I know we love Monte Cook, and love some of the polls. Last time he was in D&D team, he designed stuff, he also managed to sell some popular fixes to it quickly. The only bad things his ranger fix didn't make it in core books, so you had to ask which version of ranger someone is going to use? A well thought out system needs less fixes than that because things are considered in advance.
I seen his poll about modifiers vs dice "tricks". And I was wondered: if Monte Cook managed to do some of the math and know how +d6 changes the average, why he haven't checked the probabilites. As you have more dice, your results will send "less random" and gravitate towards the average. While a static bonus only changes your average outcome, a bonus dice changes how "random" your performance will be.
It changes the feel of scenarios, it changes how your character sees risks, how he / she will make decision, and how the said character will see the world. It influences decisions, stories, roleplaying and more. And yet we only hear about fun dice tricks. If decisions in the system are based on this sound research I have to worry about the system.
2nd: Service and advertisement
I know how D&D hates piracy and how they think PDFs as a source of piracy. I can't blame them. I understand their position in PDF controversy. But I know a player buys miniatures, books, etc. as PDF only isn't comfortable. But hardcover only isn't comfortable either, as you don't want to carry two sports bags worth of books with you, if you don't use a car. And I also know that if you want to show the game to a friend online you have to share the content with him. If he loves the game he will buy products. If he doesn't noone lost income since he wouldn't buy it anyway.
But for this, when he RPes in an MMO I should tell him how RPGs are better. But if he sees tactical combat... He says he has that in WoW, Starcraft 2, etc. too. We should be able to talk him into trying the game, we should be able to let him try the game, and then he might buy.
Keeping him away from game because we fear that the shared content would lead to widespread piracy, telling him it is tactical and it is about killing monsters and not about RP? We are lost it. The game isn't designed with him and other potential players in mind. It isn't designed with me in mind, it isn't designed with people who left D&D in mind. It is designed with a fraction of current players in mind.
3rd: Ever accelerating lifecycle
AD&D 1st edition had a long life, same is true for 2nd editon. And it was ok to mix them, as 2nd edition seemed to be a clained up and revised edition of AD&D. Then came D&D 3, and its revised edition called 3.5, their lifecycle was short. Even their combined lifecycle was shorter than 2E or 1E lifecycle. Then came 4. In some quick years Essentials came. And now 5E.
With the accelerating lifecycle we can ask: who starts to buy a whole set of new products for like 2-3 years? But with the struggles WOTC / Hasbro has with getting enough new players and keeping D&D alive I can understand fresh tries, but as long as things don't improve there is no reason to invest money in products with this short lifecycle.
Conclusion: WOTC managed to show me why shouldn't I even consider buying D&D Next. Hint: I won't buy other WOTC products either.
(Edited: Baiting) Most of the people here are pretty thoughtful and open-minded. Given that these are the official WotC forums, you have to expect a greater percentage of people who are favorable to 4e. There is nothing wrong with that; 4e fans are part of the discussion just as non-4e fans are. That's the whole point of the forums.
So far I like the consideration I'm seeing from the designers (getting to your point one). 5e won't be a re-hash of any edition, so I think we can expect some fundamental changes, many of which may be optional (dice tricks being an example).
I do agree that WotC needs to provide PDF versions. As many have noted elsewhere with respect to piracy, it is a service problem first and foremost. If you don't provide the convenient, electronic documents people want someone else will.
I'm not sure what to do about the life cycle. Big companies want a dependable, ongoing revenue stream, not a spike when a new edition launches, followed by a decline. I think churning out book after book will be annoying to many people (I don't buy many after the core). On the other hand, adventures and supplements for use in creating and carrying on campaigns always get my dollar. Paizo seems to be doing well with adventures. No reason WotC couldn't also, if they do a nice job with them. Also, electronic tools are an ongoing revenue stream. If they play their cards right, we won't have to see another edition after 5e for some time. If a 6e looms after 3 or 4 years I think WotC will be done.
I have to second this point, emphasizing tactical combat is a disservice to the game and the potential fanbase. I can get that from Warhammer 40k or any number of computer games. A roleplaying game must provide context for these actions, a deaper meaning than just a higher killcount.
Don't get me wrong, I happen to like tactical encounters and spend absurd amounts of time working out the proper weapons, feats, and positioning for mooks that will die the moment a spellcaster says fireball. I love this stuff, but it isn't why I spend ludicrous sums of money on D&D books. I want a world to play in and a ruleset that encourages me to build my own. I devoured the "Races of" books, reserved copies of the terrain books, read and reread HoH, FC & FCII. Even if I barely ever used a tenth of the content in any given book, they were worth the price for the interesting options and inspiring flavor. Those books built a world that I am still exploring. That is where 4E lost me. It had interesting new takes on old races and classes, but the splatbooks after that felt more like I was buying a booster pack of power cards than an actual book to expand my game, expand the world we all adventure together in.
I love playing D&D and will undoubtably buy the new core books regardless, but I won't be around for the long haul if the edition isn't supported properly. New monsters and spells are something I can make on my own. New classes, new races, new locations, new sub-systems (ToB, ToM, Incarnum, ect) and all the flavor to bring them together into a living world are what hold my interest.
I think you underestimate the appeal of D&D, especially to gamers weaned on video games. Even just in tactical combat, tabletop games provide something video games cannot: the ability for innovation by the player to matter. Furthermore, most players' enjoyment is not limited to either combat or RP. Most enjoy both to some degree, and many, myself included, like to mix the two. Trying to pidgeonhole D&D into one or the other only weakens it.
Point 3: Ever accelerating lifecycle
We're probably nearing the end of this one, at least for D&D. Mearls has made at least one comment to the effect that WotC would prefer a single, long-running edition that provided a more stable revenue stream. I'm pretty sure they intend Next to be that edition. If they succeed, they won't be releasing a 6e anytime soon. If they don't, Hasbro will likely shelve the IP, and we won't see a new edition soon anyway.
Personally I don't care one way or another about dice tricks. I'm ok if the game uses them and I'm ok if it doesn't. I realized last night that one of the reasons Monte's poll about dice tricks might have come up recently is that the designers probably want to figure out whether or not and how often they plan to use dice tricks fairly early in the development. After all it could potentially affect many different parts of the game, including attack and damage and ability rolls, as well as modify how they present all types of abilities (eg should an ability give +2 or should it change a die type up a notch?).
So even though I personally don't care one way or another about dice tricks I can see why the designers are probably thinking about it at this point and asking for feedback. It might be something they want to nail down now so they can move on to figuring out how to later write up other game mechanics that depend on whether you use dice tricks or static modifiers.
I think you underestimate the appeal of D&D, especially to gamers weaned on video games.
I judge it by the revenue stream it generates. After all that is what people who buy Hasbro stock care about, and if the income isn't great they will be impatient. The current appeal isn't good enough, and it doesn't focus on greatest strength.
And besides: do you know what was the most driving force to develop first person shooters? Immersion. It isn't "immersion or combat". Even video game industry focuses on immersion, and in this area RPGs are good. Creative freedom and pleyer created content are linked, and ability to shape the world is pretty much tied to the sandbox way.
We're probably nearing the end of this one, at least for D&D. Mearls has made at least one comment to the effect that WotC would prefer a single, long-running edition that provided a more stable revenue stream. I'm pretty sure they intend Next to be that edition. If they succeed, they won't be releasing a 6e anytime soon. If they don't, Hasbro will likely shelve the IP, and we won't see a new edition soon anyway.
Or they will try once more. Not sure about that. But they would have prefered long lasting editions even before since steady revenue without a lot of costs involved in developing and marketing a new edition is a good choice. But sadly what they want and what we want and what they can achieve this way is different.
Or they will try once more. Not sure about that. But they would have prefered long lasting editions even before since steady revenue without a lot of costs involved in developing and marketing a new edition is a good choice. But sadly what they want and what we want and what they can achieve this way is different.
I'm not sure that what WotC wants and what we want is so different. Most gamers don't want new editions too often, the problem is that the basic RPG business model has been to produce books. The problem with that is that you have to keep writing new books, which eventually bloat the edition and have diminishing returns on sales. The modular approach, if I'm reading them right, might actually work, because they'll be able to produce more books withut bloating the edition(since not all books will be expected to be available in each game), while at the same time providing useful online tools that work on a subscription model. Once they have a wide variety(and thus, a large number) of gamers happy with Next and subscribing to the online tools, then they could focus more on settings and adventures to keep them entertained, and thus subscribing. It might work.
I'm not sure that what WotC wants and what we want is so different. Most gamers don't want new editions too often, the problem is that the basic RPG business model has been to produce books. The problem with that is that you have to keep writing new books, which eventually bloat the edition and have diminishing returns on sales.
If we go to "marketing talk", and speak about SWOT analysis, I would put the need to publish more and more books as a "threat". Not a weakness, not a stregth, not even an opportunity. But what can we learn about such threats? We can work hard to reduce their impact, we can make them unlikely to happen, or even better turn them into a strength.
Lots of books can mean "infinite depth" and make the game more attractive with that. And if you are done with that, try to focus on a regular influx of new players. This infinite depth (a strong lore) can help to capitalize by IP by offering licences to develop CRPGs based on it. You can build a strong franchise.
I would forget about PHB, DMG and MM. I would have a *single* book for rules. But it would have no classes, spells, items, monsters, etc. all such stuff would be moved to player / DM guides for specific settings, but we can have a book for classic / generic one.
As you can guess. This way a setting would come with 2/3 core books, maybe a boxed set.
Later you can add more specific boxed sets.
Lets see some example. Drow is one of the most iconic race in D&D. Sadly it didn't help them much. Often we try to portray drow as evil, and at other times we speak about how Spider Queen was Neutral good. In the later case we can think about how they don't have a "source of fresh souls" so any soul they lose (converts, etc) leads closer to extermination of the race. And with this, with some known ties between high elves and demons, jealousy, etc. we can make drow fight for survival.
As both sides, and even renegades like Drizzt, and other good drow (worshipers of Eilistraee) could make sense, you can make a popular campaign based on drow, both in novels and CRPGs. What would stop Wizards from offering a boxed set for drow fans. With drow related material, yet easy enogh to start.
You can focus on such boxes, etc. on multiple settings and themes, from Blood Wars, to Time of Troubles, to War of The Lance...
As you see for each and every chronicle you can create a "core box" (with Rules cyclopeda, few dice, etc included) and a smaller box for veterans.
As you see someone who loves the drow wouldn't have to buy a few core books with "several volumes" a setting book, some drow accessory... but would walk in the store and would pick up the drow starter box.
I have temporarily closed down this thread due to discussion of moderation. Discussion of moderation is considered Off-Topic Disruption outside of the appropriate areas. The Community team will determine if this thread will be closed permanently, moved, or re-opened.
