It's interesting. 4e was a step towards a coherent system that was decided on my the developers. It was really exciting, and what got me back into the game after getting absolutely sick of it from the problems that arose in 3.5e.
On the other hand, 4e also was developed in secret, and pretty much ignored all the advice it sought from the fan community beta-testers. DDN is being developed with the purpose of making a game that all the fans will enjoy. I don't know about the feasibility of it, but there are certainly things that are really exciting me as well. But it's different. I don't think DDN will REPLACE 4e for me, but almost become like a concurrent system; like two games I play at different times for different reasons.
Precisely. We currently play mostly GURPS, but also have D&D 4e and HackMaster 5e campaigns. DDN could be just another system in the mix (but not likely, as you'll see in a minute).
One member of the group likes nothing he's seen about DDN but loves DD4 so he'll stick with it for his campaigns. The rest of the group seems to be taking a wait and see approach about the new edition. We were all really excited about the new edition of HackMaster a few years ago (and remains the favorite class-based game of this GURPS-fanboy). In fact, the only release that could make us more excited would be the highly unlikely announcement of GURPS 5e to fix its few remaining issues – but that's just not gonna happen.
At first I was really excited about DDN because of it promised to finally be a class-based game I could really love by giving players the speed of character creation that comes with class-based games and the customization of point-buy. The second public playtest got really close, but still fell short, so I hope they'll get there, but trying not to get my hopes too high.
Further hindering my excitement is major changes in the new edition of HackMaster – specifically, opposed rolls and second-by-second combat. Those two things have so radically altered trpg combat for me that I can no longer enjoy static target numbers and round-based combat. That's why my wife and I (10 years today, by the way) are actually adding speeds to weapons in GURPS so we can go round-less with it (it already uses 1 second rounds so it won't be hard to adapt otherwise).
Opposed rolls are a bit harder. GURPS does have an opposed system (called Quick Contests), but it can't really be used in combat without a lot of work. But since you roll against your weapon skill to hit and then the defender makes a defense roll, it kinda-sorta has opposed rolls so we'll stick with it until something better comes along (once I finish writing it 8o)).
Thus one thing I really like about DDN is that it opposed rolls are really easy. Simply subtract 10 from AC and DCs and add the result to a d20 roll. But it looks much harder to adapt to real-time combat.
So all in all, I'm very lukewarm about this edition release... which is kind of sad, really, since the only other edition releases I've participated in were for GURPS 3e to 4e back before we had learned to actually play it (we used our books as writing aids before finally figuring out how to play roleplaying games) so it wasn't remotely exciting, and for HackMaster 4e to 5e which was exciting beyond words (especially since the developers actually hung out in the forums and discussed the game with their fans). I supposed you could also count the impending release of OVA Revised, but it's more like D&D 3 to 3.5 than an actual new edition, but he has drug out for so long that it may as well be.
So I'd really love to get a few more really exciting releases under my belt, instead of another ho-hum one.
-----
On the DD3-4 change: when we first started I looked most closely at d20 Modern and GURPS Basic Set 3e, but ultimately decided on GURPS as the more versatile game. As time went by I came to despise D&D3.x in all its incarnations (still the only system I've refused to play), and have never been a big fan of the older editions (unless you count HackMaster 4e as D&D 2.5), so I tally missed out on that edition change.
I've got a feeling that came out far more rambly than I meant it to, but that's the price I pay for posting when I should be sleeping. 8o)
Distribution have proven to be the best weapon against piracy: Netflix, iTunes store & Steam are some of those examples.
Except when it's the Character Builder - then apparently it sucks, according to the usual suspects.
Some of the problem is that by switching from the offline character builder is that it was technically inferior to the original version, and that it was a slap in the face to people who were investing themselves into the brand. WOTC was essentially saying "We do not trust you." Furthermore, WOTC only further divided themselves with the character builder when they allowed Hero Lab to use the Compendium to get off-line data for their program. In effect, WOTC backpedaled away from their own well-built and offline character builder, only to go ahead and let a third party serve that capacity?
This is head scratching to me, as it would have been better for WOTC to emphasize one strategy from the very beginning and stick with it. Instead, they have opted to abandon the internet-friendly principles of 4th Edition for the awful Frankenstein that is their corporate strategy. The creation and release of a new edition is a sea change for a reason - trying to change gears midway can only result in confusion.
"The word Live is Evil spelt backwards."
"Flaws are what make our perfections shine so brightly"
Distribution have proven to be the best weapon against piracy: Netflix, iTunes store & Steam are some of those examples.
Except when it's the Character Builder - then apparently it sucks, according to the usual suspects.
Some of the problem is that by switching from the offline character builder is that it was technically inferior to the original version, and that it was a slap in the face to people who were investing themselves into the brand. WOTC was essentially saying "We do not trust you." Furthermore, WOTC only further divided themselves with the character builder when they allowed Hero Lab to use the Compendium to get off-line data for their program. In effect, WOTC backpedaled away from their own well-built and offline character builder, only to go ahead and let a third party serve that capacity?
This is head scratching to me, as it would have been better for WOTC to emphasize one strategy from the very beginning and stick with it. Instead, they have opted to abandon the internet-friendly principles of 4th Edition for the awful Frankenstein that is their corporate strategy. The creation and release of a new edition is a sea change for a reason - trying to change gears midway can only result in confusion.
Not only that, but in rebellion, some people "resurrected" the offline character builder and update it with the current content, it get updated faster and more often than the silverlight character builder...and it still have all the adventages of the offline builder (more stable, not necessary to be online, options for houseruling, etc...), basically the silverlight CB provoked the existence of a better character builder that is free and distributed between people underground...
Hell, everybody i know that play 4e have that version of the offline builder, even the ones that have DDI subscription and access to the silverlight character builder, because it's just flat out better.
the real mistakes were made by the 3e developers. The creation of the OGL was the problem. It gave anyone the right to freely steal just about anything that was ever D&D and sell it without royalties. It was great for game developers and indie publishers (and maybe the industry as a whole) but was a real mistake for the biggest strongest brand in the industry.
I have never understood this sort of thinking. Granted, we don't have access to WOTC accounting, but OGL seems to have been a major success. The problem for WOTC was that it was a change of the rules of the game and WOTC tried to play by the old rules. WOTC put out 3.5. It did fine and no competitor 3.0 clone got anywhere. 3.5 was just too much a copy of 3.0. But when they put out 4e, it was not 3.8. Rather it was a highly different game, which meant there was lots of room for Pathfinder. Now Pathfinder might not have been possible without OGL, but the mistake was in not realizing they no longer had this secure monopoly, not in the OGL. Had they put out a 3.8, cleaning up the general rules and maybe providing a little better balance of classes and races, they would likely still be #1 in the industry with nobody able to claim #2. But they thought they could dictate to the players and they no longer could. That was the problem for WOTC, not the OGL.
I'm your 40 yo (well nearly) RPG player. And I love 4e. It is by far the most fun I've had with and RPG, and I played a lot when I was young. I am total disenchanted with DDN. Sure I had great fun playing OD&D, 1e and 2e from the late 70's until the mid 90's. But I also had fun with Gamma World, Star Wars, Ninja Turtles, some super heroes game (don't remember which), GURPS, Paranoia, BattleTech/MechWarrior, Aftermath, StarFrontiers, Traveller and probably a few others (but I never play 3e/3.5e/pathfinder and have no desire to). I quit playing in the mid 90's after college. 17 years and 4 kids later, my 2 older kids asked about the boxes (an old pink box basic edition (dice and crayon included) and MERPS box set my wife found at a thrift store). I picked up some Essentials products when they were released and we started going to Encounter at one of our FLGS and have been having a great time with it.
4e isn't a perfect game but it has so much more balance and team focus than any other RPG I've ever played. Now, if you had 4e with skills disassociated from abilities and with bounded accuracy (maybe the only good ideas in DDN), you might have something approaching the best game ever. And yes I am aware that you could houserule that fairly easily in 4e, or you could use inherent bonus to get something similar to bounded accuracy, kinda. I just have not committed myself to the math of it all. But overall it is just simple math, which is one of the beautiful things about 4e - it is rooted in the math and not just abitrary numbers. There are no real traps because of it. Some power and feat bloat, but no outright traps.
I tried to be excited about DDN, signed up for the playtests, dowloaded the packets, already have the original B2 Keep on the Boarderlands that has the caves of choas from my old pink box. By the time the second packet was release, I never managed to even read more than a couple of pages. Now there's a third... I don't think I'll even bother.
I'm esentially your 40yo tabletop RPG player. I have great memories of all-nighters with OD&D and 1E, but I don't need or want another retro clone. I want a modern mathmetically balanced RPG that lets everyone have fun at all levels of play. I wish they would just take some of their better ideas and make a new improved 4.5e. Or maybe I'm check out 13th Age. For now, I hope 4e gets as much time as possible.
So I guess you shouldn't assume that even older gamers are getting what they want. I'm certainly not. Its the 4e fans that aren't getting what they really want. And there are many older 4E fans around who are just as unhappy as you.
As a little aside, my humble opinion, the real mistakes were made by the 3e developers. The creation of the OGL was the problem. It gave anyone the right to freely steal just about anything that was ever D&D and sell it without royalties. It was great for game developers and indie publishers (and maybe the industry as a whole) but was a real mistake for the biggest strongest brand in the industry. 4e was a reaction to that - since anybody could now make a clone of any edition, they needed something new, modern, distinct that would attract a new generation of gamers. And the fact that it was done with very little public interaction and with no OGL says a whole lot. But there was a backlash to all that that they never expected. They made a half hearted attempt to mend that with Essentials. It wasn't a bad thing, but didn't fix anything with anybody and turned off many current players. Now they want to recapture that big market of (retro) clone players. I just don't see them getting anywhere near the market penetration they want. Many 4e players will still be pissed. Many clone players will never jump on board. Some jobs will eventually be lost. But I will bet you my left...foot that WotC will never release another new OGL product. Maybe a few more reprints but they won't develop new OGL products.
TjD
Yeah, that about sums it up. We played all the same games back in the day, and enjoyed them all, but I have no need or desire for a retro clone or rehash of AD&D. I think WotC is making a bad mistake. The best they can hope for is they'll be chasing Paizo's tail lights trying to imitate them. Bad idea.
Fun Fact: When they scraped the selling pdf version of 4e books...they actually made piracy the only way to get into D&D in most of the world. There are alot of potential and current D&D players all around the globe outside your first world bubble. So yes...the fear of piracy and it's countermeasure...provoked piracy. People that pirate to avoid paying won't pay for D&D books anyway, if they can't get it free they won't, plain and simple...but there are alot of people that have to do piracy, because it's the only way for them to get that material would be thru piracy. Digital Distribution have proven to be the best weapon against piracy: Netflix, iTunes store & Steam are some of those examples.
Yeah, what the hell was the deal with 4e and support outside the US? WTF? I mean D&D is an American product and has never had perfect non-English support for sure, but 3.x did pretty well. MANY of the books were available in translation and/or distributed overseas. They never even TRIED with 4e. It is like WotC never bothered to give it a chance.
Opposed rolls are a bit harder. GURPS does have an opposed system (called Quick Contests), but it can't really be used in combat without a lot of work. But since you roll against your weapon skill to hit and then the defender makes a defense roll, it kinda-sorta has opposed rolls so we'll stick with it until something better comes along (once I finish writing it 8o)).
Thus one thing I really like about DDN is that it opposed rolls are really easy. Simply subtract 10 from AC and DCs and add the result to a d20 roll. But it looks much harder to adapt to real-time combat.
It works just as well with 4E... just subtract 10 from its defenses/DC's and then roll a d20 in its place.
DDN-style bounded accuracy (or at least, what they spoke of it being, in execution its looking a bit wobbley) is also pretty easy to put in place with 4E because its monster and advancement math is based on formulas and not just what "feels right." (4E's easy formulas are why I can build new monsters on the fly while DMing using a reference sheet I created).
No one ever thought the OGL was a better idea until 4th edition was released and Pathfinder turned out to be the more popular game. Its true that Pathfinder wouldn't exist today where it not for the OGL, but something else similiar to 3rd edition would have inevitably come out and acomplished the same thing. The division of the community didn't happen because of the OGL, it happened because 4th edition made a poor follow up and people have been trying to rationalize an execuse and reasoning to the contrary ever since. That's all it was howeve, plain and simple. 4th edition was a lesser D&D.
Sad part is that it could have been really great, they had an amazing albeit it, flawed basis to continue the legacy.
I disagree. Pathfinder (and in fact any of the OSR games) wouldn't exist without the OGL. Time and time again FRPGs have tried to challenge D&D and they have all failed without making any real dent in it at all. People WANT D&D, not Rune Quest, Dragon Quest, GURPS Fantasy, Hero Quest, Savage Worlds, BoL, EPT, etc etc etc. Some of those games have had decent followings and dedicated fans, and were good games. NONE of them was ever more than a bump on the behind of D&D, literally. RQ was probably the most popular (maybe GURPS) and neither of them ever had even 1/10th of the sales of D&D, until PF came along.
WotC putting out '3.8' instead of 4e wouldn't matter. The problem was losing control of their IP. Paizo is a much smaller company with a lot lower overhead and frankly a looser and more creative corporate culture that is more gamer-friendly and a lot less obsessed with brand management than WotC is. WotC created that monster, they gave them a license to their game, brand recognition (through their distribution and publishing of Dungeon and Dragon), and a nice income stream selling D&D products online. How dumb can you be?
Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of good things about OGL from the perspective of players, at least for a while, but it was a terrible and crippling business strategy for WotC. It meant essentially they could either freeze D&D at its 3.5 version (because any change from that is a fork of the community AND the game now) or try to do what they did with 4e. That HAD to be done though, because eventually the game needed to be modernized. Maybe not all the choices they made in 4e design worked out perfectly, but if it was the only D&D in town it would be fine and they could proceed to build on that until they had a game that was both amazing and supported their new business models.
What are they going to get now? Yet another fork of D&D, so now there will be what 7 major flavors out there in play? A game that abandons all the modernization effort and tries to AT BEST get back some of the people that play PF? They're going to have to come out with a 6e in a few years to go and do all the things that 4e needed to do and things will just get that much worse.
OGL was not just responsible for Pathfinder. OGL include the IP of all older editions as well. OGL is responsible for the creation of almost all of the "old school renaissance". Games like Labrinth Lords and Castles and Crusades. And while I freely admit that these games fueled the hobby and passion for gaming, and probably brought back some lapsed players, they were not good for the D&D brand, not good WotC's bottom line. How many game designers that were involved in 3.0 or 3.5 are still at WotC working on D&D? How many are gone or on other projects?
I'm sure they were thinking about 3rd party content and having vast amounts of material to build the game when the OGL was devised. They didn't anticipate entire new game systems being developed off it. And, because WotC has no grasp on digital publishing, they never anticipated how easily and how low cost it would be for those new game systems to get into the market and get market penetration.
WotC's core competence is CCG's. RPG's and CCG's need to be handled completely different. Hasbro does great with board games. But board games and TTRPG's are completely different beasts when it comes to publishing and distribution. I think there's a problem somewhere along the way, where WotC and Hasbro want to handle D&D like Magic or like board games. While that might have been fine 20 or 30 years ago, it is not in today's internet age.
So yes the OGL is wonderful, amazing, fantastic for the hobby and industry. But the OGL is a cancer, slowly eating away at the life force of the D&D brand.
OGL was not just responsible for Pathfinder. OGL include the IP of all older editions as well. OGL is responsible for the creation of almost all of the "old school renaissance". Games like Labrinth Lords and Castles and Crusades. And while I freely admit that these games fueled the hobby and passion for gaming, and probably brought back some lapsed players, they were not good for the D&D brand, not good WotC's bottom line. How many game designers that were involved in 3.0 or 3.5 are still at WotC working on D&D? How many are gone or on other projects?
I'm sure they were thinking about 3rd party content and having vast amounts of material to build the game when the OGL was devised. They didn't anticipate entire new game systems being developed off it. And, because WotC has no grasp on digital publishing, they never anticipated how easily and how low cost it would be for those new game systems to get into the market and get market penetration.
WotC's core competence is CCG's. RPG's and CCG's need to be handled completely different. Hasbro does great with board games. But board games and TTRPG's are completely different beasts when it comes to publishing and distribution. I think there's a problem somewhere along the way, where WotC and Hasbro want to handle D&D like Magic or like board games. While that might have been fine 20 or 30 years ago, it is not in today's internet age.
So yes the OGL is wonderful, amazing, fantastic for the hobby and industry. But the OGL is a cancer, slowly eating away at the life force of the D&D brand.
