Quote from: Fifth Element;320887It'd be a bit surprising if that hadn't changed from 3.X.

In principle, they probably would have known about the sales rates of modules back in the TSR days, as to whether they were lackluster or not.  By the time it was 2E, it appears they possibly already knew that modules may not sell as well as the core AD&D rulebooks and other player centric splatbooks.  So they picked another approach of pumping out many different settings, hoping it would become another cash cow but to no avail in the end.

The hardcover splatbook cash cow thing probably came later.  Around half of the WotC 3E D&D splatbooks were done as 64 page (or more pages) softcover books, along with around 10 WotC D&D modules produced for 3E.  By the time 3.5E came around, just about all the WotC splatbooks were done as 160 page (or more pages) hardcover books.  By then they probably figured out that hardcover splatbooks were a big cash cow.

4E D&D in effect is probably a cherry picking of the approaches which have worked reasonably well for them in the past, found through decades of trial and error:

- Make everything "core".
- Hardcover splatbooks in preference to softcover splatbooks.
- 3 books per setting, instead of a proliferation of setting specific splatbooks.
- Less emphasis on adventures (ie. leave them to 3pp's like Goodman Games).
- Use the game to sell miniatures and power cards.
- Attract a new audience.

The problem I have with this is that their idea of best and mine often different, even if we're just talking about potential via mechanics.

Seanchai

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;320789"advice for building the best possible player character"

No advice for playing the most interesting and fun character?

Alas, if only. Problem is I think that D&D continues to move towards being its own hobby, with little relation to the hobby it spawned--role-playing games.

Quote from: Silverlion;320912Alas, if only. Problem is I think that D&D continues to move towards being its own hobby, with little relation to the hobby it spawned--role-playing games.

C'mon now - what's fun and interesting is even more subjective that what's "best" mechanically. If you wrote a book about what's fun and interesting to roleplay, you'd be skewered. At least if you focus on mechanics, you can fall back on math to prove your point.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;320918C'mon now - what's fun and interesting is even more subjective that what's "best" mechanically. If you wrote a book about what's fun and interesting to roleplay, you'd be skewered. At least if you focus on mechanics, you can fall back on math to prove your point.

Seanchai

I've seen some gamer's math, I've seen some game designer's math--and how they fail to work out to do anything interesting mechanically in play. Aside from failing alot--if Keystone cops is wanted as a game genre, I know who to call. Otherwise, I think I'll stick with something more subjective, because at least I know that works for some of us.

The problem as I see it isn't in writing a book for optimal play--but if it can be done in D&D4E, then D&D4E flawed itself into pointlessness.  After all isn't the point of 4E to make ALL classes and races, and power set combos equally effective and fun? that is why we get daily powers instead of spells, instants instead of actions and so on?

Plus of course even match can be wrong when you're talking about optimal in a play environment. I've watched friends play WOW and watch them choose things that were not the numeric best, simply because that was fun for them. They can still do that even knowing the best numbers of course, but I think ti is misleading to suggest that one book will show you the "best" of anything for "you."

This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth . . .

Like Bradford said . . . if people can't see the obvious, then, eh, whatever. It's just denial.

4e. What a joke.

Quote from: Melan;320847Also, it's not really CRPGLand until they start selling hint books for modules.

There were hints for adventure modules in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

The problem I'm having with this kind of product is that it is designed for those who are intent on "winning" D&D. The Players who will twink their characters until it is the ultimate (fill in the blank) machine which is useless outside of its twinked out niche. The ones who get offended if their character suffers a setback during the course of the game. In short, those Players who tend to suck all the fun out of a game for the rest because they are not there to enjoy the adventure journey, but to prove that they can beat the game.

Quote from: paris80;320901But yes, they could be providing guidelines for optimal paths to uh, paragon paths, and epic... destinies, was it? Those things, anyway. That could make sense. How hard is it to figure out that stuff though - anything like 3rd edition multiclassing and prestige classes?

I don't think it's really even close. You don't have to plan for prerequisites or anything like that. It would be more about what powers synergize better with particular paths and destinies. I don't think there's a lot of value there, but I suppose a new player might.

Quote from: jeff37923;320929The problem I'm having with this kind of product is that it is designed for those who are intent on "winning" D&D. The Players who will twink their characters until it is the ultimate (fill in the blank) machine which is useless outside of its twinked out niche.

I agree to an extent, though 3.X catered to that type of player much better. I don't see much value in this type of book or that playstyle. But if some groups like it that way, more power to them.

Quote from: 1989;3209234e. What a joke.

You could have done this book with 3E (though would have had to have been a series), and even with 2E with all the kits etc. It's not about 4E. Get over it.

Quote from: Settembrini;320853There are players that read modules beforehand...

One of the reasons I never run modules.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;320880Thus the brilliance of doing it all with random charts

Seriously.

Quote from: Werekoala;320811... and dragonborn uberl33t shock trooperz)

It will be a dual wielding sword-mage, for maximum effectiveness.

Quote from: Fifth Element;320946You could have done this book with 3E

Yeah, but it wasn't done, was it?

Only with 4e do we see it.

Only with 4e do we finally see the "computer strategy guide for D&D", with those words coming straight from WotC.

That shows us the mindset. It's a joke.

Quote from: 1989;320985Yeah, but it wasn't done, was it?

Only with 4e do we see it.

Only with 4e do we finally see the "computer strategy guide for D&D", with those words coming straight from WotC.

That shows us the mindset. It's a joke.

Who cares? The important thing is how it's played at the table. I play 4e like I did any version of D&D, from 1979 until now. I don't give two shits about someone else's "mindset," because I play the game exactly the way I want to play it. 4e plays like old school D&D at my table because that's my mindset. Think for yourself and you won't have to hand-wring over what "mindset" a game designer has; the game becomes what you want it to be.

Quote from: 1989;320985Yeah, but it wasn't done, was it?

Only with 4e do we see it.

Only with 4e do we finally see the "computer strategy guide for D&D", with those words coming straight from WotC.

That shows us the mindset. It's a joke.

They did do D&D for Dummies. It was a neat piece of cross-marketing, but it also indicated that they needed a book . . .well, for dummies.