now, tell me again how well 4e did?
It's always of the goal of the current edition of D&D to bring in lots of new players. They operate on a different scale from other RPGs. D&D is the only game that grows the hobby, or at least mitigate the relentless attrition of the player base. If WotC honestly believed they were just fighting over the existing market, Hasbro would shut down the D&D division in a snap. Hasbro would consider a Paizo sized market a failure, and a waste of company time and resources. They've proven that already by shutting down a system that was as popular as Pathfinder even in its waning years.
I'm willing to bet a significant number of people who end up buying D&D Next - more than a third - will be people who have never even heard of Pathfinder. Heck, I know guys who have been playing D&D for 30 years who have never heard of Pathfinder. I also know people who were introduced to D&D through 4E who have never heard of Pathfinder.
Paizo have built a successful business model on making its customers happy. But it is a limited customer base, with limited capacity for growth - both because of the lack of the D&D name, and the complexity of the system. And of course, there will be Pathfinder players who migrate to D&D Next. Given the persistent requests to the expand the Pathfinder Beginner's Set system to the full level scale, there is an appetite even among Pathfinder fans for a D&D that is more accessible and easy to run.
Quote from: TristramEvans;723723In the end, does it matter? Its enough that 4e at least seemed to be a learning experience for WoTC and they're at least making an effort to return to a system that actually resembles D&D.
What I don't get is people who shit on 4E for not being enough like D&D, and then turn around and shit on 5E because 4E was a failure. I guess some people just have a visceral hatred of WotC. Doesn't make any sense to me. Why hate a company?
Quote from: Haffrung;723742What I don't get is people who shit on 4E for not being enough like D&D, and then turn around and shit on 5E because 4E was a failure. I guess some people just have a visceral hatred of WotC. Doesn't make any sense to me. Why hate a company?
Well, theres lots of reasons to hate a company, but WoTC itself hasnt really provided many. At least not in the same way horrible companies like Games Workshop, Disney or Monsanto have.
For some people just the fact that its not TSR D&D is enough.
Quote from: Haffrung;723741If WotC honestly believed they were just fighting over the existing market, Hasbro would shut down the D&D division in a snap. Hasbro would consider a Paizo sized market a failure, and a waste of company time and resources. They've proven that already by shutting down a system that was as popular as Pathfinder even in its waning years.
I keep hearing about how D&D is a drop in the Hasbro financial ocean, and it probably is, but unless someone has access to decisions being made by Hasbro upper management we've no idea how a still-profitable if small department would be viewed. I can't imagine them shutting anything down because it's not making enough profit, unless we're talking razor thin margins or something.
Quote from: Haffrung;723741But it is a limited customer base, with limited capacity for growth - both because of the lack of the D&D name, and the complexity of the system. And of course, there will be Pathfinder players who migrate to D&D Next.
Paizo have codified a sort of viral/evangelist system with their societies structure. They're expanding through existing social networks quite deliberately. I wouldn't say they have a limited capacity for growth, their growth is slower but more constant as a result of this approach.
Who knows, maybe the tortoise will win the race after all?
Quote from: The Traveller;723745I keep hearing about how D&D is a drop in the Hasbro financial ocean, and it probably is, but unless someone has access to decisions being made by Hasbro upper management we've no idea how a still-profitable if small department would be viewed. I can't imagine them shutting anything down because it's not making enough profit, unless we're talking razor thin margins or something.
You're right, it's all speculation. But we do kinda know that Pathfinder and 4E were roughly at parity in sales in 2011. And that's when Hasbro decided to shit-can 4E. So either:
- Paizo has lower costs and a better business model than WotC, maybe through adventure path subscriptions (though DDI brought in a fair chunk of change for WotC).
- Or they made roughly the same amount of money, but Hasbro has different expectations of return on investment.
I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Quote from: Haffrung;723748You're right, it's all speculation. But we do kinda know that Pathfinder and 4E were roughly at parity in sales in 2011. And that's when Hasbro decided to shit-can 4E. So either:
- Paizo has lower costs and a better business model than WotC, maybe through adventure path subscriptions (though DDI brought in a fair chunk of change for WotC).
- Or they made roughly the same amount of money, but Hasbro has different expectations of return on investment.
I'm inclined to believe the latter.
There were probably other factors involved, the extremely adverse reaction to 4e from existing fans can't have gone unnoticed. Plus, Paizo doesn't seem to be losing any ground so presumably it has since surpassed 4e in sales by some margin.
For me, the clearest sign that WoTC was alarmed by 4e sales is the way they marketed Essentials. Here's Mike Mearls in an interview around the time Essentials was released:
"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said. "With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."
It's hard to imagine why a company rep. would be talking that way in public if 4e was a runaway hit.
Quote from: Dimitrios;723760For me, the clearest sign that WoTC was alarmed by 4e sales is the way they marketed Essentials. Here's Mike Mearls in an interview around the time Essentials was released:
"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said. "With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."
It's hard to imagine why a company rep. would be talking that way in public if 4e was a runaway hit.
Funny too since 4E seems to be designed by people who really didn't like D&D at all.
Quote from: Haffrung;723748You're right, it's all speculation. But we do kinda know that Pathfinder and 4E were roughly at parity in sales in 2011. And that's when Hasbro decided to shit-can 4E. So either:
- Paizo has lower costs and a better business model than WotC, maybe through adventure path subscriptions (though DDI brought in a fair chunk of change for WotC).
- Or they made roughly the same amount of money, but Hasbro has different expectations of return on investment.
I'm inclined to believe the latter.
We're talking about the company that canned Axis and Allies because it "only" sold 200,000 copies a year.
Quote from: Ladril;723778We're talking about the company that canned Axis and Allies because it "only" sold 200,000 copies a year.
Eh (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aa/welcome)? As far as I know that's still on the shelves.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;723776Funny too since 4E seems to be designed by people who really didn't like D&D at all.
It certainly seems to be most popular with people who have never really liked d&d all that much.
I guess the designers over-estimated the size of that demographic.
Personally, my impression is that 4E is seen as a disappointment by WotC.
However, I also don't think it matters. Really, a lot of people are trying to justify their preferences with sales numbers, but I don't think that justification is needed. There are a lot of people who do like 4E, and a lot of people who don't like 4E.
If you don't like 4E, your preference is valid. Even if 4E had double its sales and was considered a success, it's still valid to hate it.
If you do like 4E, your preference is also valid. Even if 4E had half the sales it had, it's still valid to like it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;723783It certainly seems to be most popular with people who have never really liked d&d all that much.
I guess the designers over-estimated the size of that demographic.
As I've said before, I didn't appreciate the true value of certain things I thought I disliked about older D&D editions until after I had run 4e.
I still enjoyed my time in 4e though, still prefer it to 3e, and still use some of its innovations in other games.
I actually like 4th edition, but even I know it has flaws. One of the flaws being WotC and their failed digital department. See folks this is why you don't rely on technology to bring out the full table top RPG experience. Sure supplement it with dice roller apps, pdfs, and other things. It is just the moment you rely on technology and it shuts down your just fuck.
Now why in the hell do I love 4th edition? It does wonders for me as GM. I love jumping into the system and tinkering with it to see how it works. Love to customized and make things interesting. 4th edition gave me more options than 3.5 did. I can really run a gritty setting in which a level 3 murder is a solo monster that gave the party a deadly battle. No big goofy monster. Just a guy with a knife and the urge to kill you. In another game I made it so high powered that minions were actually divine beings that serve gods. The only solos happen to be all powerful gods (think Yewah, or the All Mighty). Elites were beings like Zeus. Powerful gods that lead their pantheons. You can tell I had a lot of fun as a GM.
On the player angle though. Yeah I see were the bulk of the complaints come from. Classes felt wrong. Oh I loved that fighter didn't suck, but it still felt all wrong. They should had been honest and named paladin as templar because that is what the class is. The flavor wasn't the heroic knight that does good and everyone loves him for it. It is now a divine champion that is favored by his god. The fact you can have a chaotic evil paladin in fourth edition blew me away at first till I thought about it. Not even going to touch on wizard.
This should had been a skill less game because you had too few skills to pick from and frankly skills were not given a good look in the core books. Seriously they suck and it shows. I don't like 3.5 because they had too many skills, but having too few skills also bugged me. Get skills right, or don't bother doing it. I don't mind telling certain classes that they get a reduction in DC when they do certain things.
On rituals. Love the way how I can just make up new rituals and have it some weird element to it. It can be all cthulhu in this game. Though that is me thinking like a GM.
Wow... Spent all that time explaining what I like and did not like about 4th edition and I didn't get to the point of my post. Sorry about that.
I like 4th edition, but that doesn't mean I hate dnd. In fact 4th edition is not my favorite system at all. The OSR pretty much got my attention. Games such as Stars Without Numbers, Lamentations of the Flaming Princess, and some of Zak's work made me love DnD even more. It reminds me a lot of the games I used to play such as Might and Magic 7. You explore a world, go on adventures, and see some really weird things. That to me is DnD.
Which is my final grip about 4th edition. In 4th edition it wasn't about exploring and having a adventure. It wasn't about seeing weird things. It was go into a dungeon, kill beasties, get loot, and do it all over again. Shit man even World of Warcraft did DnD better than 4th edition. At least in WoW I can actually explore a world and feel I had done something.
I remember as a forsaken I saw a castle in the beginning zone. What did I do? I check it out of course. Got my ass handed to me by mid level opponents, but at least now I know not to go there till level 40. In 4th edition I can't even do that. At least that is the feeling I get from player handbook.
Quote from: Haffrung;723407That's one thing 4E got right. The inclusion of full stat blocks for every NPC is one of the most tiresome things about D&D 3.x. It bloats page counts with extraneous information, and makes it fiddly and difficult to run NPCs in combat. For me, an NPC's background and history don't need mechanical stat support. The only thing I need to know, mechanically, about an NPC is what he will likely do in an encounter.
Huh, again agreeing with you. Really, I'm not a stalking sycophant, but you're right: praise where it is due to 4e.
3.x/PF stat blocks are bloat, and a bloat just about as bad as PF preciously crafted NPC backgrounds. And just as daniel_ream called out descriptions saddled with Chekhov's-gun, the stat block is saddled with gob of spells, items, and abilities that don't really help. (Like for example, those divination spells would have been considerably more useful beforehand in the adventure...) It's total TMI for their timing in the modules.
Part of it is the structure of Adventure Paths, being limited in scope and narrowed in relevance (not saying a railroad because there's always hope, but... those PFS modules do themselves little favor). But if you are culling things down to keep things from being sidetracked and deliver a consistent experience across tables, wouldn't the next logical step include using the same upon the NPCs? Besides, in a broader format -- larger scope and more open relevance -- a little extra character flavor and mechanics goes a long way.
It's just unwieldy bookkeeping.
Caveat: I wasn't able to follow the whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating points already made. If so, sorry for that.
Stanly Kubrick once said "In any creative endeavour, from painting the Sistine Chapel to making a movie, there is only a rule: WHAT to do comes before HOW to do it". It was a piece of advice that I virtually engraved on a sheet of diamond during all my scriptwriting career.
What has this to do with D&D? Well, until 4E a character was a character. That, let's say, archers and wizards stayed at the rearguard, while hard hitters charged and clerics supported was an EMERGENT behaviour. No one forced you do it: it came naturally from the inherent chareacteristics of the class. But factors ranging to various tactical situations, to the kind of enemies, to role-playing could very well change this basic approach in a fluid and unexpected manner. WHAT a wizard decided to do came from his best evaluation of the situation: then he decided HOW to do it - and the "how wasn't tied to anything".
4E reversed this basic rule. "We tell you who you are and HOW do things even before analyzing WHAT the best (sometimes out of the box) action for your character would be.
True Role-playing is "I'm thig guy, I'm here, this is my characters, these are my resources. What do I do?" With 4E, no more "Oh boy, there twelve boogies can nly be hit by magic weapons and we, a 6th level party, have exactly 6 +1 arrows and no more. Please. couldn't just we have a Barlog? Either that or I have to think FAST.
Once I saw from the preview that the very keystone of role-playing had beed INVERTED I knew that 4E was doomed - puke-like level.
That, and the childish way everything was written. I came out from 5th grades decades ago. I still have those books. They are much better.
End of my fail with 4E.
Quote from: Omega;723701Pathfinder does not yet have that level of recognition. Rifts still has more recognition than PF.
Does it have more sales, though? ;)
JG
Quote from: Reckall;723938Caveat: I wasn't able to follow the whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating points already made. If so, sorry for that.
Stanly Kubrick once said "In any creative endeavour, from painting the Sistine Chapel to making a movie, there is only a rule: WHAT to do comes before HOW to do it". It was a piece of advice that I virtually engraved on a sheet of diamond during all my scriptwriting career.
What has this to do with D&D? Well, until 4E a character was a character. That, let's say, archers and wizards stayed at the rearguard, while hard hitters charged and clerics supported was an EMERGENT behaviour. No one forced you do it: it came naturally from the inherent chareacteristics of the class. But factors ranging to various tactical situations, to the kind of enemies, to role-playing could very well change this basic approach in a fluid and unexpected manner. WHAT a wizard decided to do came from his best evaluation of the situation: then he decided HOW to do it - and the "how wasn't tied to anything".
4E reversed this basic rule. "We tell you who you are and HOW do things even before analyzing WHAT the best (sometimes out of the box) action for your character would be.
True Role-playing is "I'm thig guy, I'm here, this is my characters, these are my resources. What do I do?" With 4E, no more "Oh boy, there twelve boogies can nly be hit by magic weapons and we, a 6th level party, have exactly 6 +1 arrows and no more. Please. couldn't just we have a Barlog? Either that or I have to think FAST.
Once I saw from the preview that the very keystone of role-playing had beed INVERTED I knew that 4E was doomed - puke-like level.
That, and the childish way everything was written. I came out from 5th grades decades ago. I still have those books. They are much better.
End of my fail with 4E.
4e designers focused on the subjects of the 3.x optimization forum boards. Their answer was to balance characters by assigning "combat" focused roles. Their plan got to be materialized on a grid, turn based and action economy defined environment.
The result was that as a player you have had a very focused combat tactical role because the game is designed and balanced that way. Gameswise this makes it boring after a while because there is nothing of interest in 4e rules regarding roleplaying beyond combat roles (due to dissociative mechanics and all that). This changed somewhat with Essentials (Essentials was an improvement on these fronts) but 4e fans seem to have hated Essentials due to their previous investment on the core line.
Quote from: Haffrung;723741It's always of the goal of the current edition of D&D to bring in lots of new players. They operate on a different scale from other RPGs. D&D is the only game that grows the hobby, or at least mitigate the relentless attrition of the player base.
1983 called. It said it's never coming back.
And you can keep dismissing Paizo and
Pf, but that doesn't change the fact that Paizo outsold Whizbros by re-selling the game that Whizbros shit-canned. No matter how hard you wave your hands, the stink of 4e's flop-sweat isn't going away.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7239501983 called. It said it's never coming back.
This. D&D4 wasn't just competing with D&D3, AD&D1 & 2, OD&D and so on. It was in competition with
World of Warcraft and
Descent, and made its competitors look so fucking superior that Blizzard and FFG ought to send Mearls & Company some flowers.
QuoteAnd you can keep dismissing Paizo and Pf, but that doesn't change the fact that Paizo outsold Whizbros by re-selling the game that Whizbros shit-canned. No matter how hard you wave your hands, the stink of 4e's flop-sweat isn't going away.
This also. Sales alone isn't the metric. Brand strength and continued usage are the metrics. Paizo beats WOTC on both aspects at this time.
Quote from: Haffrung;723741It's always of the goal of the current edition of D&D to bring in lots of new players. They operate on a different scale from other RPGs. D&D is the only game that grows the hobby, or at least mitigate the relentless attrition of the player base. If WotC honestly believed they were just fighting over the existing market, Hasbro would shut down the D&D division in a snap. Hasbro would consider a Paizo sized market a failure, and a waste of company time and resources.
Which when you think about it, does make one wonder if Hasbro are keeping their hand in the market, instead of selling off what some think they regard as a waste of time product, purely because they are being outsold and outmanoeuvred by a relative minnow like Paizo. After all - this "Paizo sized market" which Hasbro should think is a failure is almost entirely cannibalised from its own original market share of (previously) loyal customers. Never underestimate a corporation's desire to crush any upstart company that dares to outperform them.
Similarly, as plenty of people have already pointed out on this thread, the value of D&D as a brand, removed from any actual product, is still something that Hasbro values more than the success or failure of a tabletop RPG. You can license films, cartoons and video games from a brand. Hell - if they can turn Battleship and Transformers in to movies, they'll keep the brand purely for its spin-off potential. D&D Next would have to not only spectacularly tank (even by 4E standards) but also decimate the remaining customer base, before Hasbro would consider divesting the brand to Paizo or any other company.
Having said that, keeping the brand recognisable does indeed require growing the market, which is why Wizards is constantly under pressure to try and bring new blood in to the hobby. The mistake Wizards is making is to constantly think they have to reinvent the wheel with each new generation of D&D, in order to attract new blood. The mistake Hasbro is making is in not intervening and showing Wizards how to market and promote D&D more effectively.
Quote from: xech;723945... but 4e fans seem to have hated Essentials due to their previous investment on the core line.
I just recycled the material from the old core line as monster abilities, magic items, supplemental races, and rituals to turn into utility powers.
Some random personal observations from teaching a group of complete D&D newbies to play Essentials:
- The distinction between ability score and ability modifier was hard to grasp, gummed up the works, and had to be taught several times. They just couldn't grok that the former was only there as a mandatory legacy of the random stat days.
- The high hit points at level 1 were a godsend in giving newbies the space and confidence to experiment. The much maligned healing surges also helped.
- Action points were still fiddly and easily forgotten in the shuffle of abilities. The game has enough to track.
- Even Essentials's carefully pruned and optimized feat list caused excruciating choice paralysis at every level. Pathfinder would be a nightmare in this regard.
- As a GM I appreciated the way Essentials carefully limited the ways spellcasters could break the rules of reality outside of combat. Conventional problem solving skills grounded in reality stayed relevant for much longer than they would have in 3e.
- That said, the out-of-combat magic was sometimes just a little too limited. The loss of rituals really hampered Essentials in that regard, and I had to kludge them back in eventually to have the universe's fantasy make sense.
- I tried to run an open table for players to be able to drop in or out every session as real life dictated/permitted. The setting was sandbox with minor missions. I engineered my monsters for shorter and more intense combat. Yet for all my care and efforts, combat was still too fucking long to allow for truly open exploration and strategic considerations like wandering monsters. AND YET, when I told them about the advantages OSR style games where combat is done in 5-10 minutes they were repulsed. Apparently, to the modern newbie player, the only thing worse than grueling 2-3 hour fights is a loss tactical depth.
- Designing new monsters is way more fun for the GM in 4e than 3e, so much so that I would just knock some out for kicks in my spare time. I wouldn't have done that in 3e, and if/when I end up running 3e/pathfinder again I'm handling monster and NPC stats in 4e's style.
- Dragonborn really are awesome to roleplay, both for players and for GMs.
- 4e's conceit of having cyclopses be strongly tied to the Feywild was really cool, and made them relevant as more than just slightly freaky giants.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;723955It was in competition with World of Warcraft and Descent
Only in the same way that WoW is in competition with chess or monopoly. Or indeed baseball or football.
Quote from: Claudius;723720Huh? You must be kidding me.
Of course. The currect situation is WotC's fault, if they hadn't fucked up with D&D4, we would never have seen Pathfinder. Although I must admit that Paizo did things well.
Outside of RPGers its a virtual unknown. And even some gamers dont know what it is still. But amongst gamers and now board gamers its got a fair amount of recognition.
Which plays into my observation that Pathfinders recognition outside RPG gaming will grow as it branches into other areas.I'll be really surprised of someone says they dont have any novels out yet.
Quote from: James Gillen;723943Does it have more sales, though? ;)
JG
Hard to say. Rifts has been chugging away like forever now. By sheer dint of having a massive head start. Probably yes. It covers more territory which likely helps.
Assuming no downfalls, again, that lead may last a while longer against Pazios rise. But possibly not forever as I think Palladium does smaller print runs?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;723960- I tried to run an open table for players to be able to drop in or out every session as real life dictated/permitted. The setting was sandbox with minor missions. I engineered my monsters for shorter and more intense combat. Yet for all my care and efforts, combat was still too fucking long to allow for truly open exploration and strategic considerations like wandering monsters. AND YET, when I told them about the advantages OSR style games where combat is done in 5-10 minutes they were repulsed. Apparently, to the modern newbie player, the only thing worse than grueling 2-3 hour fights is a loss tactical depth.
Might just have been these particular players, and/or the way the game was introduced to them and the expectations they derived from this when you described what OSR style games would entail. I've had the opposite experience with newbies I introduced to 3rd ed: the removal of grid based combat and canned actions on a character sheet was a godsend to them. I described role playing games as them being able to play their character and tell me what they do next, but the rules of 3rd ed were framing the experience artificially more than they provided an helpful structure to the game.
Which brings me to my second point, in that the length of combat is one thing, but I think what is most important for newbies dropping into the game, especially the type of sandbox games you attempted to run, is the ability for them to just sit, understand very few concepts vaguely before hand, like what at "cleric" is and what "hit points" are, and be able to play the game immediately without having to figure out a whole slew of rules that only make sense in contact with other rules in the abstract first. That is what TSR versions of the game achieve really well: you can sit down with a character, have literally one line of descriptors for your character including "Strength" etc, class/race, level, hit points, AC, weapon(s) and be playing immediately just describing what you do in the game world. Then the DM just translates it ad hoc in terms of rules and modifiers, telling the player "roll a d20" with the classic answer "is it that one?" while the player is holding the d12.
That's in part this easiness of introduction to role playing, with rules not frontloaded on the player that interact with the game world itself instead of being some sort of abstract game within the game, that's been forgotten by WotC designers. I think this comes from a lack of perspective, of thinking too hard about the game as a game while interacting around them in Seattle with video game designers and card game designers and all that, instead of looking at the process of role playing and what makes it fundamentally different than these other types of games.
PS: I think these remarks are valid for game veterans as well. I am, for instance, a very tactically inclined player. I think this is part of the reason I like D&D so much (as opposed to other RPGs I like too, for different reasons). I like to solve tactical challenges in situation, as my character, as the game unfolds. WotC's brand of "tactics" isn't it: It's got more to do with the grid and the "game within the game" that plays like a Magic confrontation with virtual non-existent cards than anything else. That's not tactics to me, especially in a role playing game context, where I am supposed to solve tactical challenges as my character reacts to the problem he or she faces in situation, in the game world, not aside of it with beans and counters.
PPS: That last point, this modern notion that "tactics" in an RPG mean some sort of abstract mini-game centered around the rules for the sake of the rules, has to do with the ubiquitous acceptance of artificial categorizations of game elements, games, and gamers, and the idea that as soon as you are into tactical game play, somehow you don't care that much about immersion/story/role playing (which magically become the same things according to those same theories) and are more playing the game for the "game". The Forgists would then proceed and classify this as a "gamist creative agenda", though this criticism is not limited to the Forge, and extends to similar classifications as well. That is shit, sloppy thinking in action that affects real games and wrecks them for me as a gamer.
From a business standpoint, I'd say it didn't fail due to: a high buy in, and you all know it exists. Given the first, a product condition, and second, a marketing success; so in the given market, it was successful for what it is.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7239501983 called. It said it's never coming back.
And you can keep dismissing Paizo and Pf, but that doesn't change the fact that Paizo outsold Whizbros by re-selling the game that Whizbros shit-canned. No matter how hard you wave your hands, the stink of 4e's flop-sweat isn't going away.
You're talking edition warrior geek-speak. In a business sense, all that shit is meaningless. In 4E's waning years, it sold roughly the same number of books as Pathfinder. They were roughly comparable businesses in terms of sales, and probably profits. Paizo considers that level of sales a great success. Hasbro considers it a failure.
The two companies have dramatically different expectations and business models. And that's completely irrespective of the relative merits of the two games, or what forum geeks believe. Hasbro and WotC have a model based on bringing on large numbers of new gamers to D&D. Paizo does not. Pathfinders doesn't now, and never will, have the brand recognition of D&D. It can't do much more than fight for a bigger share of the existing RPG market.
People on these forums think WotC has big job ahead of them regaining the trust of the D&D player base. That's because most of them are hardcore RPG forum geeks who think everyone else who plays D&D is a hardcore forum geek. Most of the people who will buy the next edition of D&D couldn't give a fuck about edition wars, even if they were aware of them in the first place. A lot of them don't even know who are what WotC or Paizo are. They're just people buying and playing a game, not obsessive geeks with unhealthy emotional resentments of book publishers.
Paizo has a tougher road ahead of them. They need to grow a player-base without the name recognition of D&D. How many other RPGs have accomplished that?
Quote from: Haffrung;723988People on these forums think WotC has big job ahead of them regaining the trust of the D&D player base. That's because most of them are hardcore RPG forum geeks who think everyone else who plays D&D is a hardcore forum geek. Most of the people who will buy the next edition of D&D couldn't give a fuck about edition wars, even if they were aware of them in the first place.
I don't know what to believe anymore.
Part of me thinks you're right because I've seen it before in non-gaming contexts: Forum-goers and comment writers are a vocal minority within a minority of fans, and are frequently left sweeping the floor with their lower jaws when reality sets in and the things they've been deriding prove popular.
But then the 4e backlash - fomented online and in the backrooms of companies like Paizo - succeeded. Anything seems possible now. Negative vocal minorities are having a powerful effect in the video game and television industries too in ways that would have seemed unimaginable a few years ago.
All I know is that I'll run whichever game ultimately seems poised to be the gateway for new players.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;723999But then the 4e backlash - fomented online and in the backrooms of companies like Paizo - succeeded. Anything seems possible now. Negative vocal minorities are having a powerful effect in the video game and television industries too in ways that would have seemed unimaginable a few years ago.
Nah, Haffrung has it more right - it's all about return on investment vs. expectations.
One of the posters above mentioned a company not shutting down a profitable department; that's not how business works because of a little thing called
opportunity cost. Product lines not only have to be profitable, they have to be more profitable than anything else you could have invested that money in (you don't invest a million bucks into a new edition of D&D to make 100K if the same million could make you 500K from investing in magic cards or whatever).
4e did suffer some sales losses from the fragmented player base, but that's happened with every edition since the original. I think the power of the disgruntled 3e players is very overstated.
I kind of doubt D&D Next will be the giant seller they want either, so hopefully either their expectations changed (very possible; like the comics industry they could see their "core" product be a loss leader designed to keep the IP alive), or they are living in denial about how much the core game will sell.
Quote from: Haffrung;723988In 4E's waning years, it sold roughly the same number of books as Pathfinder.
For all cases where 'roughly the same number' = 'less than.' (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/20743.html)
Keep wavin' those hands, Haffrung!
Quote from: jgants;724023I kind of doubt D&D Next will be the giant seller they want either, so hopefully either their expectations changed (very possible; like the comics industry they could see their "core" product be a loss leader designed to keep the IP alive), or they are living in denial about how much the core game will sell.
I imagine thats what all the talk about "establishing a brand" is about; the hope that sales of D&D products such as board games, video games, possibly toy/miniatures lines will make the RPG worthwhile. Itherwise I cant inagine RPGs ever being considered worthwhile outside of a company focused solely on making RPGs for RPGs sake.
Quote from: jgants;724023One of the posters above mentioned a company not shutting down a profitable department; that's not how business works because of a little thing called opportunity cost. Product lines not only have to be profitable, they have to be more profitable than anything else you could have invested that money in (you don't invest a million bucks into a new edition of D&D to make 100K if the same million could make you 500K from investing in magic cards or whatever).
A good point. But that assumes the opportunity exists - no point in making five million monopoly sets if the odds are excellent that you'll only be able to sell three million, even if your profits per sale and in total vastly outweigh those of D&D sales. Markets do get saturated.
Overall I'm of two minds here - on the one hand I think D&D has really had its day, we laughed, we cried, time to make room for some new up and comers. On the other hand I do recognise the value that large amounts of directed spending power have for the hobby as a whole, so I think on the balance if Next flops it will probably be a loss for every RPG company.
One way or the other the sun is setting on edition treadmills.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;7239501983 called. It said it's never coming back.
And you can keep dismissing Paizo and Pf, but that doesn't change the fact that Paizo outsold Whizbros by re-selling the game that Whizbros shit-canned. No matter how hard you wave your hands, the stink of 4e's flop-sweat isn't going away.
I have to say though, comparing Paizo product to WotC product, don't you think that (PF beating 4e) might be due to Paizo stuff just
looking so much better, rather than 3e mechanics being better than 4e? I was in Orcs' Nest today looking at some Pathfinder stuff, and it just looks so... fun... I was really tempted to pay £13 or £16 for some 64 page piece of shovelware. Whereas WotC's 4e stuff is mostly dreary.
I'm not sure myself - I like 4e but it doesn't 'feel like D&D', Pathfinder is certainly closer, and that is probably a factor in its success. But 3e/PF also has huge mechanical problems that make it unplayable at high level for many people. And Paizo don't have a fantastic rep for crunch/rules-fu. But they put out piles of stuff that is fun for a lot of people. WotC failed to do that.
Quote from: S'mon;724027I have to say though, comparing Paizo product to WotC product, don't you think that (PF beating 4e) might be due to Paizo stuff just looking so much better, rather than 3e mechanics being better than 4e?
I think gamers aren't stupid, and I think they play the games they want to play.
In the actual market of gamers who buy shit, Paizo's re-heated 3e beat Whizbros' 4e. The game with the all-holy unique brand recognition lost ground to a competitor who re-sold a previous edition's rules.
All of the nonsense about
D&D brand-recognition means exactly dick. Many people know what
D&D is, and most of them still don't play it, or any other tabletop roleplaying game. Again, 1983 ain't comin' back.
Quote from: Haffrung;723988They were roughly comparable businesses in terms of sales, and probably profits. Paizo considers that level of sales a great success. Hasbro considers it a failure.
You're forgetting something. Yeah Hasbro is a megacorp, but that's not the only reason.
Prior to 4e, there was no Pathfinder. So it's reasonably safe to say that WotC had most of the business of the people currently playing Pathfinder and most of the business of anyone who played both 3e and 4e. The only new people they brought in were people who didn't like new versions of D&D or people who hadn't yet played D&D at all and just picked it up on the shelf.
So, prior to 4e, WotC sales were more then either PF or 4e did, and was probably 75-80% or more of those sales
combined.
Then WotC screwed the pooch so hard that if RPGs were a billion dollar business, 4e would be in business textbooks right next to New Coke as an example of what not to do.
Probably on orders from someone in Hasbro who knew fuck all about D&D, and nothing about the OGL, they decided to...
- Develop a new version of the game so divergent from earlier editions that the 3x SRD could not be used to retroclone it and 3PP would be forced into the GSL.
- Rebrand D&D, which was an absolutely moronic move (even worse then New Coke) due to the OGL. Unlike Coke, which could stop selling Coke and try to force people to drink New Coke, WotC had no control over people publishing stuff via OGL. It was stupid for Coke to think people were going to fuck the product and just follow the brand even though they controlled the product. WotC didn't even control the product, they were simply sitting on top of it (apparently WotC was not aware of this.)
- Aggressively (for an RPG company) marketed to new players purposely attracting people who didn't currently play D&D by insulting people who currently did (which was not necessary).
A trifecta of Epic Fail.
The OGL was a great idea provided you are willing to be the main provider of core rules for everyone's 3PPs and push splats that aren't added to the SRD. However it's holding the Tiger by the Tail, you can't let go. WotC let go.
They stepped away from the OGL, leaving the market for whoever could step up to take over the 3x rules.
They pushed the 3x customers away.
They left a lot of 3PPs in the lurch.
Basically they couldn't have done more to help Paizo then if they had written and laid out Pathfinder themselves and just given them the files.
So Hasbro wasn't upset with 4e because they are so rich they don't care. Hasbro was upset with 4e because it performed
worse then 3x..
In other words, it failed to keep enough 3x customers AND failed to bring in enough new customers to match the hemorrhage of customers to Pathfinder.
4e wasn't the success story that simply didn't meet Big Bad Hasbro's expectations, it underperformed due to specific actions purposely taken by Hasbro/WotC to distance the game from earlier versions and earlier players.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;724032All of the nonsense about D&D brand-recognition means exactly dick.
Not to mention (1) D&D as a brand doesn't care for editions, i.e. most people know the name "D&D" but couldn't tell you how many editions there are, forget about the differences between them, and (2) D&D's brand-recognition is mostly built on its legacy, rather than its actuality. People recognize the name "D&D" not because of 4e, but because of the huge splash D&D made in the 80s with the cartoon, the products derived at every sauce, and last but not least the Jack Chick and steam tunnels backlash that occurred then.
Yeah, when I lived in the States I still encountered people in the late 90s who thought D&D was a recruitment tactic for Satanic cults.
There was a documentary I watched a few years ago called Uber Goober that interviewed random people on the street to find out what they knew about F&D. The results were not heartwarming, to say the least. Many people recognized the name, but from there it was mostly talk of virgins, social outcasts, and the Devil.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;723999But then the 4e backlash - fomented online and in the backrooms of companies like Paizo - succeeded. Anything seems possible now. Negative vocal minorities are having a powerful effect in the video game and television industries too in ways that would have seemed unimaginable a few years ago.
I don't think the internet bitching mattered much. It was the simple fact that the uptake of players from older editions (90 per cent of whom don't read forums) wasn't what they anticipated, and they didn't attract enough new players to make up for the shortfall. And they knew that pretty quick. Essentials was already an effort to make the game simpler for new players and more familiar to lapsed players.
I've heard that the idea at WotC all along was to release the 4E full meal deal core books, and then follow with a simpler and more accessible version (Essentials). But I find it hard to believe they were that dumb. And if they were, they've learned their lesson and are making standard Next a lot more newbie and lapsed player friendly. And they've also learned that letting your design be influenced by forum theory-wanks is a terrible idea.
Quote from: The Traveller;723966Only in the same way that WoW is in competition with chess or monopoly. Or indeed baseball or football.
Nope. WOW and D&D do complete. I know, from years of first-hand experience, that both games target the same demographic (i.e. there is an overlap) and it is this same demographic that drives development of both games: build-obsessed min-maxing goal-focused wargamers.
The reason that WOW (and games like them) so consistently win the attention of this demographic is, first and foremost, stability and availability. The game is
there, damn near all of the time, ready and waiting to be played; if they're unable to group up with their guildmates then there's plenty of solo content on hand to do, either with their main character or on one of their many alternates. The rules are the same from session to session, from server to server (no house rules or GM being a dick), and therefore can be--and will be--mastered and exploited to improve performance (and thus drive the loot acquisition cycle to its conclusion: Best In Slot across the board). WOW--and not-TRPGs in general--are better at being the gameplay experience that this demographic (which does a great job at finding flaws and other issues, then bringing them to the developers' attention, making the game better- and free labor is always appreciated by such companies).
I also know that
Descent, and games like it, are also competitors with D&D from the other end. While
Descent is notorious for taking as much set-up time as D&D without the benefits, the audience that prefers the game is also the audience that doesn't like MMOs because D&D and MMOs both are gameplay types that demand regular and steady time commitments from their users to get the maximum value from them. Boardgames do not; this crowd is far more favorable to no-commitment gaming for whatever reason, so they will not get involved with anything that ties them down unless that barrier is likely to be lifted in the near-future (or some external factor influences their decision).
D&D will continue to fail so long as it attempts to target these demographics; the smart thing to do is to
let them go, and instead refocus product develop back to the elements that made it successful (after removing the fad factor; that shit will NEVER happen again). WOTC and Paizo will be fools to continue to pursue strategies that persuasively demonstrate that MMOs or boardgames are better at what those demographics want out of gaming than TRPGs.
Instead, the strengths of the TRPG medium need to be clearly identified and relentlessly emphasized. (This is where we tell the freeform RP crowd and the storygamers to get the fuck out, as they too have other competing media that do what they want better than TRPGs.) Speed of content creation is the biggest one; with properly designed tables, we can create entire galaxies of things to see and interact with in an afternoon- whereas a new dungeon can take months for a MMO or boardgame designer. Emergent gameplay is another; for competitors, this is a thing to be stamped out, but for TRPGs it is the very strongest thing on offer. Immersion is another; that others routinely stamp this out--both users and developers alike--while TRPG users thrive when they embrace it should be a clarion call that TRPGs should stop targeting the war engineers. Abandoning the Adventure Path model is a must; this is nothing more than a WOW questchain in tabletop format, and it plays against the TRPG strengths to follow it. TRPGs are strongest with an Open Table Sandbox model, so we should focus our business and subculture on this paradigm instead.
TL/DR: Competition DOES exist, and TRPGs lose because they're still aping competing media and not playing to their own strengths. Stop doing that.
Quote from: Haffrung;723988You're talking edition warrior geek-speak. In a business sense, all that shit is meaningless. In 4E's waning years, it sold roughly the same number of books as Pathfinder. They were roughly comparable businesses in terms of sales, and probably profits. Paizo considers that level of sales a great success. Hasbro considers it a failure.
The two companies have dramatically different expectations and business models. And that's completely irrespective of the relative merits of the two games, or what forum geeks believe. Hasbro and WotC have a model based on bringing on large numbers of new gamers to D&D. Paizo does not. Pathfinders doesn't now, and never will, have the brand recognition of D&D. It can't do much more than fight for a bigger share of the existing RPG market.
People on these forums think WotC has big job ahead of them regaining the trust of the D&D player base. That's because most of them are hardcore RPG forum geeks who think everyone else who plays D&D is a hardcore forum geek. Most of the people who will buy the next edition of D&D couldn't give a fuck about edition wars, even if they were aware of them in the first place. A lot of them don't even know who are what WotC or Paizo are. They're just people buying and playing a game, not obsessive geeks with unhealthy emotional resentments of book publishers.
Paizo has a tougher road ahead of them. They need to grow a player-base without the name recognition of D&D. How many other RPGs have accomplished that?
Business does not work that way. This isn`t about expectations, this is about returns on capital.
What value was invested into 4ed? Well the D&D IP which could`ve been auctioned off or licensed instead while what did Paizo invest? A few salaries? It`s just not comparable, Paizo realized a return on capital that was vastly greater.
Basically it boils down to if Hasbro could`ve auctioned off D&D when 3.5ed wound down and invested that and everything they spent in an average mutual fund, would they have made more or less profit than investing in 4ed. Now we don`t have the facts to make this judgment but we can tell that PF was vastly more successful as it mafe profits in the same ballpark as 4ed on a vastly smaller investment of capital.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724077Nope. WOW and D&D do complete.
No, they don't.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724077I know, from years of first-hand experience, that both games target the same demographic (i.e. there is an overlap) and it is this same demographic that drives development of both games: build-obsessed min-maxing goal-focused wargamers.
That's not a demographic, that's a faction.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724077TL/DR: Competition DOES exist, and TRPGs lose because they're still aping competing media and not playing to their own strengths. Stop doing that.
I agree that TTRPGs should play to their own strengths, most of the horseshittery of the past decade has been because TTRPGs were trying to be CRPGs, whether that was in forger terms or 4e terms, but I still disagree that TTRPGs are in competition with CRPGs as long as the former recognises what it does differently. D&D is not the entire RPG hobby.
Just because both games feature elves and dwarves doesn't make them any more in competition for time than WoW is competing for Star Trek for time because Star Trek features beardos and people with pointy ears.
Quote from: The Traveller;724084No, they don't.
Yes, they are. I have
first-hand experience this this is so; I talk with others who--like me--travel in both worlds, and that means talking to folks who cut off involvement in one for the other. Most quit D&D for WOW; a few go the other way, but that shit be rare, and then there's folk like me who do play both sorts of games because we grok the differences and make the most of them.
QuoteThat's not a demographic, that's a faction.
Nope, definitely a demographic; these are the folks that the Denners are part of, and they dominate interaction with the developers in both media because they analyze the rules of the game and show their math when they present findings. This is the 20% that drives 80% of development (and, justifiably, get preferential treatment for beta testing), and in MMOs drives the server economies. These are the alpha gamers that drive the trends and steer the culture, the leaders that the majority follow because they make the videos, run the podcasts, set up and run the websites, or otherwise do the work to spread the word about what works, what doesn't, and why. Don't think so? WOTC and Paizo do; they listen to these folks on a daily basis, as did the Next team, because
they can and do find gamebreaking flaws and explain how and why shit be broken. (Unlike the WOW devs, who heed them and spit out hotfixes, both WOTC and Paizo tend to be fucktarded about fixing the flaws brought to their attention.)
So long as the one TRPG that matters relies on an Organized Play campaign to be the primary node in its user network, you're going to have this issue persist because Organized Play = Raiding and thus caters to the same sorts of player personalities. One of the ways out of this trap is to kill Organized Play entirely.
QuoteI agree that TTRPGs should play to their own strengths, most of the horseshittery of the past decade has been because TTRPGs were trying to be CRPGs, whether that was in forger terms or 4e terms, but I still disagree that TTRPGs are in competition with CRPGs as long as the former recognises what it does differently. D&D is not the entire RPG hobby.
For all intents and purposes,
D&D IS THE HOBBY. As D&D goes, so goes ALL TRPGs. WOW is in the same position WRT MMORPGs; if WOW goes down you can kiss the entire MMORPG section goodbye, and for the same reasons: most who quit the leader quit the sector entirely instead of going to some other game in that sector. (And yes, Pathfinder is D&D; cunt-punt anyone who claims otherwise.)
QuoteJust because both games feature elves and dwarves doesn't make them any more in competition for time than WoW is competing for Star Trek for time because Star Trek features beardos and people with pointy ears.
Nope. So long as Pathfinder Society and Living (Whatever) remains the one primary node, sponsored by the publisher, for users to play the game then it remains true that TRPGs are in direct competition with MMORPGs for players
because you're targeting the same demographics and MMOs do this sort of gameplay far better. Adventure Paths, Organized Play, etc. are all Theme Park style of play organization and MMOs kick the living shit out of TRPGs for this format.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;723960Some random personal observations from teaching a group of complete D&D newbies to play Essentials:
- The distinction between ability score and ability modifier was hard to grasp, gummed up the works, and had to be taught several times. They just couldn't grok that the former was only there as a mandatory legacy of the random stat days.
Which is why True20 and M&M 3rd Edition just went ahead and told people to use a point system where the modifier IS the stat.
JG
Quote from: CRKrueger;724037You're forgetting something. Yeah Hasbro is a megacorp, but that's not the only reason.
Prior to 4e, there was no Pathfinder. So it's reasonably safe to say that WotC had most of the business of the people currently playing Pathfinder and most of the business of anyone who played both 3e and 4e. The only new people they brought in were people who didn't like new versions of D&D or people who hadn't yet played D&D at all and just picked it up on the shelf.
So, prior to 4e, WotC sales were more then either PF or 4e did, and was probably 75-80% or more of those sales combined.
Then WotC screwed the pooch so hard that if RPGs were a billion dollar business, 4e would be in business textbooks right next to New Coke as an example of what not to do.
Which is why in my review at The Banning Place, I referred to 4E as "New D&D" and the prior editions as "D&D Classic."
QuoteProbably on orders from someone in Hasbro who knew fuck all about D&D, and nothing about the OGL, they decided to...
- Develop a new version of the game so divergent from earlier editions that the 3x SRD could not be used to retroclone it and 3PP would be forced into the GSL.
- Rebrand D&D, which was an absolutely moronic move (even worse then New Coke) due to the OGL. Unlike Coke, which could stop selling Coke and try to force people to drink New Coke, WotC had no control over people publishing stuff via OGL. It was stupid for Coke to think people were going to fuck the product and just follow the brand even though they controlled the product.
I've always been a Pepsi guy anyway.
Quote- Aggressively (for an RPG company) marketed to new players purposely attracting people who didn't currently play D&D by insulting people who currently did (which was not necessary).
A trifecta of Epic Fail.
The OGL was a great idea provided you are willing to be the main provider of core rules for everyone's 3PPs and push splats that aren't added to the SRD. However it's holding the Tiger by the Tail, you can't let go. WotC let go.
They stepped away from the OGL, leaving the market for whoever could step up to take over the 3x rules.
They pushed the 3x customers away.
They left a lot of 3PPs in the lurch.
Basically they couldn't have done more to help Paizo then if they had written and laid out Pathfinder themselves and just given them the files.
So Hasbro wasn't upset with 4e because they are so rich they don't care. Hasbro was upset with 4e because it performed worse then 3x..
In other words, it failed to keep enough 3x customers AND failed to bring in enough new customers to match the hemorrhage of customers to Pathfinder.
4e wasn't the success story that simply didn't meet Big Bad Hasbro's expectations, it underperformed due to specific actions purposely taken by Hasbro/WotC to distance the game from earlier versions and earlier players.
Or, sometimes it's better to be obscure but supported by your community than famous and resented;
Or, sometimes there IS such a thing as bad publicity.
JG
Quote from: CRKrueger;724037Probably on orders from someone in Hasbro who knew fuck all about D&D, and nothing about the OGL, they decided to...
I thought it was fairly widely known by now that 4E was a hail-mary, save-the-farm, let's-put-on-a-show response to Hasbro's make-or-break $50M/year revenue target for brands.
I don't know Hasbro specifically, but based on my understanding of large multinationals generally I would be gobsmacked if anyone at Hasbro was even in the same time zone as any decisions that were made about 4E. That just wouldn't make sense given the way the company is organized.
To this day I find it all a shame, since the game we got I actually had fun playing in terms of a tactical fantasy game, though one that wasn't too hard to learn or teach people(IME-I really didn't have too much trouble teaching people this like I think I would have a full-blown, rulers and metrics wargame).
We could still role-play in it between fights. But yeah, I pretty much accept that the game we got wasn't necessarily the one everyone wanted. I think the game gets way too much hate than it deserves, though it certainly deserves some criticism.
I admit, I have to be one of those 'boring' people when it comes to RPGs that when I feel like playing an edition of a game, I grab the edition I want to play and don't take it as an insult when a company releases a new edition I'm not fond of. I decided to stick with Shadowrun 2e/3e after 4e and 5e weren't the games I particularly really wanted to play in the end, and D&D I swap editions of rather commonly depending on the mood(some buddies around here dig a more wargamey type deal and enjoy 4e.) But no doubt Hasbro dropped some balls here. I sorta wonder what kind of sales they really wanted off of 3, to be honest-as far as I know 3x sold pretty damn well. I mean whatever it was it was obvious they wanted more and more, but killing the golden goose doesn't seem to work out too well.
Quote from: James Gillen;724125Which is why in my review at The Banning Place, I referred to 4E as "New D&D" and the prior editions as "D&D Classic."
I imagine that was well-received.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118So long as the one TRPG that matters relies on an Organized Play campaign to be the primary node in its user network, you're going to have this issue persist because Organized Play = Raiding and thus caters to the same sorts of player personalities. One of the ways out of this trap is to kill Organized Play entirely.
This makes me happy when I read it. I feel a Morrissey song coming on...
The kind people
Have a wonderful dream
Organized Play on the guillotine
Cause structures like you
Make me feel so tired
When will you die? {repeat}:cool:
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118For all intents and purposes{...}
And this was used correctly, too! It's like Christmas!
:cheerleader:
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Yes, they are. I have first-hand experience this this is so; I talk with others who--like me--travel in both worlds, and that means talking to folks who cut off involvement in one for the other. Most quit D&D for WOW; a few go the other way, but that shit be rare, and then there's folk like me who do play both sorts of games because we grok the differences and make the most of them.
Yeah, I'm sorry Traveller, but my experience matches Brad's. Prior to MMORPGs I only had to offer to run any campaign to be swamped by the demand from friends. Now I have to pitch games like a Hollywood screenwriter, and if they don't like the sound of it they politely turn me down and return to raiding. And no, it's not because we're adults now with busy schedules and stuff, most of the ones who stayed gamers still invest enormous amounts of time in their drug of choice.
The one saving grace has been a rising psychological/social need in some people to play face-to-face games again, but that's only after they've overdosed on screen-based entertainment (and partly due to the fact that video game consoles have been failing to provide multiplayer games that can be played together in one apartment around beer and pizza).
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724077Abandoning the Adventure Path model is a must; this is nothing more than a WOW questchain in tabletop format, and it plays against the TRPG strengths to follow it. TRPGs are strongest with an Open Table Sandbox model, so we should focus our business and subculture on this paradigm instead.
Paizo is hardly going to abandon an AP model that makes them lots of money, for a sandboxing model that would make them less money.
OTOH since WoTC APs were not popular, maybe WoTC have little to lose by promoting sandbox play. They could hire the Frog God/Necromancer guys and others with a track record of sandboxy success.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Yes, they are. I have first-hand experience this this is so; I talk with others who--like me--travel in both worlds, and that means talking to folks who cut off involvement in one for the other.
So out of the millions and millions of people who play MMORPGs, you're here to tell us that your anecdotal experiences with a miniscule fraction of them which may or may not be the product of your imagination speak for the majority or even a significant proportion?
First hand experience no less. Do you imagine that MMORPG culture is somehow a mist shrouded and mysterious distant land which can't be reached in three seconds by clicking a few buttons.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Most quit D&D for WOW; a few go the other way, but that shit be rare, and then there's folk like me who do play both sorts of games because we grok the differences and make the most of them.
If your friends quit D&D to play WoW and somehow make an association between the two further than say quitting poker nights because you prefer to play WoW, they are deluded. These are two completely different hobbies.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Nope, definitely a demographic; these are the folks that the Denners are part of, and they dominate interaction with the developers in both media because they analyze the rules of the game and show their math when they present findings. This is the 20% that drives 80% of development (and, justifiably, get preferential treatment for beta testing), and in MMOs drives the server economies. These are the alpha gamers that drive the trends and steer the culture, the leaders that the majority follow because they make the videos, run the podcasts, set up and run the websites, or otherwise do the work to spread the word about what works, what doesn't, and why. Don't think so? WOTC and Paizo do; they listen to these folks on a daily basis, as did the Next team, because they can and do find gamebreaking flaws and explain how and why shit be broken. (Unlike the WOW devs, who heed them and spit out hotfixes, both WOTC and Paizo tend to be fucktarded about fixing the flaws brought to their attention.)
Aaand you just described a faction. And from the sound of it I'd be rather happy if they stayed away from TTRPGs entirely. Alpha gamers, ye gods.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118For all intents and purposes, D&D IS THE HOBBY. As D&D goes, so goes ALL TRPGs. WOW is in the same position WRT MMORPGs; if WOW goes down you can kiss the entire MMORPG section goodbye, and for the same reasons: most who quit the leader quit the sector entirely instead of going to some other game in that sector. (And yes, Pathfinder is D&D; cunt-punt anyone who claims otherwise.)
So lets say Next fails followed shortly thereafter by Pathfinder, lets take a hypothetical. What happens then? Do older editions cease being useful or fun? Does it stop the many other RPG producers from taking up the slack even if its neccessary? Does it stop people telling their friends and spreading the word by themselves?
RPGs are not like computer games, for the purposes of this segue in two ways - one, an older edition of a game is often just as good a game as any newer editions, and two, by the very nature of the hobby one edition is all that's needed to have a lifetime of fresh new fun. Unlike computer games this hobby doesn't need constant new iterations of a brand in order to remain relevant.
Paizo recognises this and profit by it, WotC/Hasbro didn't and suffer for it.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Nope. So long as Pathfinder Society and Living (Whatever) remains the one primary node, sponsored by the publisher, for users to play the game then it remains true that TRPGs are in direct competition with MMORPGs for players because you're targeting the same demographics
You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means. A demographic is something like "males aged 12-50, middle class, median income" and almost all forms of discretionary entertainment targeted at men are targeted at that huge demographic. Sports, card games, computer games, everything. Not to mention the many women involved.
You appear to believe that the TTRPG hobby wants or needs the kind of 4e denner faction that briefly made an appearance and which (according to you) dictates from on high where games like WoW go next. Even beyond the fact that the two hobbies aren't in competition, you've manufactured this notion that a phenomenon which only appeared 30+ years after RPGs is somehow a crucial fundamental element of the hobby, which is locked in mortal combat with the MMORPG industry.
If logic were a car you'd have wrapped it around a lamp post by now.
My opinion, and notice I'm not weighting anecdote as fact, is that the overwhelming majority of WoW players couldn't give one fuck for the opinions of "alpha gamers" and boiler room number crunchers. With any luck these types will stay with MMORPGs, so in that sense long live WoW.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118and MMOs do this sort of gameplay far better. Adventure Paths, Organized Play, etc. are all Theme Park style of play organization and MMOs kick the living shit out of TRPGs for this format.
If you're playing an RPG like a wargame you're doing it wrong, and all an MMORPG is able to achieve is wargaming. You will notice the first two letters in the RPG title? Computers aren't so hot at that bit.
I think what you're saying in a roundabout way is that TTRPGs should play to their strengths, and this I completely agree with. I strongly disagree that TT and MM are in any kind of direct competition however, precisely because of those different strengths.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;724171Yeah, I'm sorry Traveller, but my experience matches Brad's. Prior to MMORPGs I only had to offer to run any campaign to be swamped by the demand from friends. Now I have to pitch games like a Hollywood screenwriter, and if they don't like the sound of it they politely turn me down and return to raiding. And no, it's not because we're adults now with busy schedules and stuff, most of the ones who stayed gamers still invest enormous amounts of time in their drug of choice.
I don't see how that's any different from choosing to play WoW over say joining a football team. Or choosing to play football over WoW or D&D for that matter. New and popular hobbies take away from the time available to other hobbies regardless of what they are.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;724171The one saving grace has been a rising psychological/social need in some people to play face-to-face games again, but that's only after they've overdosed on screen-based entertainment
And its not the first time this has happened either, I can recall at least two previous occasions where people generally just got tired of boxes that go bing.
There's a real lack of emphasis on the unique strengths of RPGs when trying to expand player bases I notice, that could ameliorate many misunderstandings.
Quote from: Daztur;724078Business does not work that way. This isn`t about expectations, this is about returns on capital.
What value was invested into 4ed? Well the D&D IP which could`ve been auctioned off or licensed instead while what did Paizo invest? A few salaries? It`s just not comparable, Paizo realized a return on capital that was vastly greater.
Basically it boils down to if Hasbro could`ve auctioned off D&D when 3.5ed wound down and invested that and everything they spent in an average mutual fund, would they have made more or less profit than investing in 4ed. Now we don`t have the facts to make this judgment but we can tell that PF was vastly more successful as it mafe profits in the same ballpark as 4ed on a vastly smaller investment of capital.
Excellent point - in 2008 WoTC had an established IP brand of significant value, the D&D brand. Paizo had already established some Business Goodwill, but nothing comparable. 2008-2011 WoTC probably had higher revenue from 4e D&D overall (including DDI) than Paizo had from Pathfinder, but Paizo didn't just sell more hardcopy product (which they did!), Paizo also made a far, far greater return on investment. They both took in more money and established their own brand - which is still nowhere near as valuable as D&D, but to come from nearly nowhere to where they are now was an impressive achievement.
Quote from: The Traveller;724084No, they don't.
I agree with Bradford. The way I would put it is that they compete for the time of the same audience.
Quote from: The Traveller;724084Just because both games feature elves and dwarves doesn't make them any more in competition for time than WoW is competing for Star Trek for time because Star Trek features beardos and people with pointy ears.
They compete because they both focus on the playing of an individual characters, they both share advancement over time, they both have a strong social component, and they both tackle the same genre in roughly the same way.
When I started playing circa 1978-79, I remember people running what we would call a first person shooter deathmatch. I remember groups running raids where the only things different from WoW is that they were all sitting around a table. In my rural hometown with a hundred or so middle and high school gamers people hopped campaigns with their characters like people hop groups in Everquest or WoW.
Then as the years progress and the roleplaying hobby diversified into other forms like cRPGs, first person shoots, LARPs, etc, I saw various types of players get peeled away into the alternative. It not that they disappeared but their frequency went way down as the alternative took hold.
Finally MMORPGs burst onto the since with an experience very similar Tabletop the main difference is the substitution of a computer referee for the human referee. Ultimately what tipped the balance was that MMORPGs are more convenient allowing the player to play at a time of their own choosing with little setup.
Thus MMORPGs have won. Their audience are several orders of magnitude larger for at least a decade or so.
What this means for Tabletop Roleplaying is that it can no longer act like its the only game in town for the playing of individuals where the players is free to attempt anything that the character can do. As you, Bradford, and other stated it has to focus on it own unique strengths; the human referee, the face to face gaming, etc.
It has to take advantage of new technology in a way that complements not supplants the the hobby like Virtual Tabletop software.
You are right and wrong. You are wrong to dismissive of MMORPGs are irrelevant . You are right in that Tabletop need to quit trying to be like other thing and focus on its strengths.
Quote from: S'mon;724178Paizo also made a far, far greater return on investment. They both took in more money and established their own brand - which is still nowhere near as valuable as D&D, but to come from nearly nowhere to where they are now was an impressive achievement.
The thing to remember though is that Paizo was sort of hanging on to their complementary status as a D&D publisher--it would be more impresssive if they created something completely new.
Paizo had the following factors that other D20 companies (those who were left) had.
- Were once the official place to get Dragon and Dungeon. This gave them a very large market because of these ties.
- Had a very successful line of Adventure Path modules and their own world.
- Had staff made up of Former WoTC staff, which meant that they could keep the culture. While WoTC kept removing people over the years, Paizo consistently kept building up culture by using former staff from the Late TSR/Early WoTC days.
- Were able to use the OGL version of the 3e D&D Rules to their advantage after seeing all the 4E changes and the controversies involved with it. This gave them an instant loyalty factor, and with the other three factors above plus a lack of effective competition in that regard, helped cement their power base.
The best comparison I could make is that I think Paizo is akin to the D&D Brand as Star Fleet Battles is to Star Trek--Guys who were in the right place at the right time, and had an advantage based on a very permissive license.
I agree with Bradford as well, based on personal experience with some hardcore gamers who basically didn't say it out loud, but preferred to raid on WoW instead of playing a tabletop RPG. They get what they want at a very low personal investment cost, not having to schedule a game, or play more than one-two hours at a time, while the computer game essentially provides them with the game play they want with pretty graphics and all the gizmos.
That may not be such a bad thing, and indeed, I completely agree that part of the mistake at least was to try to make tabletop role playing games emulate the raid experience and to rely on a canned organize play experience to build an audience, instead of emphasizing precisely what makes the tabletop game play unique and appealing in itself.
Now, someone said that some people thirst for a face-to-face experience, and that is true. I think that in that sense role playing games could present a face that appeals to people who don't want to sit in a dark room in front of their computer screen for hours, but construe gaming as a social experience. These people exist, and they are not automatically the hardcore gamers who will naturally drift towards computer raiding and WoW.
Quote from: Daztur;724078Business does not work that way. This isn`t about expectations, this is about returns on capital.
What value was invested into 4ed? Well the D&D IP which could`ve been auctioned off or licensed instead while what did Paizo invest? A few salaries? It`s just not comparable, Paizo realized a return on capital that was vastly greater.
Basically it boils down to if Hasbro could`ve auctioned off D&D when 3.5ed wound down and invested that and everything they spent in an average mutual fund, would they have made more or less profit than investing in 4ed. Now we don`t have the facts to make this judgment but we can tell that PF was vastly more successful as it mafe profits in the same ballpark as 4ed on a vastly smaller investment of capital.
Forget about the license. Hasbro has shown they are perfectly content to hang onto a license as an asset for years and years, even if it's not making any money.
So we're down to how much in real money WotC invested in 4E versus how much Paizo put into Pathfinder. My impression is they have comparable development and production compartments. I doubt WotC sunk much more into 4E than Paizo put into Pathfinder.
QuoteInstead, the strengths of the TRPG medium need to be clearly identified and relentlessly emphasized. (This is where we tell the freeform RP crowd and the storygamers to get the fuck out, as they too have other competing media that do what they want better than TRPGs.)
This is where I see an odd view. I notice people emphasize the Tabletop games can do certain things better than the Computer versions, but it seems the stuff that would be more harder for a computer to copy (free-form play, storytelling, meta-attributes) get derided, while the classic D&D stats-heavy play is consider the "saving grace", but CRPGs can excel at that better than humans. I think it's a lot easier to do a stats-heavy game like D&D or GURPS and less easier to do a game like FATE, for instance.
Quote from: Benoist;724213Now, someone said that some people thirst for a face-to-face experience, and that is true. I think that in that sense role playing games could present a face that appeals to people who don't want to sit in a dark room in front of their computer screen for hours, but construe gaming as a social experience. These people exist, and they are not automatically the hardcore gamers who will naturally drift towards computer raiding and WoW.
I will add to this that if MMORPGs have an Achilles heel is that they are railroads when dealing with anything that does not involve players. That the technology is labor intensive to create and a lot less flexible than tabletop. That eventually at some point you will reach the equivalent of "finishing the book" for an MMORPG. At which point you wait for the next update or move on to another fresh MMORPG.
Tabletop RPGs do require more logistic to get going like getting a group of people to meet at the same time. But on the other the flexibility of the human referee means that the course of a tabletop session can change in ways CRPGs, MMORPGs, even LARPs have trouble doing.
Which is why in my opinion it is absolutely critical for designers of tabletop RPGs to enable the human referee as much as it is feasibly possible. Note don't equal this as advocating that "rules lite" is better. It means that within the goals of your design make sure you make sure that your mechanics causes the least amount of work for the referee and player.
Throughout my 30 years of playing tabletop I find that the problems usually result from bad presentation or a lack of prepared content. Not from overly complicated mechanics.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118Nope, definitely a demographic; these are the folks that the Denners are part of, and they dominate interaction with the developers in both media because they analyze the rules of the game and show their math when they present findings. This is the 20% that drives 80% of development (and, justifiably, get preferential treatment for beta testing), and in MMOs drives the server economies.
Blizzard may go to great efforts to keep those players happy, but they also realize that most of their revenue comes from casual players. All the steady revenue from CharOP and Raid types wouldn't matter much if the game wasn't massively popular and accessible to new and casual players. Blizzard has strategies to attract and keep those casual players, even knowing that most will never become hardcores.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118These are the alpha gamers that drive the trends and steer the culture, the leaders that the majority follow because they make the videos, run the podcasts, set up and run the websites, or otherwise do the work to spread the word about what works, what doesn't, and why. Don't think so? WOTC and Paizo do; they listen to these folks on a daily basis, as did the Next team, because they can and do find gamebreaking flaws and explain how and why shit be broken. (Unlike the WOW devs, who heed them and spit out hotfixes, both WOTC and Paizo tend to be fucktarded about fixing the flaws brought to their attention.)
Listening to hardcores and trying to fix mathematical 'flaws' in the game is what led to 4E. Fact is, the D&D market has rejected the system-mastery CharOp balance uber alles model. Efforts to make it a math-first game distort the system into something unrecognizable to its fans.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;724118So long as the one TRPG that matters relies on an Organized Play campaign to be the primary node in its user network, you're going to have this issue persist because Organized Play = Raiding and thus caters to the same sorts of player personalities. One of the ways out of this trap is to kill Organized Play entirely.
That may be true. But we don't know how much WotC does rely on organized play to grow the network. But if it really is crucial, Next is going to have real problems because they're promoting it as a customizable system, rather than a standardized play mode.
Quote from: James Gillen;724122Which is why True20 and M&M 3rd Edition just went ahead and told people to use a point system where the modifier IS the stat.
Keeping the base dice values is one case where I think WotC is catering too much to sacred cows. It makes no mechanical difference if you ditch them and keep only the derived values. As you pointed out, it's something even first-time players scratch their heads about. You can play traditional-style D&D without that kind of kludgy legacy mechanic.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;724171The one saving grace has been a rising psychological/social need in some people to play face-to-face games again, but that's only after they've overdosed on screen-based entertainment (and partly due to the fact that video game consoles have been failing to provide multiplayer games that can be played together in one apartment around beer and pizza).
WotC are well aware that there's a boom in face-to-face tabletop gaming (as is Paizo - their Pathfinder card game is selling like gangbusters). Hasbro has to be breathing down their necks asking why D&D - being a face-to-face tabletop game - isn't getting more of that love.
So Bradley is right: forget the MMO market. It's gone. Look to the boardgame market. They're square in the cross-hairs of the demographic you want to attract to D&D: 20 and 30 something nerds with disposable income who have already shown a sustained willingness to get together with friends face-to-face and play games that require thinking.
Quote from: S'mon;724174Paizo is hardly going to abandon an AP model that makes them lots of money, for a sandboxing model that would make them less money.
OTOH since WoTC APs were not popular, maybe WoTC have little to lose by promoting sandbox play. They could hire the Frog God/Necromancer guys and others with a track record of sandboxy success.
I'm hoping that's the case. Let Paizo have grindy combats strung together by fixed plotlines. WotC has the opportunity to play to the strengths of RPGs with flexible, player-driven adventures.
Problem is, they'll have to train a whole new generation of DMs. I've listened to reviews of some of the playtest adventures by 4E DMs and they literally have no idea what to do with a sandbox setting. They're so accustomed to spending a couple hours preparing for a single encounter, that they imagine sandbox play takes tremendous amounts of work. A big job of Next will be to teach and support new DMs in running open-ended adventures.
Quote from: estar;724198I agree with Bradford. The way I would put it is that they compete for the time of the same audience.
Quote from: Benoist;724213I agree with Bradford as well, based on personal experience with some hardcore gamers
Maybe the difference here is that I don't play with hardcore gamers. I play with normal everyday people who have a diverse range of interests, families and jobs. They choose to play RPGs with me in the same way they choose to go fishing instead of playing WoW.
The kind of person for whom life is a choice between WoW and D&D probably isn't someone I'd want at my table. Or probably in the hobby.
No offence to any reader who is actually like that.
Quote from: estar;724198They compete because they both focus on the playing of an individual characters, they both share advancement over time, they both have a strong social component, and they both tackle the same genre in roughly the same way.
Oh come off it, either you've never played an MMO or you're taking the piss here. About the only thing which is accurate in the above is the advancement method. And of course that assumes everyone is playing D&D/Pathfinder which to my mind seems highly unlikely these days. The level of blinkeredness in the online commentary of this hobby is staggering - like that thread where everyone was saying G+ was either RPGs or Photography, despite there being 200 million people using G+.
Quote from: estar;724198What this means for Tabletop Roleplaying is that it can no longer act like its the only game in town for the playing of individuals where the players is free to attempt anything that the character can do.
This doesn't even make sense.
Quote from: Haffrung;724230So Bradley is right: forget the MMO market.
You people must know way too many manically obsessive MMO players.
Quote from: The Traveller;724308Maybe the difference here is that I don't play with hardcore gamers. I play with normal everyday people who have a diverse range of interests, families and jobs. They choose to play RPGs with me in the same way they choose to go fishing instead of playing WoW.
The kind of person for whom life is a choice between WoW and D&D probably isn't someone I'd want at my table. Or probably in the hobby.
Agreed. There's no reason D&D has to be an uber-geek hobby for someone who doesn't have any other kind of social or recreational activites.
Quote from: The Traveller;724312You people must know way too many manically obsessive MMO players.
I know people who play MMOs casually. But I don't think even they are well-suited to tabletop RPGs. People I know who play MMOs casually either do it to turn off their brain, or they like the first-person-combat aspect. Tabletop RPGs need to emphasis what they can do but MMOs and CRPGs can't.
Quote from: Haffrung;724230Problem is, they'll have to train a whole new generation of DMs. I've listened to reviews of some of the playtest adventures by 4E DMs and they literally have no idea what to do with a sandbox setting. They're so accustomed to spending a couple hours preparing for a single encounter, that they imagine sandbox play takes tremendous amounts of work. A big job of Next will be to teach and support new DMs in running open-ended adventures.
This I see as the largest hurdle for WOTC to clear considering that almost everyone who worked for them who had a clue about that either retired or was let go.
All the last generation knows is Thunderdome.
Quote from: Haffrung;724316Agreed. There's no reason D&D has to be an uber-geek hobby for someone who doesn't have any other kind of social or recreational activites.
Yeah I'd say this is where everyone's wires are getting crossed. We must play with a different type of people entirely.
My existing group consists of a construction worker, an accountant, an insurance salesman and a musician. They might get a few hours of computer or playstation gaming in during the week, but there's no way they could be described as hardcore gamers. The insurance guy is a hardcore kitesurfer, but that's about it.
Quote from: The Traveller;724326My existing group consists of a construction worker, an accountant, an insurance salesman and a musician.
Now i have a mental picture of you sitting down to game with the Village People.
Quote from: Haffrung;724230Look to the boardgame market. They're square in the cross-hairs of the demographic you want to attract to D&D: 20 and 30 something nerds with disposable income who have already shown a sustained willingness to get together with friends face-to-face and play games that require thinking.
At last - something on which we can agree.
Quote from: Haffrung;724230I've listened to reviews of some of the playtest adventures by 4E DMs and they literally have no idea what to do with a sandbox setting. They're so accustomed to spending a couple hours preparing for a single encounter, that they imagine sandbox play takes tremendous amounts of work.
(http://oi47.tinypic.com/t7lq80.jpg)
Quote from: One Horse Town;724333Now i have a mental picture of you sitting down to game with the Village People.
Haha! Don't give them ideas, I'll be starting each game to a rousing rendition of YMCA. I don't think they read RPG boards thankfully.
Serious question though - does everyone here actually play with meganerds or what's going on, I feel like Daniel Craig waking up in the middle of The Invasion.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;724320This I see as the largest hurdle for WOTC to clear considering that almost everyone who worked for them who had a clue about that either retired or was let go.
All the last generation knows is Thunderdome.
Bust The Deal, Face The Wheel!
Today, many people who are aware of tabletop RPGs and like them will think about trying an MMO if they cant find a convenient way to set up a tabletop group and keep it going.
But, other than this western fantasy MMOs like WoW are just a big fad that will severely shrink in the immediate future. I give much more life time to MtG than WoW for that matter.
I know a lot of people whose face to face games broke up due to real life and have moved to MMO's because they aren't the same thing, but, they can scratch some of the same itch, especially if you get on a roleplaying server, and get in a guild where people try to talk IC and don't have names like Massengill Getsdastinkout or Patme Ondamoneymaker (yes those are real names Albion players on a normal DAoC server. I went to a roleplaying server and picked Midgard and never looked back.)
Quote from: The Traveller;724308Maybe the difference here is that I don't play with hardcore gamers. I play with normal everyday people who have a diverse range of interests, families and jobs. They choose to play RPGs with me in the same way they choose to go fishing instead of playing WoW.
And if you plucked random set of 10 of these folks 8 of them would opt to play WOW with their leisure time instead of D&D.
Quote from: The Traveller;724308The kind of person for whom life is a choice between WoW and D&D probably isn't someone I'd want at my table. Or probably in the hobby.
With WOW around 9 million subscribers plus the other MMORPGs, I think you need to rethink your stereotype of the typical MMORPG player. MMORPGs are way more the mainstream activity compared to tabletop roleplaying.
Quote from: estar;724351And if you plucked random set of 10 of these folks 8 of them would opt to play WOW with their leisure time instead of D&D.
With WOW around 9 million subscribers plus the other MMORPGs, I think you need to rethink your stereotype of the typical MMORPG player. MMORPGs are way more the mainstream activity compared to tabletop roleplaying.
You've a habit of declaiming as fact what is entirely your own personal opinion estar. I doubt 8 out of 10 are even aware of the existence of TTRPGs beyond some vague notion of playing Risk with magic, let alone the unique advantages TTPRGs have.
Also, "the kind of person for whom life is a choice between WoW and D&D" is not what I would categorise as a typical WoW player, so you've misrepresented me there.
Quote from: The Traveller;724338Serious question though - does everyone here actually play with meganerds or what's going on, I feel like Daniel Craig waking up in the middle of The Invasion.
My entire current group are what most TTRPG message board denizens would consider extremely casual gamers. They have no interest in system mastery, builds, studying the rulebooks (or in even reading the rules in some cases). The majority, like me, do not really enjoy CRPGs (too limited and generally too focused on combat). Only three of the nine have played WoW (or any other MMO) seriously in the last year and only one regularly plays WOW and only because a couple of his friends from work play.
Few of the things that fans of WoW (and similar MMOs) really like ever find their way into my TTRPGs, so I don't generally attract MMO players to my games. That's fine by me as I believe most such players would unlikely to really enjoy my campaigns all that much. As I have no problems getting players for my games, I've never seen the need to try to attract serious MMO players. Perhaps the industry needs to attract them to make more money, but I don't believe the hobby needs to put much emphasis on trying to convert MMO players to TTRPGs.
I don't really play ANY computer games (or console games, or any other video games). But many fantasy computer games have a large overlap of interest with table-top gamers.
Back in the day, I played computer RPGs (if you can call it that) like Eye of the Beholder and Might and Magic: Secret of the Inner Sanctum. The experience of interacting with a fantasy world has a lot in common with the appeal of RPGs.
I know people that became interested in RPGs because of games like WoW, and I know people that became interested in games like WoW because of their interest in RPGs.
They may be different, but thematically, they cover a lot of the same ground. People that like one are likely to like at least aspects of the other, and vice versa. In the sense that you have a limited amount of time, it is very possible - even probable - that you'll pick one over the other.
Even for people like myself that have chosen Traditional RPGs as their preferred option can see the appeal of computer RPGs.
Yes that's a great point that needs to be spelled out: MMOs and computer RPGs are not just competing with tabletop games. They are also very useful and beneficial, because they help make many of the basic jargon of role playing games intuitively understandable to someone who would have never played D&D before. Notions like levels, classes, AC and hit points become no brainers. So it's not all negative, is what I'm saying.
Once again, this isn't being framed as CRPGs versus TTRPGs, because that's not the reality. If those are the only two options some individuals have, there's not much I can say to them. On the other hand, people, especially casual gamers, can play both and have other hobbies and pastimes as well. And they very much do.
Some seem to think that the hardcore "alpha" WoW players wouldn't have the time to play TTRPGs. I agree and further I'm glad they're not interested if the denners are anything to go by.
Some seem to think it would be a waste of time targetting WoW players at all, even that vast majority who are casual gamers with other interests. I don't see why that should be the case, as long as the unique advantages of TTRPGs are clearly put forward.
I'm not advocating targetting WoW players in particular. I don't see why that would be a priority. It's not D&D versus WoW, it's TTRPGs versus every other kind of discretionary entertainment, the same way that MMOs are competing for peoples' free time with their advantages.
I hope that clears everything up.
Quote from: The Traveller;724338Serious question though - does everyone here actually play with meganerds or what's going on, I feel like Daniel Craig waking up in the middle of The Invasion.
My group:
Player 1Longevity: Playing together since 1980.
Vocation: Golf pro
RPG rank in hobbies: Number four, after golf, playing guitar, and playing boardgames.
WoW: Never played. Does play CRPGs on XBox though.
Reads RPG forums: No
CharOp: No. Never takes books home or powergames.
Edition wars: Has played AD&D, 3E, and Next. Didn't know 4E existed until I introduced him to Essentials a few months ago.
Player 2Longevity: Playing together since 1982.
Vocation: Courier sales.
RPG rank in hobbies: Number two, after following the CFL.
WoW: Never played. Doesn't play CRPGs either.
Reads RPG forums: No
CharOp: No. Doesn't power game.
Edition Wars: Has played AD&D, 3E, and Next. Didn't know 4E existed until I introduced Essentials to him a few months ago.
Player 3Longevity: Playing together since 1982.
Vocation: Cancer researcher.
RPG rank in hobbies: Number four, after coaching soccer, camping, and squash.
WoW: Never played. Doesn't play CRPGs either.
Reads RPG forums?: No
CharOp: Yes. Will take books home and build characters.
Edition Wars: Has played every edition of D&D. Preferred 3E for a while then became disenchanted, disliked 4E (though not strongly), and likes Next.
Player 4Longevity: Playing together since 2011.
Vocation: Dentist
RPG rank in hobbies: Number two, after skiing.
WoW: Never played. Doesn't play CRPGs either.
Reads RPG forums?: Yes
CharOp: Yes. Will take books home and build characters.
Edition Wars: Has played every edition of D&D. Preferred 3E for a while then became disenchanted, disliked 4E, and really likes Next.
More than half my French group has played or is playing WoW right now. One of these players basically drifted off our group's radar, and after I inquired about it, he told me he was back playing WoW.
My English speaking group does not include WoW players.
I know there is at least one player in Ernie's group who was or is a WoW gamer as well. Probably more than one, but I do not know 100% for sure.
None of that is conclusive though. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Quote from: The Traveller;724326Yeah I'd say this is where everyone's wires are getting crossed. We must play with a different type of people entirely.
My existing group consists of a construction worker, an accountant, an insurance salesman and a musician. They might get a few hours of computer or playstation gaming in during the week, but there's no way they could be described as hardcore gamers. The insurance guy is a hardcore kitesurfer, but that's about it.
Heh. The Earthdawn/Shadowrun group I was playing with a while back included 3 IT admins, 1 software engineer, an accountant (me), a neuroscientist, and an unemployed stay-home guy.
Quote from: Benoist;724359More than half my French group has played or is playing WoW right now. One of these players basically drifted off our group's radar, and after I inquired about it, he told me he was back playing WoW.
That's sad. Aside from being boring and ugly to look at, WoW offers nothing that I'm looking for in an RPG.
I don't think anyone in my group plays WoW, at least they never talk about it. They seem to be mostly pretty casual in that most of them still have a fairly limited grasp on the 4e rules even after dozens of sessions. It never seems to occur to them to do things like buy Raise Dead scrolls to recover fallen PCs; either they don't realise it's an option or they don't realise I'll kill their PCs. :D Probably the former.
Quote from: The Traveller;724338Haha! Don't give them ideas, I'll be starting each game to a rousing rendition of YMCA. I don't think they read RPG boards thankfully.
Serious question though - does everyone here actually play with meganerds or what's going on, I feel like Daniel Craig waking up in the middle of The Invasion.
Nah, i expect we've all got folk from all walks of life that we game with.
I can count a lawyer, a kitchen fitter, a geologist, a pension company worker, airport baggage handler, artist, nursery teacher, student, flim-flam artist and Telecommunications folk off the top of my head.
For the record, the folks I role-play with in the US are a mix of retail/hardware store types, two city planners, a computer person, myself as a freelance writer(and ex music journalist), a teacher, and a welder. Where I currently live are mostly computer technician types, with a teacher in there as well. Another friend is an engineer who also minored in music.
Most of them play videogames of various types. Not many MMO folks, however(some of us used to play them more often, not as much these days.) Ages are mostly between 30 and 40. The US crew mostly played together since the early to mid 90s(the engineer I've known and RP'd with since the mid '80s.) Current crew has friends who have played together since the 80s and 90s.
So we're a fair mixed bag, though there is a fairly common thread of video games and computer use with a lot of us.
I game with an engineer (female, Chinese), a banker (male, phillipino), RCMP officer (male, Polish), a university student (female, Jewish), and a librarian (female, caucasion)
Edit: And cant believe I forgot....Voice-actor (male, caucasion). Probably subconscious because Im totally jealous of his talent.
Of all of us, the Engineer is the most hardcore geeky. I'm probably next, all told. The RCMP officer and Voice Actor are very much in-the-closet geeks.
I'm not running a game right now, but if I did, of my usual suspects: one has a job [he's also the only male], one is his stay-at-home SO, one is a severely mentally ill shut-in and probably qualified for disability if she would get off her high horse about it, and two are full-time students. And then there's me, who's... let's be diplomatic and say "between periods of stable functionality."
Video/computer game wise, the students play some pokemon and not much else, the shut-in plays video games almost constantly as an escape from her problems, the couple do so a few times a week, and I occasionally binge on a new one but then don't play any for weeks.
Wow, the people in the general group I game with include everything from dancers to engineering students to my fellow factory employees. Must of us are not meganerds (well, except for one of the dancers). The only thing I've noticed is I get a lot of ex-military and technical types in my games.
Current stable of players includes the following (color coded; red = uber-geek; blue = moderate geek; green = this is really their only hardcore geek hobby)
Middle-school teacher
Financial journalist
Event planner
Actor
Film editor/ski instructor
Concept artist
Guy who keeps changing jobs but mostly works as a chef
Unemployed and always waffling*
Flavor and fragrance chemist
Oil company middle management
* But hey, at least he's lost a TON of weight!
Quote from: The Traveller;724338Serious question though - does everyone here actually play with meganerds or what's going on, I feel like Daniel Craig waking up in the middle of The Invasion.
It is a spectrum, but generally speaking, if I am honest, my gaming groups are "nerdier" and "geekier" than the general population (and I include myself in that). We do have our meganerds, but we also have people who are less obviously nerdy. No Daniel Craigs in my groups though.
Quote from: xech;724346Today, many people who are aware of tabletop RPGs and like them will think about trying an MMO if they cant find a convenient way to set up a tabletop group and keep it going.
Spot on. I can only speak for myself, but that's exactly why I started playing WOW - because I could no longer find people to form a gaming group with for TTRPGs. Used to be a time back in the day (and I've been playing since 1982) that small independent game stores were popping up here in the UK in most major towns and cities. They carried all sorts of RPGs (and then later trading card games as well when those became a big hit).
I worked for one of the best of these stores, called Esdevium Games, for much of my early youth. I saw first hand the pressures the owners were under to agree to larger and larger orders. I saw them forced to diversify into an online only distributor, because they couldn't afford to maintain the expense of physical stores and still be able to secure orders with the likes of Wizards and Games Workshop.
Fast forwards a few decades and you can barely find any of these stores any more here in the UK. They got priced out of the market in favour of larger retailers and online distributors as games companies aggressively looked for economies-of-scale vendors willing to buy in far greater bulk than smaller independents.
This had the unfortunate effect of shrinking the potential however for new converts to the hobby, because it was always the small retailers who were passionate about the hobby, who ran gaming clubs and RPG nights on their premises, or put people in contact with those who did. When the independents went bust or diversified into products they were not being required to buy in large quantities, so did the network of support for RPG hobbyists collapse - and it has been shrinking here in the UK ever since.
That's why I tend to chuckle when any RPG publisher, even Wizards, think that they can 'grow the hobby' themselves, whether with new editions of games like D&D or anything else. It takes partners to grow the hobby, and frankly Amazon, Waterstones or Barnes & Noble are only interested in selling units of product - not promoting the hobby.
Reeling this back from whether TTRPGs compete with WoW(they don't, at least not any more than they compete with MtG)
I'm sure this thread is full of opining on how 4e failed because it turned it's back on the one true D&D but that's not why 4e failed. The reason that 4e failed is it was a bad game. It really is that simple.
Define a "bad game"
Its not a game I want to play, but it has its audience.
Quote from: The Traveller;724356Some seem to think that the hardcore "alpha" WoW players wouldn't have the time to play TTRPGs.
What would be a definition of a hardcore "alpha" WoW player?
Back in the day, the hardcore "alpha" video gamers I knew of, were guys that would always skip school and spend the entire day at the arcade. (This was before various local arcades imposed age restrictions during school hours).
When I was in college, the hardcore "alpha" video gamers were the guys who rarely ever went to class and would spend all day playing Nintendo in their dorm rooms.
(Later on, similar obsessive behavior and long hours spent, were common amongst the hardcore types who were online all day, such as on muds, irc, nettrek, usenet, aol chat rooms, etc ...).
Quote from: TristramEvans;724874Define a "bad game"
Its not a game I want to play, but it has its audience.
Right. I'm sorry if the existence of people like me and my group is an inconvenient obstacle to some quick and easy slam dunk, but the fun we had with 4e was very real (one of the best campaigns of my life in fact). Sure I wrestled with parts of it, but that's true of every RPG I've ever run, and it was (IMO) much less of a hassle than 3e.
This thread has provided a wealth of nuanced and useful critiques of 4e that I'm perfectly willing to accept. Let's stick to those.
Quote from: TristramEvans;724874Define a "bad game"
Its not a game I want to play, but it has its audience.
Just because people like something doesn't mean it's good. People have played 4e and sometimes even had fun, but those positive experiences have less to do with 4e's mechanics and more to do the MTP/roleplaing elements that come with any RPG. On the merits of what you actually are paying WotC money for 4e is a bad product.
There's very little to 4e besides it's combat engine and what there is like the "Skill Challenges" mechanic is offensively bad. If you are not running an adventure that's heavy hack and slash 4e is probably worse than not buying gamebooks at all and going full MTP.
That wouldn't be a total death sentence for the game there are a lot of people who like hack and slash games after all, but 4e combat is super boring. A "standard" 4e combat is 8-10 rounds the majority of which will be spent spamming your at-wills, and it's going to be obvious who's going to win by round 2.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;724872Reeling this back from whether TTRPGs compete with WoW(they don't, at least not any more than they compete with MtG)
Then they absolutely do. Just... not very successfully.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;724889There's very little to 4e besides it's combat engine and what there is like the "Skill Challenges" mechanic is offensively bad. If you are not running an adventure that's heavy hack and slash 4e is probably worse than not buying gamebooks at all and going full MTP.
If one bad mechanic meant a bad game, then we could probably count the number of good games on one hand.
QuoteThat wouldn't be a total death sentence for the game there are a lot of people who like hack and slash games after all, but 4e combat is super boring. A "standard" 4e combat is 8-10 rounds the majority of which will be spent spamming your at-wills, and it's going to be obvious who's going to win by round 2.
Subjective.
I like how nerds feel that they need to justify their tastes by trying to define them as objective measurements of what is good.
Its kind of sad and pathetic.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;724893I like how nerds feel that they need to justify their tastes by trying to define them as objective measurements of what is good.
Its kind of sad and pathetic.
I like how you're a nerd bitching about nerds on a super nerd message board, obviously care enough about a nerd topic like D&D editions to comment on it, and call the nerds pathetic.
Quote from: Benoist;724896I like how you're a nerd bitching about nerds on a super nerd message board, obviously care enough about a nerd topic like D&D editions to comment on it, and call the nerds pathetic.
Bitching? No, just calling it exactly like I see it. Its actually funny. Yeah, I'm a nerd. Never said I wasn't. I'm not the kind of nerd who thinks that my tastes have any objective meaning though.
Guess what, I don't like D&D. Pretty much any edition at all. Including the ones you do like. I have my reasons why it doesn't work for me. Does that mean I think that your beloved games are somehow bad? Nah, not really. We play different games, we enjoy them, and that is good enough. Even if the games I play and the games you play aren't the same, you are a roleplayer and I am too, and that means more than what games we individually are playing.
So tell me, if someone had said that AD&D/OD&D/etc, can't remember which one is your pet D&D edition, was bad, and defended his opinion with "just because people have fun with it doesn't mean its good" wouldn't you be jumping all over him? Because I've seen you do it, and I have zero problem with you doing it, because its a stupid ass defense.
And just like its a stupid ass defense when someone says that about earlier D&D editions, its a stupid ass defense when someone says it about 4e.
So excuse me if I feel like mocking someone who is being an idiot.
I just find it funny that you're waving your dick around like you're standing on some moral high ground calling other people pathetic and nerds on a nerd topic on a nerd message board you're reading pretty much every day.
I found the irony a little thick on this one. ;)
Meh, I don't think there is anything pathetic or sad about being a nerd. That wasn't the part I was calling pathetic and sad, so I don't see the irony you are apparently.
And yeah, I do consider the ability to step back and see a difference between objective fact and my opinion as being a plus in my favor. No one likes it when the Forge does it, so why shouldn't we call it out when anyone else does?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;724912Meh, I don't think there is anything pathetic or sad about being a nerd. That wasn't the part I was calling pathetic and sad, so I don't see the irony you are apparently.
And yeah, I do consider the ability to step back and see a difference between objective fact and my opinion as being a plus in my favor. No one likes it when the Forge does it, so why shouldn't we call it out when anyone else does?
Not sure who you were exactly calling out there, but I've noticed frequently from the more narrative-leaning players a lazy tendency when they're not being careful with their language to claim that identifying an objective difference is making a claim of objective superiority, which it is not.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;724893I like how nerds feel that they need to justify their tastes by trying to define them as objective measurements of what is good.
Its kind of sad and pathetic.
This type of mentality is common in other non-nerd/non-geek type niches too.
For example: rock music bands, various "cults", movies, tv shows, etc ...
Typically anybody who has a "serious business" type of mentality about a particular niche, regardless of how nerdy/geeky or non-geeky/non-nerdy the particular niche is.
Quote from: ggroy;724931Typically anybody who has a "serious business" type of mentality about a particular niche, regardless of how nerdy/geeky or non-geeky/non-nerdy the particular niche is.
That is quite fair. I just don't consider my fun hobbies all that serious business, and find it particularly odd that someone takes their fun hobby as serious enough business to care about how "good" a game is outside of the specific context of their own table, which is hardly objective at all.
Quote from: ggroy;724931This type of mentality is common in other non-nerd/non-geek type niches too.
For example: rock music bands, various "cults", movies, tv shows, etc ...
Typically anybody who has a "serious business" type of mentality about a particular niche, regardless of how nerdy/geeky or non-geeky/non-nerdy the particular niche is.
Absolutely. Music is a good example. So is sports.
Quote from: Maeglynn;724868Spot on. I can only speak for myself, but that's exactly why I started playing WOW - because I could no longer find people to form a gaming group with for TTRPGs. Used to be a time back in the day (and I've been playing since 1982) that small independent game stores were popping up here in the UK in most major towns and cities. They carried all sorts of RPGs (and then later trading card games as well when those became a big hit).
I worked for one of the best of these stores, called Esdevium Games, for much of my early youth. I saw first hand the pressures the owners were under to agree to larger and larger orders. I saw them forced to diversify into an online only distributor, because they couldn't afford to maintain the expense of physical stores and still be able to secure orders with the likes of Wizards and Games Workshop.
Fast forwards a few decades and you can barely find any of these stores any more here in the UK. They got priced out of the market in favour of larger retailers and online distributors as games companies aggressively looked for economies-of-scale vendors willing to buy in far greater bulk than smaller independents.
This had the unfortunate effect of shrinking the potential however for new converts to the hobby, because it was always the small retailers who were passionate about the hobby, who ran gaming clubs and RPG nights on their premises, or put people in contact with those who did. When the independents went bust or diversified into products they were not being required to buy in large quantities, so did the network of support for RPG hobbyists collapse - and it has been shrinking here in the UK ever since.
That's why I tend to chuckle when any RPG publisher, even Wizards, think that they can 'grow the hobby' themselves, whether with new editions of games like D&D or anything else. It takes partners to grow the hobby, and frankly Amazon, Waterstones or Barnes & Noble are only interested in selling units of product - not promoting the hobby.
Which I think tends to confirm the theory that whether 4th Edition was successful by game-industry standards of prior days, NO game will be successful enough for the major players any more, as their expectations kill the market they are trying to exploit.
JG
Quote from: gamerGoyf;724889Just because people like something doesn't mean it's good. People have played 4e and sometimes even had fun, but those positive experiences have less to do with 4e's mechanics and more to do the MTP/roleplaing elements that come with any RPG. On the merits of what you actually are paying WotC money for 4e is a bad product.
I find 4e supports a (certain sort of) long-term campaign better than any other version of D&D. The combat build stuff also has emergent properties in non-combat play. It helps players define their characters in a Dramatist type way. Also, high level 4e doesn't have the world-breaking issues that hurt high level 3e.
Finally, being really slow isn't always a bad thing for regular play. Running most sorts of D&D, I have to work hard. If I'm feeling bad, that is difficult. But with 4e on a bad night I can still pretty much autopilot it, maybe a fight that takes most of the night, and everyone still has fun.
I guess maybe this is damning with faint praise, but it has certainly worked out well for me.
Quote from: S'mon;724982... high level 4e doesn't have the world-breaking issues that hurt high level 3e.
I must agree with this. 4e campaigns transition into "classic D&D endgame" kingdom building/running more easily than 3e, which is one of several surprising ways it is more old school. The importance of reining in casters can't be overlooked.
Quote from: S'mon;724982Finally, being really slow isn't always a bad thing for regular play. Running most sorts of D&D, I have to work hard. If I'm feeling bad, that is difficult. But with 4e on a bad night I can still pretty much autopilot it, maybe a fight that takes most of the night, and everyone still has fun.
This also happened to me several times. No one ever knew I was having an off night. This may have something to do with the sandbox style as well however - when the players are content to burn up hours of table-type internally debating their next move the GM can coast quite comfortably :D (I believe that's how Dave Arneson used to run things).
Quote from: Haffrung;724316People I know who play MMOs casually either do it to turn off their brain, or they like the first-person-combat aspect.
If MMOs didn't exist, what other activities would such individuals do to "turn off their brains"?
Before the internet became popular, the "turn off their brain" types I knew of were the ones who would just sit in front of the tv and drink beer all evening.
One thing I found with teaching players 4e-now I can't lump all players into this at all, but I have found some like this; some actually learn a system faster at times when they have 'absolute' rules to work with. Like...I remember times bringing in new players to my established 2e/3e games where I used a lot of handwaving(and since I used handwaving, shifting to NOT using it would have been sort of jolting for the rest of the party)-but the new person was thrown off by things. Example of handwaving; Often, we'd play 3.x without a battlemat. So people might read something about 5 foot steps and other odds and ends in the book but they wouldn't come into play.
In 4e, I actually handwave less. The way stuff works seems to fit more together technically. So Ability X works like Ability X, and it doesn't deviate too much. I find some players actually pick this up pretty quickly. As many rules as are in the book-I somehow had a fairly easy time explaining how it all worked to some people. I'm pretty sure, in fact, I was able to get people to understand some of that faster than it took me to get them to understand Thaco and Armor Class going down. :p
Ive always seen having to learn rules to play the game as an undesireable quality in an rpg.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725013Ive always seen having to learn rules to play the game as an undesireable quality in an rpg.
Back in the day, it was possible to play Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer D&D or low level 1E AD&D without the players knowing much about the rules.
In such games, the DM handled almost all of the rules stuff from what the players tell them.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725013Ive always seen having to learn rules to play the game as an undesireable quality in an rpg.
Arguably the same thing could also be said about boardgames.
If I have to read a long set of instructions for a boardgame, frequently I'll just turn down the game and do something else.
The main reason I still play tabletop rpg games, is largely due to familiarity of the rulesets from back in the day.
If I had never played tabletop rpg games back in the day, and started from a blank slate today, most likely I would be turned off immediately from something rules-dense like 4E, Pathfinder, 3E/3.5E, etc ....
Rules heavy games don't bother me personally, though I can see and understand people having their limits on what they want to learn. I'll happily sit down and learn a more difficult board game or whatever, but I admit if I know we have a more limited time to play, it might be a better idea to play something that's easier to teach/that more people already know.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725013Ive always seen having to learn rules to play the game as an undesireable quality in an rpg.
I feel the same way. The more you have to frontload all sorts of rules and explain them to a player before you actually get to play, the more of an obstacle it is for them to get into the action of the game itself and see if they like it, or not. Related point to this. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=725025#post725025)
Indeed. These days if you can't get a player ready to start playing in about 15 minutes or so that's a massive black mark against the game for me. Having players be completely ignorant of how the guts of the game works and still be able to play and do well is enormously helpful in introducing new people, especially kids.
Quote from: Azzy;725028Rules heavy games don't bother me personally, though I can see and understand people having their limits on what they want to learn. I'll happily sit down and learn a more difficult board game or whatever, but I admit if I know we have a more limited time to play, it might be a better idea to play something that's easier to teach/that more people already know.
For me it's a combination of familiarity and inversely related to rules density.
Back in the day I briefly played various (relatively) rules-dense systems like Rolemaster, GURPS, SPI DragonQuest, Twilight 2000, etc ... If a local friend was up for playing something like Rolemaster, I could get into it again.
In contrast, these days I just don't have the patience anymore to read through and learn an unfamiliar rules-dense game with a "textbook-like" rulebook. For example, awhile ago I borrowed an Exalted book and found that I just didn't have the patience nor interest in reading and learning the system. Same story with stuff like Shadowrun, world of darkness, Ars Magica, etc ...
Quote from: The Ent;724947Absolutely. Music is a good example. So is sports.
The be fair sports at least do have objective measures of competence. That's kind of the point.
I can say, pretty objectively, that Payton Manning is a better QB than I am.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;724889Just because people like something doesn't mean it's good.
That is quite likely the stupidest fucking comment I've come across on this forum. And the funniest thing is it's the exact same comment System Matters wanks use to proclaim 4E an objectively better game than AD&D or 3E. All those people who had fun playing AD&D for decades? Playing a shitty game. Brain damaged.
Quote from: ggroy;724931This type of mentality is common in other non-nerd/non-geek type niches too.
For example: rock music bands, various "cults", movies, tv shows, etc ...
Typically anybody who has a "serious business" type of mentality about a particular niche, regardless of how nerdy/geeky or non-geeky/non-nerdy the particular niche is.
But all those people
are geeks. They're just music geeks, movie geeks, sports geeks, etc. And they're just as likely to lack perspective, take preferences personally, and get into heated arguments about obscure minutia.
Quote from: ggroy;725008If MMOs didn't exist, what other activities would such individuals do to "turn off their brains"?
Before the internet became popular, the "turn off their brain" types I knew of were the ones who would just sit in front of the tv and drink beer all evening.
MMOs are the drinking beer and watching TV for a different demographic. When someone is grinding out a quest to collect 30 dire wolf pelts, their brain activity profile is indistinguishable from watching Two and a Half Men.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;724889Just because people like something doesn't mean it's good. People have played 4e and sometimes even had fun, but those positive experiences have less to do with 4e's mechanics and more to do the MTP/roleplaing elements that come with any RPG. On the merits of what you actually are paying WotC money for 4e is a bad product.
There's very little to 4e besides it's combat engine and what there is like the "Skill Challenges" mechanic is offensively bad. If you are not running an adventure that's heavy hack and slash 4e is probably worse than not buying gamebooks at all and going full MTP.
That wouldn't be a total death sentence for the game there are a lot of people who like hack and slash games after all, but 4e combat is super boring. A "standard" 4e combat is 8-10 rounds the majority of which will be spent spamming your at-wills, and it's going to be obvious who's going to win by round 2.
Im firmly in the camp of believing the ultimate point of RPGs is to have fun, and thus fun is the only metric by which an rpg can ultimately be measured. I know lots of people who had fun with 4e.
Again, I dont like the game, but my main criticism has always been "this has smeg all to do with D&D". If the game hadnt absconded with the d&d brand, the entry point for the majority of people in the hobby, I would bear it no ill will.
Id still critisize it based on what I personally want from a game, but I have no expectations that other people's fun matches my fun. Theres nothing objectivelly bad about 4e, except by virtue of a person viewing it through thier own preferences.
Now that its over and D&D appears to be returning to being D&D more or less, I wish 13th Age and those who will continue to play 4e all the best.
That said, there are numerous 4E fans I have problems with, but thats largely because those people refuse to accept that thier fun is not my fun. It would be hypocritical of me to turn around and do the same, treating my tastes in gaming as some sort of objective watermark of quality.
I know a fair few casual MMO players who treat it *exactly* like TV. Like, instead of watching TV for an hour after work, the pop in an MMO for a like amount of time. It's slightly more active for them if they decide to do a bit of low-end group content, but still, it's certainly treated much like TV by some.
Quote from: Haffrung;725042That is quite likely the stupidest fucking comment I've come across on this forum.
I dunno. The great philosopher Wayne Campbell once said :
"I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write songs that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees."
Quote from: Haffrung;725042MMOs are the drinking beer and watching TV for a different demographic. When someone is grinding out a quest to collect 30 dire wolf pelts, their brain activity profile is indistinguishable from watching Two and a Half Men.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Azzy;725028Rules heavy games don't bother me personally, though I can see and understand people having their limits on what they want to learn. I'll happily sit down and learn a more difficult board game or whatever, but I admit if I know we have a more limited time to play, it might be a better idea to play something that's easier to teach/that more people already know.
Its largely group dynamics for me. Time is a premium for a lot of my players, and getting them to show up on schedule for a game session is one thing; expecting them to do any work/reading outside of that is in many cases futile. If I only gamed with hardcore geeks like me, then a complex system wouldnt be a problem (if we could all agree on one that suits all our tastes), but that describes 2 out of 6 of my regular players.
On top of that I frequently play with people new to roleplaying. I am always on the lookout for people to introduce to the hobby among my social circles. Getting a person to show up for a game to try it out is one thing; handing them a 200-page rulebook and saying "study this before the game" would likely cut down the number of people willing to give roleplaying a try down by 99%.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725051Its largely group dunamics for me. Time is a premium for a lot of my players, and getting them to show up on schedule for a game session is one thing; expecting them to do any work/reading outside of that is in many cases futile. If I only gamed with hardcore geeks like me, then a complex system wouldnt be a problem (if we could all agree on one that suits all our tastes), but that describes 2 out of 6 of my regular players.
That's my situation as well. And I think WotC has finally recognized that groups like ours are more common than they thought, and if they want to reach beyond the hardcore gamer market, they need to make D&D a game that can be learned at the table.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725051Its largely group dynamics for me. Time is a premium for a lot of my players, and getting them to show up on schedule for a game session is one thing; expecting them to do any work/reading outside of that is in many cases futile. If I only gamed with hardcore geeks like me, then a complex system wouldnt be a problem (if we could all agree on one that suits all our tastes), but that describes 2 out of 6 of my regular players.
On top of that I frequently play with people new to roleplaying. I am always on the lookout for people to introduce to the hobby among my social circles. Getting a person to show up for a game to try it out is one thing; handing them a 200-page rulebook and saying "study this before the game" would likely cut down the number of people willing to give roleplaying a try down by 99%.
Same (again). I never had problems finding people to play games because I introduce the idea of playing games casually with people in my social circles I think might be interested, whether they are gamers or not.
Part of what makes it work is to be able to basically sit down, roll a bunch of dice to generate a character in 10 minutes while talking, and have the game underway from that point on. I did introduce people to role playing games with 3rd edition with success, but with hindsight, I think I would have been even more successful at that time using a TSR version of the game for that very reason.
Quote from: Benoist;725066Same (again). I never had problems finding people to play games because I introduce the idea of playing games casually with people in my social circles I think might be interested, whether they are gamers or not.
.
I have had a bit of trouble doing this myself. So all my regular players right now are people who were gamers prior to joining my games. I had some luck with my cousin and her boyfriend, and a few other non-gamers, but for the most part, at least in my social circles, I have found non-gamers who don't have an initial curiosity they express to me, haven't been responsive when I suggest it. Again this may be my social circles, it could even just be the area I live in, where people are not really known for venturing beyond their routine. It is also possible my sales pitch or approach is bad here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;725071I have had a bit of trouble doing this myself. So all my regular players right now are people who were gamers prior to joining my games. I had some luck with my cousin and her boyfriend, and a few other non-gamers, but for the most part, at least in my social circles, I have found non-gamers who don't have an initial curiosity they express to me, haven't been responsive when I suggest it. Again this may be my social circles, it could even just be the area I live in, where people are not really known for venturing beyond their routine. It is also possible my sales pitch or approach is bad here.
I have no idea. I know from interacting with you face to face on Skype that you're easy-going and likable in person, so I don't think that's the problem. Generally when I approach the topic it's because the game or what I do has been mentioned in a casual conversation and someone has shown some type of curiosity about the game (generally the D&D game), or they've been over at my house and saw my shelves of books and most importantly the miniatures. I can't tell you how many games I "sold" to newbies by starting conversations looking at the minis I painted (or the dice, the maps and other physical items like that).
I think it's because when you hold the mini or die or whatnot it feels like a "game" you know, and not some bizarre theater-thing that seems perhaps a little too abstract, or out there, for the curious. I think shyness plays its role as a deterrent, too, so if you emphasize the role playing right out of the gate some people might be scared to expose themselves like they would say, role playing someone else in a meeting at work, because that's what they imagine they'd have to do in order to play well, I suppose.
In my social circles, I usually find it off putting when somebody comes on really strong and "in your face" about something. I usually don't continue talking with such individuals. (There were several hardcore Star Wars and Star Treks types like this I've known over the years).
In a more general sense, I find that if somebody in person is really "in your face" about something, I usually dismiss them with a shrug without a second thought.
Especially if they start to become really negative, invoke fear, make personal attacks, etc ... in person, my gut reaction is to suspect that they were most likely total BS to begin with.
Quote from: ggroy;725008If MMOs didn't exist, what other activities would such individuals do to "turn off their brains"?
Before the internet became popular, the "turn off their brain" types I knew of were the ones who would just sit in front of the tv and drink beer all evening.
MUDs.
Untill the advent of graphical MUDs, called MMOs now... Text based MUDs were fairly popular for role-players who lacked local gaming groups as several muds had enforced IC and some had regular GMed events, while others relied on player aegis.
Some are still going even and new ones pop up fairy regularly even now. Still popular for those who cant stand the usual lag of most MMOs.
Quote from: Omega;725187MUDs.
I never really got into stuff like muds, mushes, moos, etc ...
By the 1990's, I found that I didn't really have the patience anymore to figure out all the commands in a text based mud, mush, moo, etc ... Especially ones which had a lot of "player killing".
For that matter, I also found that during the late-1980's and 1990's, that I also had less and less patience with playing video games. Especially fighting type video games.
I didn't have the patience to figure out all the joystick + button(s) combinations to do many of the action moves. This may sound silly now, but at the time I was more or less playing such games in a mindless "button mashing" manner. That's when I knew arcade video games were no longer holding my interest.
(By this time, I wasn't playing tabletop rpg games anymore. I don't know whether I would have found unfamiliar rules-dense tabletop rpg games not to my liking anymore).
Quote from: S'mon;724982Finally, being really slow isn't always a bad thing for regular play. Running most sorts of D&D, I have to work hard. If I'm feeling bad, that is difficult. But with 4e on a bad night I can still pretty much autopilot it, maybe a fight that takes most of the night, and everyone still has fun.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;724991This also happened to me several times. No one ever knew I was having an off night. This may have something to do with the sandbox style as well however - when the players are content to burn up hours of table-type internally debating their next move the GM can coast quite comfortably :D (I believe that's how Dave Arneson used to run things).
I'm glad to see this openly acknowledged. I've been critical of 4e right out of the gate, but at the end it's been my system of choice for DM'ng fantasy RPG's pretty much since 2009. Like any other DM, I've had evenings (esp. after a long day of work) where I didn't want to let down my group because I was underprepared or simply too exhausted to run a high energy game, and cancel the session last minute (very corrosive to keep a game going). 4e let me do instead run the game, even when exhausted, and more so than any system I ran previously.
Mind you, I don't like extended combats, and have run 4E with halved hp for years, so it's not like I back out of proper GM preparation by running one long combat for 2 or more hours (which would bore me out of my mind). What I did instead, I operated on random encounters, either by using my own Random Encounter Tables (http://www1.atwiki.com/ptolusalem?cmd=upload&act=open&pageid=10&file=4E+Random+Encounter+Tables.pdf), or my NPC stat blocks, or by going back to 4-5 properly prepared encounters, assigned to terrain, and then - as always - adapting them so the choice of encounter and the situation/terrain triggering it does not occur out of context (this being, in my opinion, the worst about 100% prepared encounters, what with monsters' and PCs' starting positions indicated on a grid).
But the thing is - once combat gets going, as a DM 4e gives you so many tools to then run with it. I wouldn't quite call it 'auto pilot', but it is possible with less than full concentration, and with low energy. The downside is - the PCs will usually just waltz over the monsters, because 4E (in my experience) punishes poor tactical choices on the DM's end as much as the PCs. I've run the system for 4 years now and am still learning basic strategy.
Anyhow, the point is - I think it's often overlooked how 'balance' in 4E is not so much (or exclusively) to do with the PC classes in isolation (the old mantra, let every class shine and contribute evenly, from levels 1 to 30). Rather, the entire system is balanced against a middling DM with only limited time commitments. Whence the elimination of 'campaign breaking' spells, for instance. Planar rituals, teleport, scrying, etc. are all very nerfed, and that means a session becomes more predictable. Again, I understand why people complained about this, as it removed a lot of what makes D&D the free play experience it's been since the start. But there's a give and take, and with a full time job, I prefer running a system that is very mild and sympathetic to a DM with restricted resources of time and energy.
Quote from: Windjammer;725254I'm glad to see this openly acknowledged. I've been critical of 4e right out of the gate, but at the end it's been my system of choice for DM'ng fantasy RPG's pretty much since 2009. Like any other DM, I've had evenings (esp. after a long day of work) where I didn't want to let down my group because I was underprepared or simply too exhausted to run a high energy game, and cancel the session last minute (very corrosive to keep a game going). 4e let me do instead run the game, even when exhausted, and more so than any system I ran previously.
I seriously cannot imagine how masochistic you'd have to be to play a game where one combat takes up the entire session.
Quote from: The Traveller;725261I seriously cannot imagine how masochistic you'd have to be to play a game where one combat takes up the entire session.
Eh, it's nothing compared to a game of 40k. In the right mood I find it rather stimulating (must be all the
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced I played), but it's clearly not for every player.
Quote from: ggroy;725193I never really got into stuff like muds, mushes, moos, etc ...
By the 1990's, I found that I didn't really have the patience anymore to figure out all the commands in a text based mud, mush, moo, etc ... Especially ones which had a lot of "player killing".
I tend to avoid MUDs with alot of PKing and look for ones with the standard commands like cast shoot kill, etc.
My problem is I keep ending up on really good MUDs with total scum for admin.
Cthulhu MUD being a classic example. Straight to hell. And not in a good way.
Bemusingly last MUD I was on, a batch of the players were there having quit MMOs due to lack of role-play and too simplistic plots.
hmmm. wonder if anyone tried to make a 4e based MUD...
Quote from: Omega;725266hmmm. wonder if anyone tried to make a 4e based MUD...
I haven't looked at mud code in a long time.
IIRC, the basic computer code for combat adjudication in older versions of DikuMUD looked like a slightly modified version of THAC0.
If one were to implement 4E into a mud type system, the basic to-hit stuff shouldn't be too hard to implement into an older basic diku framework. I suspect what would be harder to implement (in an older basic diku framework), would be stuff like precise ranges of ranged type weapons/spells and character movements on a square grid. (Assuming one wants to keep the square grid).
Quote from: The Traveller;725261I seriously cannot imagine how masochistic you'd have to be to play a game where one combat takes up the entire session.
Exactly. As I go on to say in the bit after you selected for quotation,
"Mind you, I don't like extended combats, and have run 4E with halved hp for years, so it's not like I back out of proper GM preparation by running one long combat for 2 or more hours (
which would bore me out of my mind)."
I've played in 4E sessions DM'ed by others with RAW, and it was 3 hours of dice rolling in a single combat. I'm really not interested in that.
Quote from: Benoist;725077I have no idea. I know from interacting with you face to face on Skype that you're easy-going and likable in person, so I don't think that's the problem. Generally when I approach the topic it's because the game or what I do has been mentioned in a casual conversation and someone has shown some type of curiosity about the game (generally the D&D game), or they've been over at my house and saw my shelves of books and most importantly the miniatures. I can't tell you how many games I "sold" to newbies by starting conversations looking at the minis I painted (or the dice, the maps and other physical items like that).
I think it's because when you hold the mini or die or whatnot it feels like a "game" you know, and not some bizarre theater-thing that seems perhaps a little too abstract, or out there, for the curious. I think shyness plays its role as a deterrent, too, so if you emphasize the role playing right out of the gate some people might be scared to expose themselves like they would say, role playing someone else in a meeting at work, because that's what they imagine they'd have to do in order to play well, I suppose.
That's an interesting point. Never thought of that, having started so young, and not having/remembering those concerns so well.
Quote from: Windjammer;725270Exactly. As I go on to say in the bit after you selected for quotation,
"Mind you, I don't like extended combats, and have run 4E with halved hp for years, so it's not like I back out of proper GM preparation by running one long combat for 2 or more hours (which would bore me out of my mind)."
I've played in 4E sessions DM'ed by others with RAW, and it was 3 hours of dice rolling in a single combat. I'm really not interested in that.
Sure, my mind just boggles at the thought of a system where it's even possible for the GM to bury themselves in the mechanics and let the crunch take over.
I'll freely admit I'm not overly familiar with the ins and outs of 4e, but so far it appears to be the definition of no gaming is better than bad gaming. Different strokes for different folks of course, I respect that you enjoy it.
Hey, I've played some 4e battles that easily took 3+ hours...they were epic (a fight with mind flayers fighting gith inside the skull of a living leviathan comes to mind). Trouble was, the game just didn't seem to offer much past that, and even doing such big battles required re-working of the RAW because so many of the numbers didn't work.
I played 4e for quite a while, not my favorite system, not a fan of D&D in general, but it was what other people were running playing and I'm more of a "who am I playing with" gamer than a "what am I playing" gamer, and honestly I never experienced the 3 hour combats.
It might have something to do with the fact that most of the people I game with are very quick decision makers. I'm not saying that no one ever experienced it, but I know that I've played 4e games with 2 combats in a 4 hour game and still had most of the game be noncombat.
My main gripe with 4e uber-balance is that it seemed that every battle was designed to be epic - even 4 goblins at 1st level. Seat of the pants most of the time IME. That gets old very fast in a long running campaign.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;725289I played 4e for quite a while, not my favorite system, not a fan of D&D in general, but it was what other people were running playing and I'm more of a "who am I playing with" gamer than a "what am I playing" gamer, and honestly I never experienced the 3 hour combats.
It might have something to do with the fact that most of the people I game with are very quick decision makers. I'm not saying that no one ever experienced it, but I know that I've played 4e games with 2 combats in a 4 hour game and still had most of the game be noncombat.
I think a lot of whether or not people experience long combat in 4e is based on group composition. And not so much the personalities of people at the table (which does matter) as the classes in the party.
There's just some classes that drag gameplay to a screeching halt (classes like swordmage with lots of status effects or off turn actions for example). Conversely, if you're playing with the relatively "simple" classes it's honestly not that time consuming until Epic.
I've certainly found that combats can take 3 hours, in fact the 3 and a half hour long session I played last week was one long fight (in fact a continuation of a fight that we'd started the previous week, so probably a 4 or 5 hour long fight overall). We don't normally get that, but it was an unusual fight for a few reasons (I started out drunk and unarmed, we had several waves of enemies come in, the fight moved through a boat, the main monster was a few levels higher than us and had a lot of stun and invisibility effects). It was tense and enjoyable, and two PCs nearly died including mine, but I wouldn't want all fights to be like that. I do find though that the second half of these fights, after you've used up your encounter powers, can get a bit grindy. I understand that 13th Age has a rule where everyone's damage modifier goes up by 1 every round (or something) which sounds like a great idea to me.
Quote from: tanstaafl48;725299I think a lot of whether or not people experience long combat in 4e is based on group composition.
Oh man yeah, our primary campaign consists of a weaponmaster fighter, a healing-heavy blaster cleric, a paladin, and a hybrid warlock/rogue/assassin. So three very solid, very resilient characters with moderate damage output and one glass cannon with a tendency to take suicidal risks. We're very resilient and tactical but we take a long time to grind out our victories into kills.
Another party we ran was a rogue, two rangers, and a swordmage/wizard. So three strikers and one character in the middle (me) trying to do all the defending and controlling at the same time. Fights were probably more fun but it was also a lot easier for a couple of mistakes or bad misses to escalate into a near TPK.
Quote from: soviet;725311Oh man yeah, our primary campaign consists of a weaponmaster fighter, a healing-heavy blaster cleric, a paladin, and a hybrid warlock/rogue/assassin. So three very solid, very resilient characters with moderate damage output and one glass cannon with a tendency to take suicidal risks. We're very resilient and tactical but we take a long time to grind out our victories into kills.
Another party we ran was a rogue, two rangers, and a swordmage/wizard. So three strikers and one character in the middle (me) trying to do all the defending and controlling at the same time. Fights were probably more fun but it was also a lot easier for a couple of mistakes or bad misses to escalate into a near TPK.
I had pretty much the same experience when I played 4e. The first campaign I was ever in had a party of fancy sorts and neverending three hour combats that eventually led to everyone just sort of giving up on the system.
Second campaign involved the group making an active decision to only play damaging sorts. It was like playing a
completely different game.
Quote from: One Horse Town;725296My main gripe with 4e uber-balance is that it seemed that every battle was designed to be epic - even 4 goblins at 1st level. Seat of the pants most of the time IME. That gets old very fast in a long running campaign.
Depends on the kind of campaign. For a few years now, I've been running my D&D campaigns with maybe 2 combats in a five hour session. No grindy succession of battles. No 4 goblins in a guardroom. Combats are dramatic climaxes of the adventure, not attritional speed-bumps along the way. So giving Essentials a try I haven't had to change my style at all.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725263Eh, it's nothing compared to a game of 40k. In the right mood I find it rather stimulating (must be all the Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced I played), but it's clearly not for every player.
Heck, my last 4e session - 8 players, half-hp monsters - the fight started after about an hour of play, and was still going 3 hours later when we had to leave the pub. And two of the players were just visiting from Australia for the one session, so they never got to finish the fight and (hopefully) nail the BBEG. We'll be continuing the fight with remaining players next session...
I know it sounds insane, but we did actually have a good time! :D
Quote from: One Horse Town;725296My main gripe with 4e uber-balance is that it seemed that every battle was designed to be epic - even 4 goblins at 1st level. Seat of the pants most of the time IME. That gets old very fast in a long running campaign.
I heard this secondhand, mind you - apparently one of the designers of 4E said during an interview that they engineered the game to reproduce the most epic and memorable fights people had from earlier editions and make that the norm.
On paper this sounds like a good idea: make every single fight exciting and dynamic. The problem however, is that now going through a dungeon, kicking in doors and fighting a handful of kobolds in each room becomes a tedious slog. This is especially bad, considering that 4E's primary xp output is from killing stuff, and the encounter-based design.
I think that this more than any other element contributes to the "non-D&D" feel of 4E. Taking out a room full of kobolds in previous editions felt like progress, but in 4E it felt like those old nintendo rpgs where you would have to trudge through a barrage of tedious random encounters before getting to the important bits.
I've been in a couple very, very good 4E games - but these were a product of ignoring many of the rules. I would very much enjoy a game that had 4E's base system but gameplay that felt more like Basic D&D.
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;725378I heard this secondhand, mind you - apparently one of the designers of 4E said during an interview that they engineered the game to reproduce the most epic and memorable fights people had from earlier editions and make that the norm.
On paper this sounds like a good idea: make every single fight exciting and dynamic. The problem however, is that now going through a dungeon, kicking in doors and fighting a handful of kobolds in each room becomes a tedious slog.
I agree 100%. The result of changing the combat system to make every fight epic is that a traditional dungeon like Keep on the Shadowfell turns into a tedious slog. The 30-encounter adventures that WoTC put out at the start of 4e are a nightmare to play through for this reason. Even Dungeon Mag 10 encounter adventures feel very draggy. The huge mismatch between what 4e does well, and the adventures published for it, contributed greatly to its downfall IMO.
What works well in 4e are adventures with 2-4 combat encounters. Eg the 3-encounter Dungeon Delves book works well as a frame to build adventures on. Sometimes I cut out an encounter or add one in, or pretty much just gut the whole thing for NPCs and plots. And only prep stuff 1 session in advance, in response to PC action in the previous session. With a 3-encounter adventure you can have beginning/middle/end as initiation/rising action/climax, and it works.
I remember playing Dark Sun 4E.
We go wandering through the desert on our way to our destination.
We make survival roles.
We have a random encounter.
Four hours later...time to go home now.
4E would have really benefited from having a way to scale up or down the complexity wanted in combats.
Quote from: One Horse Town;725296My main gripe with 4e uber-balance is that it seemed that every battle was designed to be epic - even 4 goblins at 1st level. Seat of the pants most of the time IME. That gets old very fast in a long running campaign.
Isn't 4E also the edition that introduced the "one hit and he's out" Minion concept to D&D?
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;725484Isn't 4E also the edition that introduced the "one hit and he's out" Minion concept to D&D?
JG
Yes.
In order to make big battles more epic, I believe - normally 4 goblins would be equal opponents for 4 low-level PCs, but you can "pad out" the encounter by say exchanging one of the normal goblins for 4 minions goblins.
Quote from: The Ent;725490Yes.
In order to make big battles more epic, I believe - normally 4 goblins would be equal opponents for 4 low-level PCs, but you can "pad out" the encounter by say exchanging one of the normal goblins for 4 minions goblins.
Yeah, and it got real old, real fast.
Also, paper vampires!
Quote from: James Gillen;725484Isn't 4E also the edition that introduced the "one hit and he's out" Minion concept to D&D?
JG
Technically, they may have.
But in 1E dnd zero level and 1hd soldiers and monsters are essentially one hit minions.
I remember they originally came from another game that was wuxia-inspired. I'm pretty sure that the designer of that game was involved in 4th edition.
There are other games that use 'hits' as opposed to 'hit points'. If an opponent has '3 hits', it dies after 3 successful attacks. Some of these systems also differentiate weapons by allowing extra hits (ie, a simple weapon might count as 1 hit, but a larger weapon might count as two hits).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;725547I remember they originally came from another game that was wuxia-inspired. I'm pretty sure that the designer of that game was involved in 4th edition.
There are other games that use 'hits' as opposed to 'hit points'. If an opponent has '3 hits', it dies after 3 successful attacks. Some of these systems also differentiate weapons by allowing extra hits (ie, a simple weapon might count as 1 hit, but a larger weapon might count as two hits).
I thought the minions were taken from Savage Worlds' Extras rules (they're even called minions and lackeys in the SW description).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;725547There are other games that use 'hits' as opposed to 'hit points'. If an opponent has '3 hits', it dies after 3 successful attacks. Some of these systems also differentiate weapons by allowing extra hits (ie, a simple weapon might count as 1 hit, but a larger weapon might count as two hits).
That's exactly the same as hit points.
Quote from: The Traveller;725549That's exactly the same as hit points.
As they were originally used, yes. THat's right
The RPG = D&D crowd will buy anything that is labeled D&D. The same people that can't buy enough of the LotR and Hobbit stuff. The int(D100/5) players have just the right intelligence for Hasbro to market to.
Quote from: The Traveller;725549That's exactly the same as hit points.
Well the only difference would be you dont roll damage, so there is greater predictability (get hit x times, you go down). With hit points and wound systems, there is some uncertainty usually how many hits you can sustain before going down.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;725553The RPG = D&D crowd will buy anything that is labeled D&D. The same people that can't buy enough of the LotR and Hobbit stuff. The int(D100/5) players have just the right intelligence for Hasbro to market to.
I have no idea what stereotype you're referencing here.
The " RPG = D&D crowd" sounds to me like the people who dont play RPGs, have just heard about them.
At the same time LOTR has very little to do with D&D. It did in the 80s, but WoTC D&D has moved so far from Tolkien archetypes its more accurate to compare modern D&D to videogames and anime. I cant see there being a lot of cross-appeal on the surface.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725566I have no idea what stereotype you're referencing here.
Most likely the compulsive completionist collector crowd.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;725547I remember they originally came from another game that was wuxia-inspired. I'm pretty sure that the designer of that game was involved in 4th edition.
You might be thinking of Feng Shui. Its designer Robin Laws worked on DMG II for 4E that I know of, but I don't know of any direct involvement in original system design.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;725562Well the only difference would be you dont roll damage, so there is greater predictability (get hit x times, you go down). With hit points and wound systems, there is some uncertainty usually how many hits you can sustain before going down.
You can get around this a bit if characters make some sort of 'Keep On Trucking' roll when they reach 0 hits or below, instead of automatically collapsing unconscious or suffering existence failure.
Forgive me if I have not read the rest of the thread, but I haven't been here in a while, and I'm just catching up.
Quote from: Bill;725543Technically, they may have.
But in 1E dnd zero level and 1hd soldiers and monsters are essentially one hit minions.
I've never been thrilled about the way that hit points scale for zero level or first level characters in pre-4e games (especially pre-3e games).
In 1e, a house cat is a legitimate problem for a low-level guy. My zero level soldier, or first level thief could easily get their throats ripped out by a fucking
cat. Hell, even squirrels are a bit of a problem. I can't figure out if Gygax was tripping on 'shrooms when he wrote this stuff, or if it was a deliberate attempt at comedy. But whatever.
4e failed, because it simply did not resemble previous editions at all. The game mechanics, implied meta-setting, and planar cosmology were all radically different from what came before. It also didn't help that 4e was constantly being errata'd into a partially different form over a relatively short period of time. Also, the combats were maddeningly slow. Nobody sane wants to spend 90 minutes grinding out a very slow combat with a handful of kobolds, while calculating different numeric modifiers every single round, depending on where you are and what you're doing on the grid.
That style of play works for some people, but most gamers don't want to deal with that shit. 4e emphasized a narrow style of play, and in the end, that was its undoing.
Oh, and did I forget about the cancellations of the Dungeon and Dragon print mags (which lowered the visibility of the game), as well as WoTC's attempt to escape from the OGL? They can't put that genie back in the bottle, and it was foolish for them to even try.
There's more, but you get the point. :pundit:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;725562Well the only difference would be you dont roll damage, so there is greater predictability (get hit x times, you go down). With hit points and wound systems, there is some uncertainty usually how many hits you can sustain before going down.
The big thing about minions is that they reduce bookkeeping on GMs. Throw out a handful of minions. If they attack, toss out a couple of 20s, see which ones hit, and you know the damage. If they get hit, they die.
No keeping track of hit points, or bonuses, or anything else.
(http://www.segashiro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tick-hates-ninjas.gif)
Quote from: robiswrong;725638The big thing about minions is that they reduce bookkeeping on GMs. Throw out a handful of minions. If they attack, toss out a couple of 20s, see which ones hit, and you know the damage. If they get hit, they die.
No keeping track of hit points, or bonuses, or anything else.
I understand. I was talking about the difference between hit systems and HP systems.
In an hp system though it can still be achieved by just giving them 1 HP (I did that in my 3E wuxia campaign for chumps).
Quote from: robiswrong;725638The big thing about minions is that they reduce bookkeeping on GMs. Throw out a handful of minions. If they attack, toss out a couple of 20s, see which ones hit, and you know the damage. If they get hit, they die.
No keeping track of hit points, or bonuses, or anything else.
A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
I am fine with mook rules for the right genre. The problem with minions in 4E is D&D isn't really focused on that cinematic style where the inept guard drops from a karate chop. I find it is a fine option to include for the right campaign ( like I said worked great for my wuxia campaign)but it shouldn't be default in D&D (in a game like SW it makes more sense because it's cinematic action/pulp.
Also, like, say you're running an AD&D campaign where a mid-to-high level party is attacking a goblin lair. Then, if you're like me, you might start ticking off goblins instead of counting out every one's hit points. But that's because there isn't that much difference between a 4 hp goblin and one that goes down in one hit. In 4e as I understand it you have the minions that go down instantly and the non-minions who last rounds and rounds, so it's really obvious and more gamey.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
Granted, you'll see HP, Armor Class, and most saving throw models right there next to them. Complaints about dissociated mechanics are pretty rich coming from any D&D player.
Quote from: LibraryLass;725670Granted, you'll see HP, Armor Class, and most saving throw models right there next to them. Complaints about dissociated mechanics are pretty rich coming from any D&D player.
This is an old and tired chestnut.
Please come up with some new material.
The main problem with fire giant minions is that the game mechanics assume that you'll only meet fire giant minions when you're high enough level for fire giants to not really be a threat. This means that either:
-The DM sets up the campaign in such a way that you'll only meet fire giants at such and such levels, only meet kobolds at such and such levels, etc. etc.
-The DM stats up fire giants as solos if you're low level, as elites if you're a bit higher level, as normal monsters if you're pretty high and as minions if you're really high level.
Both don't sound like much fun for me.
The first assumes that the DM is the one controlling what sorts of things the players get in fights with while the PCs are just along for the ride. The second sounds very cumbersome unless, again, the DM is able to plan out what the PCs are doing and going to fight ahead of time.
Hard to make either approach work for a more sand box style of play.
Quote from: LibraryLass;725670most saving throw models right there next to them.
From an historical perspective, wonder where the notion of a "saving throw" came from.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;725634In 1e, a house cat is a legitimate problem for a low-level guy.
I never cease to be amazed by the apparent epidemic of referees who, if the number of times this comes up on the intrewebs is in
any way correlated with actual gamers playing actual games, killed characters with house cats.
'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;725678I never cease to be amazed by the apparent epidemic of referees who, if the number of times this comes up on the intrewebs is in any way correlated with actual gamers playing actual games, killed characters with house cats.
'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
Exactly. I always thought that "[Insert harmless sounding thing] thing could potentially kill a low level character!" was just a vaguely amusing result of trying to represent organic reality via sets of numbers.
It's not a particularly interesting or notable game flaw as long as you assume some human intelligence on the DM side of the screen.
I had a Druid 1 encounter a kobold in D&D3 and get her ass kicked by it. Not because of any stupidity on the Druid's part, the dice just hated her that night. I have never seen so many low rolls in one evening.
That is the closest I can come to the killer housecat model.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;725678I never cease to be amazed by the apparent epidemic of referees who, if the number of times this comes up on the intrewebs is in any way correlated with actual gamers playing actual games, killed characters with house cats.
'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
I think that more of it comes from, "I rollled a shitty character, so my character will go off and pick a fight with a house cat. Time to reroll."
Quote from: LibraryLass;725670Granted, you'll see HP, Armor Class, and most saving throw models right there next to them. Complaints about dissociated mechanics are pretty rich coming from any D&D player.
It helps to know the definition of the term you're discussing. :D
Seriously, abstracted mechanics are not dissociated mechanics. Even the most highly abstracted of all the D&D mechanics, Hit Points, only becomes dissociated without GM common sense, of course that era of game stressed GM common sense instead of RAW.
Hit Points became disassociated the first time they were applied to falling damage
Quote from: TristramEvans;725698Hit Points became disassociated the first time they were applied to falling damage
Yep, which is why if you don't like it back then you use Gary's alternate damage rules or just use common sense and give them a saving throw.
Now do that with dissociated mechanics in 4e - see you when you finish making your own game. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
Funny.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;725678I never cease to be amazed by the apparent epidemic of referees who, if the number of times this comes up on the intrewebs is in any way correlated with actual gamers playing actual games, killed characters with house cats.
'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
That's your response? Really? Please remove your infernal Gygaxian tunnel vision, and admit that numbers have an actual meaning. According to the
numbers for the actual game mechanics of fucking
cats, they're a legitimate match for many normal humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Even smaller critters....such as rats, squirrels, and crows are a slight problem for zero-level guys, via their
game mechanics. Stats don't lie.
You know this. Don't pretend to be dumber than you really are, out of some sense of misguided Gygaxian loyalty and grognardian dogma. Hit points in D&D have
never scaled well.
This is not a deal-breaker for me, as I can just work around it, but it certainly is an annoyance. It can create comically stupid situations, making the reader wonder if Gygax was just trying to be funny. I mean, he didn't
intentionally scale the hit point system this way, did he? For the sake of sanity, I certainly hope not.
Quote from: One Horse Town;725492Yeah, and it got real old, real fast.
Also, paper vampires!
Vampires should not be minions. Not even the three "brides" in
Dracula.JG
Quote from: Black Vulmea;725678I never cease to be amazed by the apparent epidemic of referees who, if the number of times this comes up on the intrewebs is in any way correlated with actual gamers playing actual games, killed characters with house cats.
'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
I think it has to do with the fact that the HP and (non-spell) damage potential of a cat and a 1st level Magic-User are fairly close together. ;)
JG
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
For me it depends on the scale. If the deity-level PCs are facing the Primordials of Creation, and regular fire giants are badly outclassed mooks, then I'm ok with representing them as simplified minions - though I always, always give my minions a Damage Threshold of Level+2 to kill (half that to bloody), which solves all the weirdness of the 1 hit point but doesn't require book-keeping since we already use red paperclips to signify bloodied status. So 18th level fire giants become 26th level minions, damage 28+ kills them and 14+ Bloodies.
Among WoTC's other mistakes was to use 18th level fire giant minions alongside regular fire giants as encounter-padding. I always change those to lesser races, eg the 18th level minions become 'fire ogres' that would be 10th level ogres vs lower level PCs.
Quote from: Imp;725665Also, like, say you're running an AD&D campaign where a mid-to-high level party is attacking a goblin lair. Then, if you're like me, you might start ticking off goblins instead of counting out every one's hit points. But that's because there isn't that much difference between a 4 hp goblin and one that goes down in one hit. In 4e as I understand it you have the minions that go down instantly and the non-minions who last rounds and rounds, so it's really obvious and more gamey.
Yeah, the implementation was often very poor, and as usual WoTC did little to show how to do it right. I reduce regular monster hp anyway, so the gulf between minion (with damage threshold) and regular monster IMC isn't as yawning. When my PCs are fighting 8th level standard ogres with ca 55 hp alongside 8th level orc minions with DT 10/5, it doesn't feel particularly gamey or 'off'.
Cats, that's one thing.
Badgers, now. Badgers is special hell. A berserk badger with a bit of luck could beat a whole 2nd level party.
:jaw-dropping:
For the minion thing. I agree it's silly. "Here's a normal orc, it's got 50 hp. Here's OHK orc minions". It's too gamey.
Sure though 1 HD humanoids in particular are mooks to high level characters, hell in OD&D and AD&D1e a high level fighter could slaughter a bunch of them every round. And as characters level more stuff becomes mookey. In an old one player campaign I ran 15 years ago a single high level (11th or thereabouts) fighter took out an entire band of hill giants and all their ogre buddies. Sure he had weapon mastery and a magic longsword but...
And that's how I like it. To a 2nd level party a single ogre is a really scary opponent (well unless someone's got a Sleep spell handy, then it's free XP), to a mid level party it's no big deal, to a high level party they're mooks.
Quote from: jeff37923;725686I had a Druid 1 encounter a kobold in D&D3 and get her ass kicked by it. Not because of any stupidity on the Druid's part, the dice just hated her that night. I have never seen so many low rolls in one evening.
That is the closest I can come to the killer housecat model.
We've had several Kobold and Goblin knockouts(we played until -10 for death) in our games, and at least one death due to a crit. Figure those dudes did 1-6 damage. All it takes is a solid roll and a 6 to put down a good portion of first-levels out there. (You could equip them with daggers instead for 1-4 damage but that could still potentially knock the M-U unconsious, even if you gave max HP per hit die, which we usually did for the first 3 levels.) 3x gave the little bastards shortspears which did x3 damage on a crit.
No housecats, though. :p I've reserved them as well more for the number exercises, but yes, small monsters can definitely wreak their own havoc. Of course they often come in groups, so that's a lot of rolls they get to make. Eventually a player's luck can run out and they take a hit.
Quote from: Daztur;725674The main problem with fire giant minions is that the game mechanics assume that you'll only meet fire giant minions when you're high enough level for fire giants to not really be a threat. This means that either:
-The DM sets up the campaign in such a way that you'll only meet fire giants at such and such levels, only meet kobolds at such and such levels, etc. etc.
-The DM stats up fire giants as solos if you're low level, as elites if you're a bit higher level, as normal monsters if you're pretty high and as minions if you're really high level.
Both don't sound like much fun for me.
The first assumes that the DM is the one controlling what sorts of things the players get in fights with while the PCs are just along for the ride. The second sounds very cumbersome unless, again, the DM is able to plan out what the PCs are doing and going to fight ahead of time.
Hard to make either approach work for a more sand box style of play.
I normally do it in semi-sandbox session where I might plan stuff out 1 session in advance, based on the events of the previous session. I find 4e doesn't work well for pure sandboxing where the GM has no idea what monsters the PCs will fight in advance of play. Apart from the stats issue, I need to bring along minis for the monsters the PCs might meet. When I tried to do sandbox 4e I went with pre-rolled wandering/random encounters, usually three for a session, plus the likely static encounters. It still didn't work great as the PCs would often encounter statics too high or low level for them, and neither worked well in the combat system.
What 4e really shines at IME is a Superhero Team type model, which is more reactive than sandboxing. Lots of interpersonal stuff and drama alongside occasional big multi-page battles that use the XP budget system.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;725703That's your response? Really? Please remove your infernal Gygaxian tunnel vision, and admit that numbers have an actual meaning. According to the numbers for the actual game mechanics of fucking cats, they're a legitimate match for many normal humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Even smaller critters....such as rats, squirrels, and crows are a slight problem for zero-level guys, via their game mechanics. Stats don't lie.
You know this. Don't pretend to be dumber than you really are, out of some sense of misguided Gygaxian loyalty and grognardian dogma. Hit points in D&D have never scaled well.
Most of these animals were not originally statted by Gygax - there is none of this in the 1e Monster Manual. Killer housecats is a 3e thing, due to AIR three attacks/round doing 1 hp each - no housecat entry to 1e as far as I can find. But yes Gygax does stat ravens, squirrels, and ordinary rats in the MM2 as doing 1 hp damage per attack. Stupid, and arguably marking a degenerate phase of the game (MM2 monsters in general look to be on steroids compared to the MM originals). But not 3e-level stupid.
Edit: Just found the Cat, Domestic entry in MM2. :) OK, there is a lot of shit in that book! Having been bitten badly by a cat I was trying to put in a cat box, I suppose that in 3e you could say a cat bite does 1 hp non-lethal damage, but can only attack if you are grappling it at the time...
Quote from: James Gillen;725709Vampires should not be minions. Not even the three "brides" in Dracula.
JG
It works for Hellsing and other anime; vampire spawn as hordes of disposable ghouls.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;725703That's your response? Really? Please remove your infernal Gygaxian tunnel vision, and admit that numbers have an actual meaning. According to the numbers for the actual game mechanics of fucking cats, they're a legitimate match for many normal humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Even smaller critters....such as rats, squirrels, and crows are a slight problem for zero-level guys, via their game mechanics. Stats don't lie.
You know this. Don't pretend to be dumber than you really are, out of some sense of misguided Gygaxian loyalty and grognardian dogma. Hit points in D&D have never scaled well.
This is not a deal-breaker for me, as I can just work around it, but it certainly is an annoyance. It can create comically stupid situations, making the reader wonder if Gygax was just trying to be funny. I mean, he didn't intentionally scale the hit point system this way, did he? For the sake of sanity, I certainly hope not.
I have killed 1st level folks with my wizard's familiar, a crow, does it count?
I have seen 1st level PCs die to pin traps in locks - the trap does 1 point of damage and a save v poison, and I have seen them through being hit by small rocks thrown by little kids.
QuoteEdit: Just found the Cat, Domestic entry in MM2. OK, there is a lot of shit in that book! Having been bitten badly by a cat I was trying to put in a cat box, I suppose that in 3e you could say a cat bite does 1 hp non-lethal damage, but can only attack if you are grappling it at the time...
Yeah, thinking back to my old cats, and the time we had to bathe the large male after a run in with some rather sticky stuff-he resembled something between a housecat a panther-their damage is non-lethal but had we not been wearing the heavy gloves I'm pretty sure we would have taken *quite* a bit. He certainly was rolling 20s on his grapple checks and was attacking several times a round. ;)
Quote from: Azzy;725731Yeah, thinking back to my old cats, and the time we had to bathe the large male after a run in with some rather sticky stuff-he resembled something between a housecat a panther-their damage is non-lethal but had we not been wearing the heavy gloves I'm pretty sure we would have taken *quite* a bit. He certainly was rolling 20s on his grapple checks and was attacking several times a round. ;)
Hell a kitten I owned as a kid made a serious attempt to kill a friend of mine! :D
As in, he jumped right for the throat! The two of them couldn't be in the same room. Said friend had, unsurprisingly, been a total asshole to said kitten and had it coming...happily it went well, as in "nobody was hurt" but man. I've seen mad dogs and all, hell been chased by a couple, but they're nothing compared to that cat - when that kitty got mad, we're talking MAD mad.
The thing about cats is, they're lovely, wonderful creatures, but they're also Conan-esque in a way.
Quote from: jibbajibba;725724I have killed 1st level folks with my wizard's familiar, a crow, does it count?
Maybe. Was it AD&D?
The funny thing is that I'm actually cool with familiars being tougher than normal animals. They're magical beings, with a supernatural link to a magic-user/wizard. But if we examine AD&D more carefully, we see that small innocuous animals can be a challenge for low-level guys.
Quote from: jibbajibbaI have seen 1st level PCs die to pin traps in locks - the trap does 1 point of damage and a save v poison, and I have seen them through being hit by small rocks thrown by little kids.
I have no problem with people croaking from poison, although AD&D doesn't seem to allow any nuance for lethal toxins. Instant death or nothing
all the time doesn't really do it for me. Some damage or secondary effects would be nice.
And as for rocks, they can definitely hurt. It's not like getting shot, but it still sucks.
AD&D does have nonlethal poisons (paralytic ones frex), and most of the lethal ones would be lethal to low-level characters but not to higher-level ones (as in doing HP dmg rather than instakill).
Quote from: The Ent;725734Hell a kitten I owned as a kid made a serious attempt to kill a friend of mine! :D
As in, he jumped right for the throat! The two of them couldn't be in the same room. Said friend had, unsurprisingly, been a total asshole to said kitten and had it coming...happily it went well, as in "nobody was hurt" but man. I've seen mad dogs and all, hell been chased by a couple, but they're nothing compared to that cat - when that kitty got mad, we're talking MAD mad.
The thing about cats is, they're lovely, wonderful creatures, but they're also Conan-esque in a way.
And cat-inflicted wounds are, apparently, especially prone to infection compared to those of other common animals. 1st level wizards don't stand a chance...
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;725703That's your response? Really? Please remove your infernal Gygaxian tunnel vision, and admit that numbers have an actual meaning. According to the numbers for the actual game mechanics of fucking cats, they're a legitimate match for many normal humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Even smaller critters....such as rats, squirrels, and crows are a slight problem for zero-level guys, via their game mechanics. Stats don't lie.
You know this. Don't pretend to be dumber than you really are, out of some sense of misguided Gygaxian loyalty and grognardian dogma. Hit points in D&D have never scaled well.
This is not a deal-breaker for me, as I can just work around it, but it certainly is an annoyance. It can create comically stupid situations, making the reader wonder if Gygax was just trying to be funny. I mean, he didn't intentionally scale the hit point system this way, did he? For the sake of sanity, I certainly hope not.
I will point out that D&D was derived out of Chainmail. In Chainmail one hit killed one person. This was expanded to a hit being 1d6 damage and a person having 1d6 hitpoints. Given this there is a lower limit on how small D&D can scale.
Contrast with GURPS, Hero, or Runequest, because of the added detail they provide for human scale character, smaller scale creatures work out better mechanically.
However the only system I found to handle the issue of scale elegantly is Fudge. In Fudge there are scale attributes that have specific effects. The normal attributes (say strength, dex, etc) represent the creature relative power among creatures of similar scale.
For example a normal human has scale of +0. If he has a strength of +2 is represents how strong he is among similar size humans. A grizzly bear has a size scale of +4 representing its size. A particular bear might have a strength of -1 meaning among bears and other similar size creature it is weak.
However if it attacked a human it does with a effective strength of +3. It size scale (+4) + strength (-1) = +3.
Also size scale factors into ability to resist damage. If the above bear had a Fortitude of +1 it resists damage more than other creatures of similar size. However for a human striking it, it becomes +5 as you have to add in the size scale of +4.
However attribute like the bear's dexterity or intelligence are NOT affected by the size scale.
In a Fudge game involving high speed vehicles one may use a speed scale and Fudge supports other types of scaling.
In Fudge a house cat has a size scale -7 compared to a normal human.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
Yup, a game where a mighty paladin can't get stabbed in the back unto death by the tipsy stableboy jealous lover of his mistress while he dances at the fall masquerade in a tragic case of mistaken identity with profound consequences for the whole kingdom for years to come is a game I don't want to play.
Quote from: TristramEvans;725698Hit Points became disassociated the first time they were applied to falling damage
Hit points are fine in and of themselves. If we want to talk about dissociated mechanics in D&D all we need to do is look at levels. Mixing levels with hit points, and with everything else, is where it all starts to careen off a cliff of dissociation.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725752And cat-inflicted wounds are, apparently, especially prone to infection compared to those of other common animals. 1st level wizards don't stand a chance...
Don't get hit by a cat in Harnmaster. Man that game's disease rules can be brutal.
Quote from: The Traveller;725757Yup, a game where a mighty paladin can't get stabbed in the back unto death by the tipsy stableboy jealous lover of his mistress while he dances at the fall masquerade in a tragic case of mistaken identity with profound consequences for the whole kingdom for years to come is a game I don't want to play.
I guess you're a fan of Rolemaster? :D
A hobbit with a whip can kill a dragon in one stroke (it takes fantastic luck, of course, though) in it...
Quote from: The Ent;725760I guess you're a fan of Rolemaster? :D
A hobbit with a whip can kill a dragon in one stroke (it takes fantastic luck, of course, though) in it...
It's an interesting system for sure. I mean when you think about it, a guy armed with a bottle full of petrol and a rag stuffed in the top can technically take out a modern battle tank if he gets lucky enough.
Quote from: The Traveller;725757Quote from: TristramEvans;725698Hit Points became disassociated the first time they were applied to falling damage
Hit points are fine in and of themselves. If we want to talk about dissociated mechanics in D&D all we need to do is look at levels. Mixing levels with hit points, and with everything else, is where it all starts to careen off a cliff of dissociation.
As an aside.
Going to an extreme, wonder if there's any video games where AC and other attributes are entirely replaced with "hit points". Essentially parameterizing almost-everything (ie. health, armor, levels, size, etc ...) into a single HP number.
For tabletop rpg games, such an extreme parametrization as a single HP figure would be too obvious and looks kinda silly. But for a video game that is completely proprietary closed source, the only way to figure out the game's mechanics would be to disassemble the game's executable files and tediously reconstruct the code.
Quote from: The Traveller;725761It's an interesting system for sure. I mean when you think about it, a guy armed with a bottle full of petrol and a rag stuffed in the top can technically take out a modern battle tank if he gets lucky enough.
Well, roll 95-00 enough times and I'm sure he could put a dent in a battleship...:D Okay now I'm being silly. But it's a quirk of the system - and of course it is possible, I guess, if extremely unlikely.
Always liked Rolemaster myself (and also Blacky the Blackball's RM + D&D hybrid pseudo-retroclone).
Quote from: CRKrueger;725662A Fire Giant Minion is antithetical to the very idea of a Fire Giant. When you look in the dictionary under Dissociated Mechanics, you see Minion as a Prime Example.
Any Mook rules, by definition, are metagame mechanics. No thanks.
Hit points are metagame. They were derived from a naval warfare wargame out of convenience. They simulate nothing. How else to explain that in perilous combat, through battle and wounds and blows and fire, a character continues to function at 100 per cent effectiveness until he hits a numerical threshold, then he dies. It's one of the gamiest mechanics ever devised for an RPG. There are literally hundreds of RPGs that use a more realistic combat system than AD&D.
And people are going to quibble over weak monsters dropping from one hit?
Quote from: CRKrueger;725696It helps to know the definition of the term you're discussing. :D
Seriously, abstracted mechanics are not dissociated mechanics. Even the most highly abstracted of all the D&D mechanics, Hit Points, only becomes dissociated without GM common sense, of course that era of game stressed GM common sense instead of RAW.
HPs are abstracted mechanics used to aid the speed of play and convenience at the table. So are minions.
I've played D&D since 1979, and I eventually came up with my own minion rules because tracking the HP of every single hobgoblin in every single combat became an exercise in fun-destroying tedium.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725701Yep, which is why if you don't like it back then you use Gary's alternate damage rules or just use common sense and give them a saving throw.
Now do that with dissociated mechanics in 4e - see you when you finish making your own game. :D
Tell you what. I'm running 4E Essentials right now. I don't intend to use minion for powerful monsters like fire giants. When the time comes around for me to disregard the minion rules, I'll be sure to let you know if the game is totally ruined and we have to stop playing.
Quote from: Haffrung;725779Hit points are metagame. They were derived from a naval warfare wargame out of convenience. They simulate nothing. How else to explain that in perilous combat, through battle and wounds and blows and fire, a character continues to function at 100 per cent effectiveness until he hits a numerical threshold, then he dies.
There's nothing that says HP can't be combined with a death spiral or hit locations.
Quote from: ggroy;725762As an aside.
Going to an extreme, wonder if there's any video games where AC and other attributes are entirely replaced with "hit points". Essentially parameterizing almost-everything (ie. health, armor, levels, size, etc ...) into a single HP number.
For tabletop rpg games, such an extreme parametrization as a single HP figure would be too obvious and looks kinda silly. But for a video game that is completely proprietary closed source, the only way to figure out the game's mechanics would be to disassemble the game's executable files and tediously reconstruct the code.
Right off the top of my head:
Final Fantasy XIII. No defense stat, no armor "stat", just hit points and pieces of equipment that increased your number of hit points. I kind of admired the simplicity, transparency, and honesty of it. (There are a lot of unorthodox things I admire about that game, which puts me at odds with a rather vocal minority of fans who despise every part of it)
Which reminds me - Ever notice that in most
Final Fantasy games combatants almost never miss? Instead, it's as if they totally skip the "to hit" roll and use the abstraction of hit points and damage to represent a poor attack instead. Like this: "Ooh, you rolled very low for damage against a creature with very high HP, so in this abstraction it's as if you swung wide and the creature only tired itself out a little bit to avoid it."
Are there any tabletop RPGs out there that exploit the abstraction of HP to the fullest like that?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725795Right off the top of my head: Final Fantasy XIII. No defense stat, no armor "stat", just hit points and pieces of equipment that increased your number of hit points.
Not just video games, but there are TTRPGs like that as well. The system used in Altus Aventum has a series of 4 different wound levels you can withstand before dying. Armor simply increases those. I'm sure there are plenty of other RPGs out there that do the same
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725795Right off the top of my head: Final Fantasy XIII. No defense stat, no armor "stat", just hit points and pieces of equipment that increased your number of hit points. I kind of admired the simplicity, transparency, and honesty of it.
I suspect Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is similar. (Maybe even simpler than Final Fantasy).
Awhile ago I looked at whether taking damage is variable or (relatively) constant in the game.
For example:
- Firing a rocket launcher against a wall at point blank range, caused the exact same amount of damage every time.
- Dropping a grenade at your foot, caused approximately the same amount of damage every time. (The damage differed by 1 point).
- Falling off the same building height, caused approximately the same amount of damage every time. (The damage differed by 1 point).
- Falling off of buildings of different heights, the damage looked approximately linear in proportion to the height of the building.
- etc ...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725752And cat-inflicted wounds are, apparently, especially prone to infection compared to those of other common animals.
I can testify to that. :D After my bit-to-the-bone finger swelled up and started turning purple my wife made me go to the hospital and get loaded up with antibiotics. Good old NHS earned their tax £ that day. :cool:
Quote from: Haffrung;725779Hit points are metagame. They were derived from a naval warfare wargame out of convenience. They simulate nothing. How else to explain that in perilous combat, through battle and wounds and blows and fire, a character continues to function at 100 per cent effectiveness until he hits a numerical threshold, then he dies. It's one of the gamiest mechanics ever devised for an RPG. There are literally hundreds of RPGs that use a more realistic combat system than AD&D.
Hits point created to make the Chainmail derived combat more interesting. 1 hit was expanded to 1d6 and likewise 1d6 per Hits to Kill.
Hit Points are not a metagame mechanic derived from an unrelated game. But you are correct in that hit points are not very detailed. That later games came along that provided more details that better simulated the complexities of taking injury during melee combat.
I don't feel that D&D Hit points are gamey at all. They are however very abstract thus how they "feel" is dependent on how the referee describes the results of combat to his players. If you want a more "realistic" gritty feeling D&D game then describe the combat results that way. If you want to that gritty feeling to have mechanic effects then D&D is not the game.
I also feel that the power creep in AD&D 1st and later editions hinders a more realistic description of hit points. OD&D has a distinctly flatter power curve. I feel this makes it easier to describe combat results in a more realistic manner even at higher levels.
Quote from: Haffrung;725779It's one of the gamiest mechanics ever devised for an RPG. There are literally hundreds of RPGs that use a more realistic combat system than AD&D.
Yeah, lots of them, personally I love RQ6. However, in D&D, a housecat has less hit points then a veteran soldier, who has less hit points then an ancient dragon. They are representational, even if HP use outside of combat is very lazily designed. and, as I mentioned earlier fixing the HP issue where it becomes dissociative for you is very easy as opposed to, say, replacing all martial dailies. :D
Quote from: Haffrung;725779Tell you what. I'm running 4E Essentials right now. I don't intend to use minion for powerful monsters like fire giants. When the time comes around for me to disregard the minion rules, I'll be sure to let you know if the game is totally ruined and we have to stop playing.
Seeing as how you're running 4e right now, you and your players have no problems with metric tons of dissociated mechanics, so who cares?
Game ruined? Take a breath, I never said the game would be ruined, I said if you're going to try and remove all dissociated mechanics from 4e, you might as well make your own game.
Quote from: Haffrung;725779And people are going to quibble over weak monsters dropping from one hit?
Yeah, if a normal Fire Giant can take 120 HPs of damage, and the "weak" Fire Giant next to him dies with 1HP of damage, then that's where the game enters FULL.RETARD mode.
Quote from: The Traveller;725783There's nothing that says HP can't be combined with a death spiral or hit locations.
Considering hit locations are in Supplement II: Blackmoor, I'd say that idea has been around since the beginning.
Quote from: The Traveller;725783There's nothing that says HP can't be combined with a death spiral or hit locations.
or critical hits, or stun, shock and bleeding, or anything else people have used to easily patch the HP system where it is too abstract for them. Which is why always throwing HPs up as if that were some kind of argument to the fact that 4e seems as if dissociated mechanics were practically a design requirement is...I'll be nice and say misguided.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725832or critical hits, or stun, shock and bleeding, or anything else people have used to easily patch the HP system where it is too abstract for them. Which is why always throwing HPs up as if that were some kind of argument to the fact that 4e seems as if dissociated mechanics were practically a design requirement is...I'll be nice and say misguided.
There is not a 'traditional' game out there that doesn't have
dissociated mechanics. Using the 'concept' as a disparaging remark against 4e is laughable at best.
Quote from: estar;725828Hit Points are not a metagame mechanic derived from an unrelated game.
Whether they are metagame or not, I don't really care, but unless you want to call Dave Arneson a liar, he did pull it from a Naval wargame. The original interview is missing, but there is a metric fuckton of references to the exact interview saying the same thing.
EDIT: Wayback machine got it: https://web.archive.org/web/20060209235156/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/august02/gencon/arneson/
QuoteAnyway, when we tried to use the old matrix rules (for Chainmail) only one die decided combat. So either the player would die or the monster would die. Well, the players didn't like that, so that's where I came up with hit points. Actually I got that from a set of Civil War Naval Rules where you had Armor Class and Hit Points and guns would do different damage.
Quote from: Sommerjon;725835There is not a 'traditional' game out there that doesn't have dissociated mechanics. Using the 'concept' as a disparaging remark against 4e is laughable at best.
There's not a single book published that doesn't have a typo. There's a difference between that and a book that never went through any editing or spellchecking before it was published. :D
Dissociated mechanics, like providing rules that are meant to give the player, not the character, tactical options to make the minigame of combat interesting is a hallmark of 4e design. That the option may make no sense in the context of the character wasn't even a design consideration.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;725838Whether they are metagame or not, I don't really care, but unless you want to call Dave Arneson a liar, he did pull it from a Naval wargame. The original interview is missing, but there is a metric fuckton of references to the exact interview saying the same thing.
EDIT: Wayback machine got it: https://web.archive.org/web/20060209235156/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/august02/gencon/arneson/
Yes the idea of hit points comes from Naval Games as Jon Peterson documented in Playing at the World. However the APPLICATION is based on translating Chainmails hits to kill into a XD6s. This can be seen by a one to one correspondence between the HD of OD&D monsters and the the Hits to kill of their chainmail equivalent. A 4th level Fighter is a Hero, a Hero in Chainmail has 4 hits to kill. The Giant in Chainmail takes 8 hits to kill, in D&D the Giant has 8 HD.
Chainmail's Hits to kill represented the innate toughness of the figure and this was carried over to OD&D. Likewise in Chainmail the figure's armor rating determined how resistant it was to damage. And when translated over to OD&D Gygax and Arneson reach once again to their naval wargame experience and used the easier to use system of armor class from Don't Give up the Ship.
The main difference at first was that the chart was level/HD vs Armor instead of the weapons type vs armor of chainmail. This is because unlike chaimail character progression was a centerpiece mechanic.
Later in the Greyhawk supplement the weapon vs armor table was ported over in the form of bonuses and minuses.
Again the OD&D combat system is abstraction of combat that made sense to the participants in light of their war gaming experience. Later when D&D spread to people to who didn't share that experience they opted to create different systems like Runequest that reflected their experience. OD&D sin that it was poorly organized and poorly explained.
Quote from: CRKrueger;725855There's not a single book published that doesn't have a typo. There's a difference between that and a book that never went through any editing or spellchecking before it was published. :D
I think this is a pretty good example, though i might say it is more like "most every book uses exclamation marks at some point but you shouldn't end every sentence with one." I can handle HP and AC, but i do not want every single mechanic to be that abstract. It is about using stuff where it is needed. If we put aside the dissociative argument for minute, which often just turns into people trying to prove if you don't like come and get it, you can't like hit points either, i think the issue here is for people who don't like the feel of 4E, it is ends every sentence with exclamation marks. A few we could handle. It was the sense that the game said, well D&D has HP and Vancian magic, so lets make everything gamey and abstract. It is an exageration to an extent, but that is how it felt to me.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725795Instead, it's as if they totally skip the "to hit" roll and use the abstraction of hit points and damage to represent a poor attack instead. Like this: "Ooh, you rolled very low for damage against a creature with very high HP, so in this abstraction it's as if you swung wide and the creature only tired itself out a little bit to avoid it."
Are there any tabletop RPGs out there that exploit the abstraction of HP to the fullest like that?
I don't know if its exactly what you're after, but Tunnels and Trolls has a combat system where both sides compare combat totals for the round, and the difference goes to the loser in damage, after subtracting armour. Its hit points aren't especially abstract - damage comes directly off Constitution score or Monster Rating- though it generates some strange results like the greatsword guy (6 combat dice) being more likely to win the combat round ('hit') than the guy with the shortsword (3 combat dice).
Quote from: Haffrung;725779And people are going to quibble over weak monsters dropping from one hit?
I don't have an issue with that. It happens all the time in my OD&D game.
The part that becomes an issue is when we are dealing with a monster that is no longer weak.
Goblin minions- no problem.
Balrog minions- problem.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;725884it generates some strange results like the greatsword guy (6 combat dice) being more likely to win the combat round ('hit') than the guy with the shortsword (3 combat dice).
What do you think happens IRL if you put a guy with a greatsword vs a guy with a shortsword? The greatsword guy pokes the shortsword guy whenever the shortsword guy closes to strike, while the greatsword guy can strike while staying out of shortsword guy's reach. That's the main difference between the weapons - not amount of damage inflicted by a strike.
Quote from: S'mon;725718I normally do it in semi-sandbox session where I might plan stuff out 1 session in advance, based on the events of the previous session. I find 4e doesn't work well for pure sandboxing where the GM has no idea what monsters the PCs will fight in advance of play. Apart from the stats issue, I need to bring along minis for the monsters the PCs might meet. When I tried to do sandbox 4e I went with pre-rolled wandering/random encounters, usually three for a session, plus the likely static encounters. It still didn't work great as the PCs would often encounter statics too high or low level for them, and neither worked well in the combat system.
What 4e really shines at IME is a Superhero Team type model, which is more reactive than sandboxing. Lots of interpersonal stuff and drama alongside occasional big multi-page battles that use the XP budget system.
The issue I had with 4e sandbox was that monsters were stretched to spread across 30 levels, and so, a slimmer percentage of monsters was within reasonable fighting range.
Eliminating the +1/2 level bonus to everything completely eliminates this issue and makes the game incredibly smooth to DM.
Quote from: S'mon;725895What do you think happens IRL if you put a guy with a greatsword vs a guy with a shortsword? The greatsword guy pokes the shortsword guy whenever the shortsword guy closes to strike, while the greatsword guy can strike while staying out of shortsword guy's reach. That's the main difference between the weapons - not amount of damage inflicted by a strike.
I suppose it works if you look at it that way.
Quote from: S'mon;725895What do you think happens IRL if you put a guy with a greatsword vs a guy with a shortsword? The greatsword guy pokes the shortsword guy whenever the shortsword guy closes to strike, while the greatsword guy can strike while staying out of shortsword guy's reach. That's the main difference between the weapons - not amount of damage inflicted by a strike.
Unless he's got 2 short swords against the 2 handed sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIT-vKFwi4) ;)
If it was T&T and you had two shortswords then you'd have 6 dice too...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;725949Unless he's got 2 short swords against the 2 handed sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIT-vKFwi4) ;)
Sigh.
SCA combat is rarely a good example of what a weapon or fighting style is capable of.
The two sword fighter was actually fighting with two broadsword sized weapons, not actually shortswords. This narrows the disadvantage somewhat. However:
1) The SCA frowns on greatsword thrusts to the face. The 2 handed sword fighter in the video negated his reach advantage by not establishing a point defense.
2) Assuming he declined to thrust, targets below the knee are not valid in the SCA. In a real fight he would chop the other guy off at the ankles.
Quote from: Old One Eye;725928The issue I had with 4e sandbox was that monsters were stretched to spread across 30 levels, and so, a slimmer percentage of monsters was within reasonable fighting range.
Eliminating the +1/2 level bonus to everything completely eliminates this issue and makes the game incredibly smooth to DM.
That seems like it would make high level monsters virtually unhittable, though, would it not?
Quote from: CRKrueger;725855There's not a single book published that doesn't have a typo. There's a difference between that and a book that never went through any editing or spellchecking before it was published. :D
Dissociated mechanics, like providing rules that are meant to give the player, not the character, tactical options to make the minigame of combat interesting is a hallmark of 4e design. That the option may make no sense in the context of the character wasn't even a design consideration.
Riiight.:rolleyes:
If you have 60 rules and 11 are dissociative you're good, but once it hits 15...
Quote from: LibraryLass;725981That seems like it would make high level monsters virtually unhittable, though, would it not?
I believe monsters have a similar system (their defenses scale linearly with level) so I assume he means removing both ends of it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;726010Riiight.:rolleyes:
If you have 60 rules and 11 are dissociative you're good, but once it hits 15...
I think the problem for a lot of people it was more than. Not everyone felt this way, but for me martial abilities you could only use once a day or once and encounter felt very disconnected from the in game events. Rage x times a day was something I could handle, but a whole system built around fire and forget combat abilities was too much for me. So it wasn't like going from 11 to 16, it was the core system and design philosophy itself.
Does that make 4E an objectively awful game? No, absolutely not. But I think there are reasons why some if us didn't like it. To me it all just felt too hand wavy.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;726019I think the problem for a lot of people it was more than. Not everyone felt this way, but for me martial abilities you could only use once a day or once and encounter felt very disconnected from the in game events. Rage x times a day was something I could handle, but a whole system built around fire and forget combat abilities was too much for me. So it wasn't like going from 11 to 16, it was the core system and design philosophy itself.
Does that make 4E an objectively awful game? No, absolutely not. But I think there are reasons why some if us didn't like it. To me it all just felt too hand wavy.
This is how it is for me as well. I play sports. The analogy I like to use is that 4e made me feel like I could only dunk once a quarter. Or I could only hit a 3 point shot once a game. That doesn't make sense in my head. If I have the ability to dunk and make a 3 point shot, I should be allowed to attempt it whenever the scenario presents itself.
The counter argument I've heard to this is, "Well, it just means you are guaranteed to make a 3 point shot when you want."
Hell, that's even more disassociative, in my mind. So yeah, I get how a lot of people aren't bothered by that, and more power to them. I'm not taking away their game. But my mind has a hard time grasping concepts like that for mundane actions.
Quote from: tanstaafl48;726016I believe monsters have a similar system (their defenses scale linearly with level) so I assume he means removing both ends of it.
Ah. Okay. That could work.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;725678'cause, without that epidemic of actual play instances, this is nothing more than third-degree system wankery.
And 3 . . . and 2 . . . and 1 . . .
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;725703Please remove your infernal Gygaxian tunnel vision, and admit that numbers have an actual meaning. According to the numbers for the actual game mechanics of fucking cats, they're a legitimate match for many normal humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Even smaller critters....such as rats, squirrels, and crows are a slight problem for zero-level guys, via their game mechanics. Stats don't lie.
Case in point.
Lest anyone be fooled by Lambchop's bilious wankage, the rules for house cats in 1e
AD&D are indeed completely borked - stories of people mauled by their pets notwithstanding - which is why I, possessed of both a shred of common sense and a modicum of self-restraint, never used them as written. Anyone who did deserved whatever ridiculous outcome they got.
Quote from: Old One Eye;725928The issue I had with 4e sandbox was that monsters were stretched to spread across 30 levels, and so, a slimmer percentage of monsters was within reasonable fighting range.
I remember that being a problem when I ran the game in 2009 with MM + MM2, but by now there's a good amount of stuff across the level range. The problem is more IME the narrow range of levels the PCs can fight, Party Level -2 to +4, roughly, or the system gets creaky. This was a problem in 3e too but in 3e low level critters died fast & easily, high level critters killed the PCs fast & easily. In 4e lower level critters die slow and boringly, higher level critters used to mean an endless drag, but post MM3 they work better.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;725959The two sword fighter was actually fighting with two broadsword sized weapons, not actually shortswords.
[Extreme pedantry]In Rennaissance England a one handed sword - cut & thrust, aka "broadsword", like a light medieval sword - was called a "shortsword"; a "longsword" was a two-handed sword...thus he's actually fighting with "shortsword"-sized weapons...[/pedant]
Quote from: The Ent;726058[Extreme pedantry]In Rennaissance England a one handed sword - cut & thrust, aka "broadsword", like a light medieval sword - was called a "shortsword"; a "longsword" was a two-handed sword...thus he's actually fighting with "shortsword"-sized weapons...[/pedant]
Man......gotta love that historical weapon creep. Thus a gladius became a "dagger". :p
Quote from: Black Vulmea;726049And 3 . . . and 2 . . . and 1 . . .
Case in point.
Lest anyone be fooled by Lambchop's bilious wankage, the rules for house cats in 1e AD&D are indeed completely borked - stories of people mauled by their pets notwithstanding - which is why I, possessed of both a shred of common sense and a modicum of self-restraint, never used them as written. Anyone who did deserved whatever ridiculous outcome they got.
Exactly. Why would anyone use a monster as written if the stats are clearly inappropriate?
The 1hp level one wizard fleees from the mighty housecat!
Quote from: S'mon;725719Most of these animals were not originally statted by Gygax - there is none of this in the 1e Monster Manual. Killer housecats is a 3e thing, due to AIR three attacks/round doing 1 hp each - no housecat entry to 1e as far as I can find. But yes Gygax does stat ravens, squirrels, and ordinary rats in the MM2 as doing 1 hp damage per attack. Stupid, and arguably marking a degenerate phase of the game (MM2 monsters in general look to be on steroids compared to the MM originals). But not 3e-level stupid.
Edit: Just found the Cat, Domestic entry in MM2. :) OK, there is a lot of shit in that book! Having been bitten badly by a cat I was trying to put in a cat box, I suppose that in 3e you could say a cat bite does 1 hp non-lethal damage, but can only attack if you are grappling it at the time...
Totally off topic. But my youngest brother has a scar down his forearm that looks like a suicide scar. It isnt. He was screwing around with my cat and the cat raked him down the arm with her back claws and laid open something gushy. That was alot of blood. He didnt die. But he did pass out from blood loss before I got a tournequett on. Had he ben alone... well...
As for AD&D. For me as a Magic User player it is forever the damn kobold with a dagger. Not like they ever needed a dagger. But why go half way... When you have just 1 HP pretty much a stiff breeze can kill you.
As for 4th ed. It was an experiment with a foundation you should never experiment with. Reserve that for the sideline stuff where fewer will care if you totally screw it.
As much as I may revile it in action. Slapping the experimental CCG onto the 4eD&D GW sideline game was a good idea. If it fails then you arent dragging down the foundation with it.
Quote from: Omega;726097Totally off topic. But my youngest brother has a scar down his forearm that looks like a suicide scar. It isnt. He was screwing around with my cat and the cat raked him down the arm with her back claws and laid open something gushy. That was alot of blood. He didnt die. But he did pass out from blood loss before I got a tournequett on. Had he ben alone... well...
As for AD&D. For me as a Magic User player it is forever the damn kobold with a dagger. Not like they ever needed a dagger. But why go half way... When you have just 1 HP pretty much a stiff breeze can kill you.
As for 4th ed. It was an experiment with a foundation you should never experiment with. Reserve that for the sideline stuff where fewer will care if you totally screw it.
As much as I may revile it in action. Slapping the experimental CCG onto the 4eD&D GW sideline game was a good idea. If it fails then you arent dragging down the foundation with it.
The '1hp' fully healed character in dnd is less bizaare if you use the dead at -10 optional rule from the dmg. (I prefer -con or - 1/2 con)
Bleeding to death is slightly less foolish than being struck dead by a housecat.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;726091Man......gotta love that historical weapon creep. Thus a gladius became a "dagger". :p
In
Pendragon, gladius = dagger :D
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;725795Right off the top of my head: Final Fantasy XIII. No defense stat, no armor "stat", just hit points and pieces of equipment that increased your number of hit points. I kind of admired the simplicity, transparency, and honesty of it. (There are a lot of unorthodox things I admire about that game, which puts me at odds with a rather vocal minority of fans who despise every part of it)
Which reminds me - Ever notice that in most Final Fantasy games combatants almost never miss? Instead, it's as if they totally skip the "to hit" roll and use the abstraction of hit points and damage to represent a poor attack instead. Like this: "Ooh, you rolled very low for damage against a creature with very high HP, so in this abstraction it's as if you swung wide and the creature only tired itself out a little bit to avoid it."
Are there any tabletop RPGs out there that exploit the abstraction of HP to the fullest like that?
Im on retainer creating a game design that does exactly that. No to hit rolls. Just damage. Unfortunately there is competition for the position. But even if it gets passed for someone elses design. I A: still get payed a little and B: can apply the idea to a different theme.
I am pretty sure there was an RPG that used the "damage only" system way back. But no clue what it was now.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;725893I don't have an issue with that. It happens all the time in my OD&D game.
The part that becomes an issue is when we are dealing with a monster that is no longer weak.
Goblin minions- no problem.
Balrog minions- problem.
Rule that Balrogs aren't minions in your game - no problem.
Quote from: Bill;726093Exactly. Why would anyone use a monster as written if the stats are clearly inappropriate?
The 1hp level one wizard fleees from the mighty housecat!
See, this is what gets up my nose about edition warring. It's perfectly fine to fix your D&D with a house rule or two. But that other edition is broken because
it's in the rules.
Every edition of D&D I've played has stuff that annoys me. That's why I've tweaked every version of D&D I've played, including 4E Essentials.
If citing RAW is a legitimate tactic in these disputes, then it's a legitimate tactic for all editions. If house-ruling is a legitimate and expected method to customize one edition, it's legitimate for all editions.
Quote from: Sommerjon;726010Riiight.:rolleyes:
If you have 60 rules and 11 are dissociative you're good, but once it hits 15...
Actually, yes. That's how people feel about RPGs, and a lot of other things. You'll tolerate a 30 minute commute to work in traffic, but you won't tolerate a 40 minute commute. No game is completely gamist. Otherwise we'd dispense altogether with the notion of monsters and evocative abilities, and just give the monsters IDs like Humanoid Class A and call spells things like Blast 1, Blast 2, etc.
D&D does have some whoppers baked right into the core of the system. Only the most fanatical OSR Taliban would deny that. But familiarity tends to smooth out the rough edges. I guarantee if D&D had discrete fatigue and wound systems by default from the outset, and the abstraction of HP was introduced in 4E, it would right at the top of the list of fun-destroying disassociative mechanics denounced by traditional players.
That doesn't change the fact that everyone has their own threshold for tolerance of these things.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;726042This is how it is for me as well. I play sports. The analogy I like to use is that 4e made me feel like I could only dunk once a quarter. Or I could only hit a 3 point shot once a game. That doesn't make sense in my head. If I have the ability to dunk and make a 3 point shot, I should be allowed to attempt it whenever the scenario presents itself.
The counter argument I've heard to this is, "Well, it just means you are guaranteed to make a 3 point shot when you want."
Hell, that's even more disassociative, in my mind. So yeah, I get how a lot of people aren't bothered by that, and more power to them. I'm not taking away their game. But my mind has a hard time grasping concepts like that for mundane actions.
Essentials ditches encounter powers for non-magical classes, and replaces them with stances. Probably the biggest reason I decided to give it a try recently, after ignoring 4E since is publication. Also, they cut back HP substantially, so combats run faster.
Quote from: Haffrung;726114Rule that Balrogs aren't minions in your game - no problem.
Don't need to because I don't run such systems. As a player, when something like balrog minions show up I just laugh at them. Its just a game.
Quote from: Haffrung;726114See, this is what gets up my nose about edition warring. It's perfectly fine to fix your D&D with a house rule or two. But that other edition is broken because it's in the rules.
As far as I am concerned 4E isn't broken. It works just fine for what it is. The game just isn't of a flavor I really care for. So not liking it is not the same as it being broken.
Quote from: Haffrung;726114If citing RAW is a legitimate tactic in these disputes, then it's a legitimate tactic for all editions. If house-ruling is a legitimate and expected method to customize one edition, it's legitimate for all editions.
While such methods may be legitimate, the pain in the ass factor certainly changes with regard to houseruling depending on how tightly interconnected the RAW happens to be.
Using initiative as an example, in AD&D or B/X I can use the group or individual method and they are interchangable. If I want to use group initiative in 4E the universe implodes. The concept of YOUR TURN and all the fucking shit that depends on when it begins and ends means the whole game comes to a crashing halt with that one little houserule.
So no, not every RAW is equal.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;726042This is how it is for me as well. I play sports. The analogy I like to use is that 4e made me feel like I could only dunk once a quarter. Or I could only hit a 3 point shot once a game. That doesn't make sense in my head. If I have the ability to dunk and make a 3 point shot, I should be allowed to attempt it whenever the scenario presents itself.
The counter argument I've heard to this is, "Well, it just means you are guaranteed to make a 3 point shot when you want."
Hell, that's even more disassociative, in my mind. So yeah, I get how a lot of people aren't bothered by that, and more power to them. I'm not taking away their game. But my mind has a hard time grasping concepts like that for mundane actions.
For me it isn't the martial daily powers that make it hard for me to immerse in 4ed it's stuff like "Warden's Fury" which lets you hurt people who attack your allies (standard part of 4ed marking mechanics). It says "you lash out with nature's wrath at a foe that has attacked your ally and diminish its defenses."
OK, what does that power actually DO? I get to hit things with nature's wrath? What form does that take? Does it still work if I'm in the vacuum of space or other very unnatural place? If I can summon the anger of nature is there anything else I can do with it?
4ed players have told me that in situations like this you should be creative and make up any kind of specific description of the power on the spot, it doesn't matter what the power is doing specifically (zapping people with lightning? hitting their feet with thorns that grow out of the ground?) all that matters if you can hurt people who attack your allies.
That just takes me right out of the game since I like making character decisions based on the fluff as that makes me feel like a character that's part of the world, but if the fluff is anything that I say it is then I don't have much to go on.
Basically when playing RPGs it is very hard to get myself to care about things that will never have any impact on my character. If something is just descriptive color that I can never use for anything interesting, then why should I care about it? 4ed is full of that kind of thing. Basically all of the things that make 4ed easy to reskin are the exact same things that make me less enthusiastic about playing it (basically the proverbial wall make out of tigers with tigers on top between fluff and crunch in 4ed).
Quote from: LibraryLass;725981That seems like it would make high level monsters virtually unhittable, though, would it not?
I reduced monster attack values and defenses by 1/2 level. I also had to work up my own skill DC chart.
Without level affecting d20 rolls, the game took on interesting dynamics. The whole monster manual really opened up. 1st level characters who focus on it could be specialists at a skill.
Very similar to the flat math of DDN.
Quote from: S'mon;726050I remember that being a problem when I ran the game in 2009 with MM + MM2, but by now there's a good amount of stuff across the level range. The problem is more IME the narrow range of levels the PCs can fight, Party Level -2 to +4, roughly, or the system gets creaky. This was a problem in 3e too but in 3e low level critters died fast & easily, high level critters killed the PCs fast & easily. In 4e lower level critters die slow and boringly, higher level critters used to mean an endless drag, but post MM3 they work better.
I am the oddball who prefers MM1 & 2 to MM3 & Vault. The later monsters rarely had any skill or other mechanical non-combat hook, and so, did not have nifty little nuggets to fit into the milieu.
Another reason I didn't like the latter monsters was because the damage increase they received put them above par to a PC of equal level. Something feels wrong to me when an orc can dish out more damage on a basic sword whack than a fighter.
Quote from: Daztur;726216For me it isn't the martial daily powers that make it hard for me to immerse in 4ed it's stuff like "Warden's Fury" which lets you hurt people who attack your allies (standard part of 4ed marking mechanics). It says "you lash out with nature's wrath at a foe that has attacked your ally and diminish its defenses."
OK, what does that power actually DO? I get to hit things with nature's wrath? What form does that take? Does it still work if I'm in the vacuum of space or other very unnatural place? If I can summon the anger of nature is there anything else I can do with it?
4ed players have told me that in situations like this you should be creative and make up any kind of specific description of the power on the spot, it doesn't matter what the power is doing specifically (zapping people with lightning? hitting their feet with thorns that grow out of the ground?) all that matters if you can hurt people who attack your allies.
I didn't play it like that. Nobody played a warden, so I never encountered that specific power, but the paladin player was very specific that the damage from his mark was visible divine energies.
All the powers have descriptive text. We used it to adjudicate same as playing AD&D. For example, if the spell's text call out a spell as having a glowing nimbus around the caster, wizard just ruined his chance to hide.
Only a handful were actually awkward to describe. The fighter one where everyone moved adjacent to him we just kind of eyerolled and let him do his thing. What all the angel summoned by a low level cleric could do was another whammy, but we worked it out.
Stuff like this was pretty easy to fix up, same as any rpg needs some elbow grease.
The true grit when it comes to 4e is whether one likes the combat engine. Like it and any other issues with the game can be worked out. Don't like it, and other issues appear larger than they really are.
Yeah, not all RAW is equal. What I compliment 4e in elegant integrated design later ends up complicating my house rule editing.
Like Jenga, pulling here or there leads to unpredictable collapse. I may be pleasantly surprised to learn removing 1/2 level bonus, something I hated, opens up range of viable encounter monsters and aids GMing. But it isn't what I would have expected in pulling that piece out.
That's just the nature of complexity and mechanics integration. For all that previous design effort, I am left with what is essentially more pages of code. And programming from scratch or bare bones is a lot easier than repurposing pages of legacy code. So now that I'm older and have a stronger grasp of what I want, that feature is now definitely a bug in my play.
Perhaps the better question is...
Had not WOTC been on the 5 year plan and scrapped 4th ed anyhow...
Would 4th ed have stood on its own or would it have collapsed more than it already had?
At the time of its cancellation. How far into the death spiral was - or wasn't it?
Quote from: Old One Eye;726258I reduced monster attack values and defenses by 1/2 level. I also had to work up my own skill DC chart.
Without level affecting d20 rolls, the game took on interesting dynamics. The whole monster manual really opened up. 1st level characters who focus on it could be specialists at a skill.
Very similar to the flat math of DDN.
Huh, neat.
Quote from: Old One Eye;726261Another reason I didn't like the latter monsters was because the damage increase they received put them above par to a PC of equal level. Something feels wrong to me when an orc can dish out more damage on a basic sword whack than a fighter.
At higher level I pretty well never see a (non-Essentials) character make an at-will attack, and the monster damage compares reasonably to encounter powers. A high level non-minion orc is a warchief or somesuch, so it doing big damage is not a problem I've seen. If anything the problem I've seen is that even after the damage upgrade, high level non-Brute Minions by default don't do enough damage to be threatening. I initially statted my Zhent Troopers as 13th level soldier minions; the (13+8)/2= 10 damage they did on a hit was no threat to Paragon PCs.
Edit: Some Monster Vault critters do have OTT damage though, eg the owlbear and the savage orc minion.
Quote from: Omega;726297Perhaps the better question is...
Had not WOTC been on the 5 year plan and scrapped 4th ed anyhow...
Would 4th ed have stood on its own or would it have collapsed more than it already had?
At the time of its cancellation. How far into the death spiral was - or wasn't it?
My impression is that by 2011 Pathfinder was totally crushing it in hardcopy sales, and Essentials had failed abysmally due to incredibly stupid titling - nobody new to 4e knew that "Heroes of..." meant "Player's Book You Buy First".
The actual product they were putting out in 2011 was mostly quite good, but the game was weighed down by a lot of crap from 2008-9 still on the shelves. And in terms of presentation - look & feel of the books - WoTC could never compete with the slick look of Pathfinder, which has absolutely brilliant (IMO) presentation and art for its target market.
I think if WoTC had stuck with 4e D&D they could have re-established it as a solid second tier game, but could not have reasserted market dominance over Pathfinder (they probably can't with 5e either, I suspect). Their biggest problem is that years of Christmas layoffs gutted their in-house talent and created their competition. Maybe constant redundancies* work for Hasbro in other fields (though I can't see how or why), but it's certainly been a disaster for RPGs. And their rejection of the OGL meant there was no longer third party support to fill in the weaknesses in the WoTC lineup. The corporate mismanagement has been appalling and I don't think the game can overcome that, not 4e and probably not 5e.
*I know redundancy doesn't traumatise Americans the way it would traumatise a British employee, but it's certainly not going to inspire loyalty or affection for a company that may sack you at any moment. It's going to have current employees thinking about exit strategies, how to get a job with Paizo, etc.
Quote from: S'mon;726343It's going to have current employees thinking about exit strategies, how to get a job with Paizo, etc.
Or a video game company.
Quote from: S'mon;726343*I know redundancy doesn't traumatise Americans the way it would traumatise a British employee, but it's certainly not going to inspire loyalty or affection for a company that may sack you at any moment. It's going to have current employees thinking about exit strategies, how to get a job with Paizo, etc.
Does 'redundancy' mean a 'reduction in workforce' in the UK?
Quote from: Old One Eye;726366Does 'redundancy' mean a 'reduction in workforce' in the UK?
Yes, it's basically the only way they can fire you. They can't fire you just because they want to, that's Unfair Dismissal and illegal. So they say you're surplus to requirements and make you redundant. Then they wait a while, say conditions have improved, and hire somebody else.
It happened to me once (back in 2003), though technically I was on a fixed-term contract that was renewed, until it wasn't. It was quite traumatic and took me a year to get another job, which I love and still have. :) My wife is just back in work last week after having been out of work since June 2011, she had taken 'voluntary' redundancy when her workplace was reducing numbers, which turned out to be a big mistake.
Quote from: S'mon;726408Yes, it's basically the only way they can fire you. They can't fire you just because they want to, that's Unfair Dismissal and illegal. So they say you're surplus to requirements and make you redundant. Then they wait a while, say conditions have improved, and hire somebody else.
It happened to me once (back in 2003), though technically I was on a fixed-term contract that was renewed, until it wasn't. It was quite traumatic and took me a year to get another job, which I love and still have. :) My wife is just back in work last week after having been out of work since June 2011, she had taken 'voluntary' redundancy when her workplace was reducing numbers, which turned out to be a big mistake.
Ah, gotcha. My boss can call me up right now, say I am fired, and there is nothing I could do about it but look for another job. As such, the WotC layoffs are not even a blip on my radar.
Quote from: S'mon;726408Yes, it's basically the only way they can fire you. They can't fire you just because they want to, that's Unfair Dismissal and illegal. So they say you're surplus to requirements and make you redundant. Then they wait a while, say conditions have improved, and hire somebody else.
It happened to me once (back in 2003), though technically I was on a fixed-term contract that was renewed, until it wasn't. It was quite traumatic and took me a year to get another job, which I love and still have. :) My wife is just back in work last week after having been out of work since June 2011, she had taken 'voluntary' redundancy when her workplace was reducing numbers, which turned out to be a big mistake.
Games Workshops stores have manager guidelines to come up with reasons to get rid of workers. Any sort of underperformance and get you sacked before you reach the point they have to pay you the unemployment equivalent. Theres a couple of sites discussing it now it seems.
As for Hasbro's policies. Yeah, its a bit messy from what other designers have told me past and current. And thats not even touching on the WOTC side. Really depends on just how tight the leash is Hasbro has on WOTC. And at least for their sideline projects, pretty damn tight.