Quote from: BalbinusNow, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

It's not just the inexperienced teenager problem, either though.  Even a great many adult role-players feel entitled (rightly or wrongly) to be able to use anything published in an official book, particularly if they shelled out good money for that book.

It's all good and well to say, "DMs just need to set limits for their campaign", but the point is there are a lot of players out there who won't stand for it.  A DM has authority only if the rest of the players consent to it.  Not everyone in the world gets to have a group of players who are 100% perfect.  Granted, certain kinds of players always tried this stuff in the past - but at least then the DM didn't have the books undermining his authority.

Jackelope isn't saying the DM has no authority to change things.  He's bemoaning the increased potential for DMs to be stuck in a position of either having to agree to kitchen-sink craziness that they don't want, or face the prospect of one or more heated arguments over it which is certainly not fun.

Quote from: DwightThat sounds like a good outcome to me.

Um, yes actually, it was.  But if I come here and say "hurrah, these shitty rules will put people off D&D and lead them to actually decent rpgs" the local's will WalkerP my ass.

Quote from: DwightI suggest that that is why the "golden rule" as it exists in D&D is pretty fucked up.

I'm not actually sure D&D has the golden rule, I always associated it with White Wolf.  But yes, I have some sympathy with your point.  Arguably a game should be playable using the rules as written, when a group have the maturity to make changes that don't suck ass they'll probably work that out even without the rule.

Quote from: BalbinusUm, yes actually, it was.  But if I come here and say "hurrah, these shitty rules will put people off D&D and lead them to actually decent rpgs" the local's will WalkerP my ass.

Hehe. Well time to make your arrangements then.

QuoteBut yes, I have some sympathy with your point.  Arguably a game should be playable using the rules as written, when a group have the maturity to make changes that don't suck ass they'll probably work that out even without the rule.

....because that's pretty much what I was getting at. Not that whatever rules should lead them away from D&D but that it will occur to people to go find a better match for what they want. Even if they tweak rules there somewhat. Find some rules that are pretty close and tweak some once you actually understand them (or hopefully the rules have the tweaks laid out for you).

QuoteI'm not actually sure D&D has the golden rule, I always associated it with White Wolf.

Well that one too. I didn't take that line as literally as I should have.

Quote from: jgantsJackelope isn't saying the DM has no authority to change things.  He's bemoaning the increased potential for DMs to be stuck in a position of either having to agree to kitchen-sink craziness that they don't want, or face the prospect of one or more heated arguments over it which is certainly not fun.

Because he can't fathom everyone around the table agreeing to what they want to play. That is sad.

*shrug* Until WotC omits the usual "the DM has the final say" in the core rule books I think it's a bit too early to "think of the children". Speaking from experience,  as teens we never had a problem ditching the rules....that is when we were playing by the rules.

Regards,
David R

Remind me where we are, again?

Quote from: One Horse TownRemind me where we are, again?

Some of us are gearing up for awesome fun with D&D 4e, and some of us are gearing up for awesome bitching about D&D 4e, and both sides think Warforged in the Realms are responsible.

The main comment I have to make about this whole "3 book per setting" construct is that its obviously not an editorial policy, its a marketing strategy.  The fact that the WoTC crew have already stated that "if there's demand" they'll make more books for (popular) settings (like FR, obviously) means that this is nothing more than borrowing a page from the Green Ronin Playbook for Defending Your Crapulence.

Here's how it works:
1. release any old crap as a "3-book project".

2. If its an economic success, you can still go on to release another 40 books, or however many it takes as long as the line continues to be profitable.

3. If its a flop, you can claim (in other words pretend) that the setting wasn't a failure, it was just "never meant to be more than 3 books.. that's policy".

Its the Blue Rose scheme all over again, a bunch of corporate doubletalk meant to help cover up crappy decisions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe main comment I have to make about this whole "3 book per setting" construct is that its obviously not an editorial policy, its a marketing strategy.  The fact that the WoTC crew have already stated that "if there's demand" they'll make more books for (popular) settings (like FR, obviously) means that this is nothing more than borrowing a page from the Green Ronin Playbook for Defending Your Crapulence.

Here's how it works:
1. release any old crap as a "3-book project".

2. If its an economic success, you can still go on to release another 40 books, or however many it takes as long as the line continues to be profitable.

3. If its a flop, you can claim (in other words pretend) that the setting wasn't a failure, it was just "never meant to be more than 3 books.. that's policy".

Its the Blue Rose scheme all over again, a bunch of corporate doubletalk meant to help cover up crappy decisions.

RPGPundit

Does that make sense? I mean if I was running a company and I was producing settings I think saying a new setting will have 3 books to it with stuff that is generic as well as stuff that is specific to this particular setting and if there is demand we will produce more books on that setting is perfectly fair.
The only danger comes if stuff that is essential for the core is released in a setting book. This would mean you had to buy a book just for one class or whatever .... I could see a benefit in an annual release of new classes or monsters or whatever in another format.

They are saying settings will have a set format, some of the stuff will be generic and we might expand settigns if there is demand.... how else should they do it?

I don't have any problem with how they're doing it, and it does make sense, and it is smart for a company to try to have a way to cover their ass and pretend their failures aren't failures.

I'm just saying I'm not fooled by it any more than I was by Green Ronin when they did it; and that "covering their asses" is the main reason to make this kind of format statement, since its clear that any really SUCCESSFUL setting will NOT be following the format in question.

RPGPundit

It's hard to estimate the success of a setting, and I suspect many people do so by the number of books that come out for it.  i.e. Amber = failure, Harn = success.  

From what I've seen in Internet polls (always a dubious measure), Greyhawk is popular and it had an explicit policy of only limited books.  (Were there any other than the core?)

It makes sense for Wizards to declare that it will go beyond three books if a setting proves successful enough. It's also very different from Blue Rose (calling it a three-book deal only after publishing them).

The question, of course, is Wizards' definition of successful enough. Should we call a setting a failure because it met but didn't exceed expectations?

Quote from: jhkimIt's hard to estimate the success of a setting, and I suspect many people do so by the number of books that come out for it.  i.e. Amber = failure, Harn = success.  

There's a good reason for that.  Most times companies will drag out a setting to as many books as they can possibly sell.  Much like TV shows and movies that make good money end up with endless sequels until they don't make money anymore.

It's a very accurate way to tell the popularity of most settings from TSR:

Greyhawk clearly was not raking in the dough in the later 80's and into the 90's.  Forgotten Realms clearly was.  Ravenloft was a new entry that obviously did well.  Spelljammer obviously did not.  Etc.

Quote from: JackalopeWill DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Indeed. Why would WotC want it any other way?

The question of whether this is a New Thing or not isn't a matter of what a DM could do in the past and can't do now; it's a matter of the paradigm that WotC is supporting, and how that will shape player expectations. DM fiat is clearly considered a Very Bad Thing in today's RPG culture. WotC has simply found a happy synergy between prevailing culture and making money.

Quote from: jgantsThere's a good reason for that.  Most times companies will drag out a setting to as many books as they can possibly sell.  Much like TV shows and movies that make good money end up with endless sequels until they don't make money anymore.

But my point is that's not actually true.  Looking at the number of sequels a movie spawned is an utterly stupid way of estimating its total sales.  The ten top selling films of all times were: Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, The Sound of Music, E.T., The Ten Commandments, Titanic, Jaws, Doctor Zhivago, The Exorcist, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Of those, only three generated sequels.  

Meanwhile, you can find terrible, low-profit B movies generating lots of sequels -- Leprechaun 6, Ernest Goes To Camp, etc.  You don't need to be a big success to generate sequels -- in fact, you can just barely make a profit and pull in sequels.  

That's because the strategy of running a setting or series into the ground with additional books/films isn't necessarily better business sense than spending the same effort on new works.