On the latest episode of the D&D Podcast, Dave Noonan and company discuss the existing WotC products that have rules that also appear in the upcoming D&D 4th edition. It offers a lot more insights into the new game than previous podcasts in the series.
I'm only half-way through it, but some observations so far:
* Book of 9 Swords, Complete Mage, Star Wars Saga Edition all have rules that were being tested out for 4th edition
* Powers, Powers, Powers -- this word comes up a lot. Often in reference to things I wouldn't have considered a "power" like a fighter's special attack.
* MMORPG -- lots of WoW lingo like "Tank", "Striker", and "Controller". This seems to be getting used more than the old way of looking at roles in the group.
...more when I get time to listen to the rest of it...
So it more or less confirms suspicions we'd voiced here and elsewhere?
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSo it more or less confirms suspicions we'd voiced here and elsewhere?
It confirms things many of us have been saying. The MMORPG influence is undeniable.
Quote from: StuartIt confirms things many of us have been saying. The MMORPG influence is undeniable.
If MMORPGs are so hot, why shouldn't I just go play the real thing instead of a cheap paper and pencil imitation?
Quote from: John MorrowIf MMORPGs are so hot, why shouldn't I just go play the real thing instead of a cheap paper and pencil imitation?
Good question. What WotC has to get to is a place where they can be digital, but still keep the strengths of P&P. I'm still convinced it can be done, I just don't think the MMORPG direction is it...
Quote from: StuartOn the latest episode of the D&D Podcast, Dave Noonan and company discuss the existing WotC products that have rules that also appear in the upcoming D&D 4th edition. It offers a lot more insights into the new game than previous podcasts in the series.
I'm only half-way through it, but some observations so far:
* Book of 9 Swords, Complete Mage, Star Wars Saga Edition all have rules that were being tested out for 4th edition
* Powers, Powers, Powers -- this word comes up a lot. Often in reference to things I wouldn't have considered a "power" like a fighter's special attack.
* MMORPG -- lots of WoW lingo like "Tank", "Striker", and "Controller". This seems to be getting used more than the old way of looking at roles in the group.
...more when I get time to listen to the rest of it...
Not to be rude, but this is all "duh" stuff. We've known for a long time about ToB, CM, and SWSE acting as "beta tests" of 4e.
Also, for the commentators in this thread: not all things from MMORPGs are bad, you know. MMORPGs can have good elements to them that could be implemented into RPGs. They just don't, more often than not.
2e: The edition that went Story, because "Dragonlance Fantasy Novels sell so good!"
4e: The edition that went retarded, because "WoW sells so good!"
Nope - they're mostly bad for real RPGs.
They steal time that those people could be around the table playing REAL role-playing games with clattering dice and character sheets in hand.
- Ed C.
(Can you tell that I have 2 WoW players in my group and it really annoys me at times????)
Quote from: Settembrini2e: The edition that went Story, because "Dragonlance Fantasy Novels sell so good!"
4e: The edition that went retarded, because "WoW sells so good!"
Now, please fill in:
3e: The edition that went _______________ , because _______________ .
3e: The edition that went overboard on rules, because of Magic: The Gathering ?
Quote from: B.T.Not to be rude, but this is all "duh" stuff. We've known for a long time about ToB, CM, and SWSE acting as "beta tests" of 4e.
Yes, of course. The podcast addresses the
specific rules, and discusses if they'll be the same, or modified for 4e.
Eg. 4 types of saving throws, including armour class, from SWSE.
Eg. The way Powerz recharge compared to Book of 9 Swords.
Quote from: B.T.Also, for the commentators in this thread: not all things from MMORPGs are bad, you know. MMORPGs can have good elements to them that could be implemented into RPGs. They just don't, more often than not.
I'll agree with this. However things like emulating the roles in WoW: "Tank", "Striker" and "Controller" are *not* one of those good elements from a MMORPG that would make a tabletop game better. Things like: Faster Character Creation, Minimal Rules Knowledge, and Very Quick Setup Times would be.
Quote from: Stuart3e: The edition that went overboard on rules, because of Magic: The Gathering ?
I have to admit, right after hitting "send" I began thinking on those lines...
And let's not forget 1e: The edition that went crazy for standardisation, because of the massive proliferation of incompatible homebrew systems.
Quote from: WarthurAnd let's not forget 1e: The edition that went crazy for standardisation, because of the massive proliferation of incompatible homebrew systems.
(Actually, that was also 3e. The designers (or was it Ryan Dancey) are on record saying that was a goal of the project.)
Yeah, my first reaction was 3e: The edition that went unified because that was da bomb.
Not that I have a problem with a more unified mechanic....just saying is all...
Quote from: StuartI'll agree with this. However things like emulating the roles in WoW: "Tank", "Striker" and "Controller" are *not* one of those good elements from a MMORPG that would make a tabletop game better. Things like: Faster Character Creation, Minimal Rules Knowledge, and Very Quick Setup Times would be.
I was initially against this until someone pointed out that D&D has always had four roles: tank, trapmonkey, wizard, and Band-Aid. By changing them to "tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader," it just makes them more versatile. The only big issue that I have with it is that it is essentially telling the player how he ought to player his character: "You're an arcane striker, so make with the damage!"
Quote from: B.T.I was initially against this until someone pointed out that D&D has always had four roles: tank, trapmonkey, wizard, and Band-Aid. By changing them to "tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader," it just makes them more versatile. The only big issue that I have with it is that it is essentially telling the player how he ought to player his character: "You're an arcane striker, so make with the damage!"
The "Fighter" class wasn't the same thing as a "Tank". That's something very specific to a certain genre of computer games, and doesn't really map to any historical or fictional stories I can think of. A Knight in heavy armour didn't stand on the battlefield to absorb "damage" so that his allies could more freely attack the enemy. The reason there are "Tanks" in WoW has to do with the game engine they're using, how combat works, how the AI work, and many of the limitations of their simulation of a fantasy world (characters can all walk through each other). It shifts the game from a simulation of a fantasy world, to a simulation of World of Warcraft.
Maybe an Archer is a "striker"... but an archer in D&D was usually a specialized fighter, or sometimes a Thief. If a "Striker" doesn't mean strike at a distance, but rather 'deals the most damage' then that would be a fighter with some kind of heavy martial weapon. Or a Wizard -- but a wizard could do a lot of different things in D&D. They weren't usually so specialized.
Having a leader role could be a good idea -- but I could see any of the character classes doing that: Arthur, Robin Hood, Gandalf... and uh, cleric-guy. :)
I can't see at all how mapping the roles ("tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader") from World of Warcraft onto a tabletop game... and especially D&D... would make the game better.
Quote from: StuartHaving a leader role could be a good idea -- but I could see any of the character classes doing that: Arthur, Robin Hood, Gandalf... and uh, cleric-guy. :)
Joan of Arc...
Quote from: StuartThe "Fighter" class wasn't the same thing as a "Tank". That's something very specific to a certain genre of computer games, and doesn't really map to any historical or fictional stories I can think of.
SNIP
Absolutely. Those terms came as a collective response to the AI of those games. Players learned the best way to handle combat and then assigned names to those roles. This is not how anyone fights in real life and not at all a historic sim.
So, (and I'm nearly 99% neutral on 4E, whatever, whatever) this edition seems to be more a recreation of the MMORPG experience than a good RPG. (And why do all the dice rolling for 4E when I can log on to Guild Wars with my pals?)
In THAT way, I think the MMO influence is very bad.
Yeah, I get real tired of the whole "roles were always in D&D" too.
Most fighter characters I ever knew were focused on offense, not defense. They were the ones who charged in and attacked. I don't remember once being a fighter who sat back and babysat the wizard.
Thieves were certainly not "strikers". Up until 3e, they were very non-combat focused. In BD&D they were almost as weak as a magic-user. They were supposed to be used as specialists.
In all of my games, magic-users/mages/wizards/whatever were expected to take care of themselves. They were supposed to use their defensive spells to protect themselves, plus their offensive skills to attack. And many of their spells were far more "striker" in nature than "controller". They also had a ton of specialist spells that were no use whatsoever in combat.
Finally, I've never seen a cleric used as a walking heal-bot. IME, clerics generally acted like fighters - rushing into close combat with melee weapons. The heal stuff usually only happened once in a while during combat (if someone was really injured) or usually just after combat. And while they had a few "buff" type spells, I'd say that specialist type spells or offensive spells were used far more often.
The only place I saw these "four roles" of MMOs used in the 80s was in the video game, Gauntlet.
Quote from: James J SkachJoan of Arc...
Yeah, I was thinking of Jane Wiedlin when I was writing that out... but I couldn't decide if she was more like a Fighter or a Cleric. :D
Quote from: StuartA Knight in heavy armour didn't stand on the battlefield to absorb "damage" so that his allies could more freely attack the enemy.
Really?
The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely. Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way
Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonReally?
The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely. Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way
Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it
I'm not historically inclined (well, I love history, I just have too many other things to get into it as much as I'd like), but men-at-arms weren't Knights, were they? I mean, the Knights in heavy armor were up on horses taking the fight to the enemy, no?
If I'm right (and I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of these things than I will let me know), then this is perfect example of two types of fighters, and "Tank" as represented here (standing on the field to absorb attacks from the enemy to let others attack) doesn't describe either, really.
but I'm way out on a limb on this one...
Shouldn't the title of this thread be : D&D Podcast - You May Already Be Playing WoW...
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonReally?
The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely. Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way
Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it
First -- keep in mind we're talking about the WoW definition of "Tank". A real-world tank can take a lot of damage AND deal a lot. It's the Tank AND the Striker. :)
As for Knights, you're thinking Strategic. Think on the personal scale on the battlefield, with a group of a half-dozen or so combatants on either side. A unit of Knights might act as a "tank", but an individual Knight does not function in same way as a "tank" in WoW.
Quote from: James J SkachI'm not historically inclined (well, I love history, I just have too many other things to get into it as much as I'd like), but men-at-arms weren't Knights, were they? I mean, the Knights in heavy armor were up on horses taking the fight to the enemy, no?
Knight was actually more like a rank. They had the best gear, which meant heavy horse, armour, and weapons.
I'm using the laymans definition -- Man in heavy armour, helmet, shield, with big sword. Which could have been a Knight, or a Man-at-Arms. ;)
All I can say is "Yay! Another reason not to buy 4th Edition! I already own it!"
I like some of the stuff in 9 Sword, Complete Mage, and Star Wars Saga. What I don't like is being told what to do with my guy because his class has been super-optimized for one role. Sure, magic-users lob fireballs, but in my experience their number one role is to totally fuck up the villain's/DM's plan through smart use of non-blasty spells. "Magic spells are the cheat codes to the universe" was how it was put in The Invisibles, IIRC.
Quote from: StuartYeah, I was thinking of Jane Wiedlin when I was writing that out... but I couldn't decide if she was more like a Fighter or a Cleric. :D
Leelee Sobieski did that role better.
Much better written version of character too.
- Ed C.
WoW causes brain damage.
Quote from: James J SkachGood question. What WotC has to get to is a place where they can be digital, but still keep the strengths of P&P. I'm still convinced it can be done, I just don't think the MMORPG direction is it...
This happened to crystallize something for me. My favorite D&D computer game is the original Baldur's Gate. What I liked about it was just the ability (within limits) to go north, south, east or west and get ambushed by gibberlings and find caves and explore them. And it used a pretty true translation of a rules set that had been written without computers in mind. Memory and computing power have improved since then, but its a package that I haven't quite seen duplicated, even in games that I otherwise liked.
So my point... I wouldn't be surprised if WotC is positioning themselves for digital with 4ed, but I agree that the MMORPG direction is unnecessary. I think even multiplayer could be done with a totally pen and paper ruleset. And I imagine they want a new edition for sales, but if they are making design decisions for digital, its likely to be both unnecessary and counterproductive.
Quote from: SaladmanThis happened to crystallize something for me. My favorite D&D computer game is the original Baldur's Gate. What I liked about it was just the ability (within limits) to go north, south, east or west and get ambushed by gibberlings and find caves and explore them. And it used a pretty true translation of a rules set that had been written without computers in mind. Memory and computing power have improved since then, but its a package that I haven't quite seen duplicated, even in games that I otherwise liked.
So my point... I wouldn't be surprised if WotC is positioning themselves for digital with 4ed, but I agree that the MMORPG direction is unnecessary. I think even multiplayer could be done with a totally pen and paper ruleset. And I imagine they want a new edition for sales, but if they are making design decisions for digital, its likely to be both unnecessary and counterproductive.
This is what has been kicking around for some time, even before the issue of a 4th edition came about. Perhaps it's one of the things that gets into my sore spot- because with 4th edition, it seems
to me that someone got it into their heads that WoW really is their competition - and I think that's a mistake.
I am of the (completely subjective!) opinion that with today's computing power, a really good translation of the Pen & Paper rule set, and to a significant extent experience, could be produced that would set up D&D for a much more positive future.
I get the feeling that 4e is a holding pattern until a digital/paper 5e can be created. The question is will it be a MMORPG, or a really cool translation of the table-top experience - complete with a rethinking of the tools available.
we shall see...we shall see....
Quote from: James J SkachI get the feeling that 4e is a holding pattern until a digital/paper 5e can be created. The question is will it be a MMORPG, or a really cool translation of the table-top experience - complete with a rethinking of the tools available.
I am willing to bet it will NOT be a MMORPG. I think that would be part of the generation after the next of gaming when the tools to create and buy context have matured better. The next one is going to be firmly in the replication of the tablet-op experience. The combat system and character management tools of MMORPGS may be borrowed.
The reason for this is that making content for MMORPG games is just too damn time-consuming and limited. You have limitations on the type of objects you can use, and how they look. Limits on the how smart the monsters are and their variety.
With Virtual tabletop anything you can scan or draw on the computer becomes available. This require far less development and can reuse much of the existing material we have all ready.
In the end however advancing computer technology in software and hardware will take care of the problem. Likely the virtual tabletops will be something like running NWN 1.
Quote from: James J SkachThis is what has been kicking around for some time, even before the issue of a 4th edition came about. Perhaps it's one of the things that gets into my sore spot- because with 4th edition, it seems to me that someone got it into their heads that WoW really is their competition - and I think that's a mistake.
I am of the (completely subjective!) opinion that with today's computing power, a really good translation of the Pen & Paper rule set, and to a significant extent experience, could be produced that would set up D&D for a much more positive future.
I get the feeling that 4e is a holding pattern until a digital/paper 5e can be created. The question is will it be a MMORPG, or a really cool translation of the table-top experience - complete with a rethinking of the tools available.
we shall see...we shall see....
From what I can tell, that's right - they do think that WoW is their competition, and overall in a general sense they're right. A lot of kids play WoW incessantly. They think it's cool. They don't know about P&P RPGs and even if they do, their opinion is simple and direct: They are too hard to bother with compared with WoW which does "everything" for you. That they are missing an entire dimension of creativity makes no difference to them. It's like telling someone who is eating a Big Mac that they could start a farm and create their own much healthier, and tastier food. Their answer is 99.99%: So what - leave me alone - I want to enjoy my Big Mac.
So in that sense WotC is competing with MMORPGs, and they are trying to figure out how to compete. Their answer is to rewrite the existing P&P RPG so that it more closely conforms to WoW in the hopes that the Big Mac eaters will look at the new Big Mac Farm, where you grow your own food, but produce in the end something that looks like a Big Mac, except it tastes totally different and has large chunks of carrots, and the bun is made of sour dough. The people who are running the show there think this is their only possible chance, and if they don't do it that WotC is doomed because they will never be able to compete with MMORPGs in the future. The reason being that MMORPGs may half-suck today, but in the future they will only get better and better. Smart MMORPG makers are going to add more and more P&P flexibility to their systems. It's a natural course of their evolution. And that's what makes WotC worry.
However, their efforts at making E4 conform to WoW standards to try to woo over WoW players is ... er ... difficult to comprehend. It seems more likely that they will gain no new converts this way, and only succeed in alienating their existing player base who finds the entire trend offensive becuase it caters to the Big Mac eaters - and we're all farmers here.
Overall, if my assessment is right, we won't have WotC to worry about for very long anyway. Unless they completely change course and figure out that their demographic is a relatively small group of intelligent creative people who will never prefer MMORPGs over what they can do with their own intellect on the table top.
That said: There is room for a hybrid computer system that helps GMs. Ryan Dancey himself alluded to this in the footnotes of his 2000 Market Survey. The only problem with the effort is one of thinking through exactly how it would work, and drawing clear boundrys around it so that it doesn't foolishy half-morph into a semi-MMORPG. It's a trick question. But it can be done. And will be, reasonably soon. But probably not by WotC, based on what their current tendencies look like. I think they tried with ETools and got burned. It would be a long time before they go through that again, I'm guessing.
Quote from: John MorrowIf MMORPGs are so hot, why shouldn't I just go play the real thing instead of a cheap paper and pencil imitation?
Because they are different games.
Guinness makes a no-alcohol beer called "Kaliber". I described it to my brother thusly:
"It's an interesting, hop-flavored, sparkling roasted wheat beverage that is actually quite tasty. It simply bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to beer."
I've been playing World of Warcraft for about three months.
It's fun, but it bears only a superficial resemblance to TTRPG. I get ENTIRELY different things out of the two pursuits.
I refuse to believe that I'm the only person in the world for whom this is true.
Quote from: KoltarNope - they're mostly bad for real RPGs.
They steal time that those people could be around the table playing REAL role-playing games with clattering dice and character sheets in hand.
- Ed C.
(Can you tell that I have 2 WoW players in my group and it really annoys me at times????)
The plural of anecdote is not data. You are smart enough to know that.
I've made this challenge other places, and I make it here: Show me non-anecdotal, hard evidence that people are leaving TTRPGS for MMORPGS.
The bozos in your game talking about WoW constantly? Three years ago in a game I was in,there were three clowns who would not shut the FUCK up about Babylon 5.
People leaving TTRPGs and playing MMORPGS? Since 1974 I've seen lots of people stop playing TTRPGs and do other things.
My point (and I do have one) is that the people leaving TTRPGs aren't "deserting TTRPGs for MMORPGs". They're quitting playing TTRPGs. If MMORPGs did not exist, they'd still exit the TTRPG hobby.
I defy the universe to prove me wrong
with good, solid data.
@Saladman
3e was designed with computer implementation in mind. Easier to code into a computer was one of many design goals.
Quote from: Old GeezerI defy the universe to prove me wrong with good, solid data.
I'm thinking the problem with your request is that no such good solid data exists, or if it does exist, its not available to the public. Therefore we
have no good solid data to go on. All we have are anecdotes and common sense, and a "feel for how things are going" and guesswork. If good solid data is a requirement for this discussion then we're going to have to end the discussion. But most people don't really want to end the discussion. So we make stabs at what we *think* is going on. Yes, most of these stabs are probably wrong. But that's life. I say we stab away for the fun of it.
Conversely, if anyone knows of sources for afore mentioned good solid data, please fork over links. I'd be curious indeed to take a look.
Here you go:
Quote from: Wizards of the Coast Market ResearchOne conclusion we draw from this data is that people who play electronic games still find time to play TRPGs; it appears that these two pursuits are "complementary" or "noncompetitive" outside the scope of the macroeconomic "disposable income" competition.
What you see with a lot of MMORPGs are people who NEVER played TRPGs playing. The issue isn't "Why are we losing players to MMORPGs" it's "Why aren't all those MMORPG players trying out our games?"
That's a VERY different question, and the requires very different solutions.
Quote from: Old GeezerBecause they are different games.
As they make D&D more like WoW, those differences become less significant, which is my point. If people at WotC think that role-players are looking for an MMORPG experience, what makes them think they can offer something to that audience that's better than just playing an MMORPG?
Quote from: Old GeezerI refuse to believe that I'm the only person in the world for whom this is true.
I'm the only person in my group that doesn't play MMORPGs religiously. They try every new one that comes out and play WoW and some spaceship game (EVE Online?) constantly. And yet we still get together every week to play TTRPGs.
The Fear the Boot guys (popular RPG podcast) all play online games extensively.
Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm thinking the problem with your request is that no such good solid data exists, or if it does exist, its not available to the public. Therefore we have no good solid data to go on. All we have are anecdotes and common sense, and a "feel for how things are going" and guesswork. If good solid data is a requirement for this discussion then we're going to have to end the discussion. But most people don't really want to end the discussion. So we make stabs at what we *think* is going on. Yes, most of these stabs are probably wrong. But that's life. I say we stab away for the fun of it.
Conversely, if anyone knows of sources for afore mentioned good solid data, please fork over links. I'd be curious indeed to take a look.
Mkay, I have nothing against playing "It's me, the eighth dwarf, Stabby." But let's not mistake hypotheses for facts.
MY hypothesis is that these people would leave TTRPGs anyway.
EDIT: Basically, I contend that people are confusing correlation with causality. People leave TTRPGs because the entertainment derived is not worth the opportunity cost of time. This does not require a "MMORPGs stealing people from TTRPG" situation, which is what many people are claiming -- that there is a CLEAR AND NECESSARY PATH.
Tain't so, sez I.
Quote from: James McMurrayI'm the only person in my group that doesn't play MMORPGs religiously. They try every new one that comes out and play WoW and some spaceship game (EVE Online?) constantly. And yet we still get together every week to play TTRPGs.
Right.
Because they're getting something out of the TTRPG they don't get online.
(Or was that your point, and I'm just being thick?)
Quote from: James McMurrayI'm the only person in my group that doesn't play MMORPGs religiously. They try every new one that comes out and play WoW and some spaceship game (EVE Online?) constantly. And yet we still get together every week to play TTRPGs.
Same here. Also, from conversations with them, they realize it's two separate hobbies. They don't play MMORPGs as a substitute for TTRPGs.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm thinking the problem with your request is that no such good solid data exists, or if it does exist, its not available to the public. Therefore we have no good solid data to go on. All we have are anecdotes and common sense, and a "feel for how things are going" and guesswork. If good solid data is a requirement for this discussion then we're going to have to end the discussion. But most people don't really want to end the discussion. So we make stabs at what we *think* is going on. Yes, most of these stabs are probably wrong. But that's life. I say we stab away for the fun of it.
Conversely, if anyone knows of sources for afore mentioned good solid data, please fork over links. I'd be curious indeed to take a look.
I scoured the Internet for the last couple of days. What is publically available (e.g. The Daedalus Project) is at least a year old, often more, and doesn't take into account the changes that
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade put to the MMORPG scene. There is an article that talks about the utter domination of WOW vs. other subscription-based MMORPGs, along with how competitors are attempting to compete with WOW, but that has no survey data.
Furthermore, there is no data at all that compares MMORPGs to TRPGs, not that is pubically available. If I am to scour further, I must make use of what access I have to more specialized database resources (and call up a librarian I know) to point me directions I likely missed.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerI scoured the Internet for the last couple of days. What is publically available (e.g. The Daedalus Project) is at least a year old, often more, and doesn't take into account the changes that World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade put to the MMORPG scene. There is an article that talks about the utter domination of WOW vs. other subscription-based MMORPGs, along with how competitors are attempting to compete with WOW, but that has no survey data.
Links?
I have my own hypothesis on why WoW is devouring the competition, I'd be interested in what others have to say.
Quote from: Old GeezerRight.
Because they're getting something out of the TTRPG they don't get online.
(Or was that your point, and I'm just being thick?)
You're just being thick. :)
Partly my fault though. "quote + reply" is my standard method of disagreeing with something, so when I use it to agree I'm breaking my mold. :)
Quote from: Old GeezerLinks?
I have my own hypothesis on why WoW is devouring the competition, I'd be interested in what others have to say.
The Daedalus Project (http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/)
Subscription-based MMORPG Article @ Warcry (http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/editorials/2783-Editorial-The-Year-The-Subscription-Model-Died)
Hope this helps.
Quote from: James McMurrayYou're just being thick. :)
"Dur!", as Terry Pratchett would say.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSubscription-based MMORPG Article @ Warcry (http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/editorials/2783-Editorial-The-Year-The-Subscription-Model-Died)
okay, I'm confused. That article seems to be saying that subscription based games are dying even as it says that WoW is so much huger than anybody else.
Isn't WoW a subscription based game? I know *I* am certainly paying for it.
They also seem to be totally off base on the "sandbox" versus "directed" game. After playing Guild Wars, WoW seems very much like a "sandbox" to me. There probably is a "great game arc" there, but I'll be fucked witless if I can find it out. Seems to be pretty much just linked chain quests to lead you from area to area. Granted, I'm only up to 26th level, but I don't see much "direction". Yes, there's "history" around, but you can play the game very well while ignoring it.
Guild Wars Nightfall -- now THERE is a directed game. In WoW, on the other hand, my character could, if I desired, spend the next five years doing nothing but fishing, gathering herbs, making potions, cooking, and selling stuff in the auction house.
Sounds like a sandbox to me.
Now, MY theory (and it is mine) on why WoW is eating everybody's lunch:
1) The look. After Guild Wars I was nonplussed by the art, until somebody said "I love the art, it's just like being in a Walt Disney movie".
A ha. It's no accident that certain elements of the art style of the "serious" Disney animated films are still used. They use those elements because people respond positively to it.
I'm no artist, I can't say what these elements are, but "I know a Disney cartoon when I see it."
2) Content. WoW has probably just gotten lucky, but they've hit a good balance between freedom and direction. Given infinite choices the average person merely becomes confused, but WoW isn't on rails either.
3) Play. I've seen several people say that WoW is the easiest game to play. Having played Guild Wars Nightfall, it's SURE easier than NF.
4) Free Demo. I downloaded the WoW free demo and the EQ2 free demo at the same time.
In six hours I'd finished the EQ demo. I could cover the entire area in 15 minutes, and there were no more quests. If I wanted to continue, it was time to pony up money.
Same with Star Wars Galaxies. Took a few days to finish, but you're stuck in this shitty little space station until you cough up.
But with WoW, you have ten days, ready, set, go. I could do whatever I liked for ten days. More than once, I just spent a full day -- six hours or more -- running down roads to see what I found. WoW let me have access to as much of the world as I could get to in ten days.
So, that's MY opinion about why WoW is dominating the scene.
And opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one, and they're all full of shit except for your own.:pundit:
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe Daedalus Project (http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/)
I'm afraid I broke their "motivations assessment".
"Your Achievement percentile rank is 1%. Your Socializing percentile rank is 5%. And your Immersion percentile rank is 24%."
Of course, I'm a Casual WoW player. I play instead of watching TV, and if it gets more difficult that watching TV, I don't do it.
Which makes me wonder -- how many people play WoW as "interactive TV"? But I suspect that's a different thread.
Quote from: David RSame here. Also, from conversations with them, they realize it's two separate hobbies. They don't play MMORPGs as a substitute for TTRPGs.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Now someone please clue WotC in to this.
Quote from: Old Geezerokay, I'm confused. That article seems to be saying that subscription based games are dying even as it says that WoW is so much huger than anybody else.
Maybe it's like a beach covered in dolphins, and WoW is the whale. Everyone's gonna die, but the whale is going look more impressive doing it.
Quote from: John MorrowNow someone please clue WotC in to this.
I seriously don't understand how the folk at WotC can't see this. I mean... they spend ALL DAY, EVERY DAY working on RPGs. How can they not understand them?
Maybe it's all orders from above, and a corporate culture that encourages people not to question their superiors.
...
OMG! The example of that kind of thing I was just about to post... it's also a Hasbro product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oozinator#Controversy
^--- If that's not an example of lots of people not wanting to speak up about a bad product idea, I don't know what is!
Quote from: StuartI seriously don't understand how the folk at WotC can't see this. I mean... they spend ALL DAY, EVERY DAY working on RPGs. How can they not understand them?
Okay, serious time.
I have an MBA.
Remember, the people who design these RPGs are not the people making decisions.
One of the very scariest things I ever learned in business school is the truth of the "executive summary".
Basically, high level decision makers absolutely will not read anything longer than one page.
By the time you're done with the introduction, recommendation, and conclusion -- you're down to approximately three bullet points.
I'm not joking. Don't take my word for it -- go do some research on "the importance of the executive summary".
By the time you have filtered data through enough sets of bullet points, you reach the magical land of "D&D = WoW. They both have elves, after all."
I wish there was any trace of kidding in this. I'm absolutely, totally as serious as chest pains with tingling in your left arm.
Quote from: John MorrowDing! Ding! Ding!
Now someone please clue WotC in to this.
My guess, frankly, is that it's too late. They've jumped the shark. Corporate culture being what it is, there is little hope that truly creative enterprises can survive in the toxic anti-creativity atmosphere that hampers the corporate world. They'z just agin it. I should know, I spent the last ten years working in one - and every year they get stupider and stupider. Really. It's almost as if they are following Dilbert and religiously applying every principal they read there. Or so it would seem.
The best brightest hope for fun is with small time developers who are not in it for the money. That's my hunch.
Edit: Emphasis on "not in it for the money". There are those who say they are not in it for the money, but they are. Oddly, there are those who say the are in it for the money, but aren't. Those however are a rare breed.
Quote from: John MorrowAs they make D&D more like WoW, those differences become less significant, which is my point.
Really? I thought they became more significant? ;)
If you try to be totally friggin' alien just to be able to say "yeah, I'm P&P over here and we ain't no MMORPG" then you've missed the boat. Toss these potential new customers a bone, let them relate. Frankly after reading the ENWorld 4e Info page I just don't get "well this is an MMORPG now". Yes there is commonality between the two, you know computer RPGs didn't exactly spring up from nowhere. Of course some advances are going to either look like WoW or be inspired by WoW. I sure as hell would hope that the designers aren't being so narrow-minded as to entirely exclude such potential sources.
So the short answer to "why can't they understand that P&P is different than MMORPGs" is that I don't see evidence that they do not understand this. What I do see evidence of is people freaking over a lot of comminality that is superficial (like similar terminology), beneficial, and/or incidental.
Quote from: Old GeezerBasically, high level decision makers absolutely will not read anything longer than one page.
One good way to cut through that it to use that brief space to tell them something that so frightens them or confuses them that they have to ask for more information. ;)
Time to trod out the true story, publicly told by Monte Cook to Ryan Dancey, that shortly after publication of 3E the Hasbro suits at WOTC suggested to ditch the "Dragons" in the name "Dungeons & Dragons."
Reason: Magic the Gathering has dragons in it too.
The customer might get confused.
Quote from: Old GeezerLinks?
I have my own hypothesis on why WoW is devouring the competition, I'd be interested in what others have to say.
It's simple. Because WoW was the first MMO designed to be played by normal people, by actual decent game designers.
By and large, prior to WoW, most of the MMO games out there were designed primarily by businessmen looking to cash in on the subscription model, and milk their subscribers for as much money as possible by making everything intensely difficult. This is still, by and large the case with the vast majority of MMOs out there even now, and even WoW itself has succumbed to it more recently with the BC content.
The result of this also led to a self-selected target market, as since friendless basement dwelling obsessives were largely the only people who could afford the time to play the games, the genre increasingly focused on said obsessives when it came time to design a new game or consider changes to an existing game. Seldom was an consideration made towards attracting a wider audience, in fact, SOE, the largest company out there at the time, has a long history of doing damn near the exact opposite.
Then WoW came along. Blizzard was already a developer with a sterling reputation, a producer of some of the best selling and most critically acclaimed games in PC history, and they proceeded to do their best to break the mold by making a game that was essentially, the exact opposite it's predecessors in terms of it's accessibility. By combining that time tested level/loot carrot, with a more friendly curve and more intuitive gameplay, they managed to suck in a lot of people who'd stayed far the fuck away from previous entries for largely damn good reason.
They've nearly dropped the ball a few times however. The raid-or-die approach nearly killed them, and I think BC was basically a complete game design catastrophe and essentially killed the game, but at this point, there's enough momentum behind it that I doubt it's liable to go anywhere regardless of how badly the devs have lost the way.
It's interesting to note too, that the only game I know of since that's come close to it's success is LotR, which largely succeeds by taking that same casual friendly approach, but pairing it with a game that feels different enough mechanically, and a well known setting. but the core, player-friendly attitude and content is definitely there, and I suspect the only thing that has held it back from doing even better is the rather high system requirements.
Which is another aspect I rather forgot to mention: WoW runs on fucking anything. If your box is no more than about 8 years old, chances are good you can run WoW, which makes it far more accessible to the general, non-hardcore market.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's simple. Because WoW was the first MMO designed to be played by normal people, by actual decent game designers.
.....
By and large, prior to WoW, most of the MMO games out there were designed primarily by businessmen looking to cash in on the subscription model, and milk their subscribers for as much money as possible by making everything intensely difficult.
Not exactly true. Though if you only looked to Everquest you'd think this. Compared to Everquest (and their Star Wars MMO) WoW is definately more casual friendly, and that's helped it with appeal to the masses. But WoW certainly wasn't the first. In truth with Ultima Online, over 10 years back now, you could build a PvP competitive character within 10's of hours and run into the stat cap within days if you were intensive about it. It was in a lot of ways more casual friendly than WoW.
Of course it wasn't 3D, and it was from a different time. Perhaps it is actually another example of the success of 'casual' (even though EQ stomped it when EQ later came out). The designers weren't that bad (though the original team definately had an adversion to crunching numbers, leading to balancing issues). They didn't have the same quality ethic of Blizzard but then very few game companies do.
Even EQ's development team isn't too bad from a nuts and bolts POV. EQ largely works as intended.
What Blizzard brought was people that could execute and had [successful] experience in working with the type of budget required for this quality of work. Their artwork and direction is brilliant and their understanding of what is 'fun' in a wide swath of computer gamers is solid. Sort of what you are saying only different. :p Plus they are simply newer, designed and built with the capabilities of more current tech in mind. So they are at the front of the MMO line in reaping that increasing overall sales of the computer game industry (which is in the process of running down both music and movie sales).
P.S. As well I don't think that's exactly what the thought process was with making things so mindnumbingly hard in Everquest, it was closer to Brad McQuaid and company were just a pack of sick S&M f*cks. :p Oh, and it's easier to ramp up the time required to get through less actual content than to make larger amounts of content to try satisfy the psychos playing 20 hours/day who are pissing into empty pop-bottles to save the trip down the hall to the bathroom. The crazy part is that WoW
still sucks enormous amounts of time for a lot of people. If you want the pimp gear and level 70 you gotta put in the time. But at least Blizzard's response to players bleeding isn't to hit them again but harder, like in EQ.
I think you're right in that there was some initial vision behind UO and EQ, but both games by and large destroyed themselves, and both games even in their inception had aspects that were pretty damn obtuse to anyone who wasn't dedicated to learning how they worked. UO explains basically nothing of itself, and EQ never really did either, and then both games essentially got taken over by the very suits I was talking about.
Much of what came after both those games was pretty much more of the same for a very long time, and a lot of utter shit hit the markets in a cheap attempt to cash in on the business model.
I think the one thing though, that WoW does miss, is pure sandbox play like UO had or SWG used to have. I would love to see someone come along and do a more sandbox-y game like that, but combine it with a more casual friendly approach. I think if done right, the sandbox approach could be more casual-friendly than even WoW, if it was done in a fashion that limited the importance of levels in terms of where in the game you were allowed to go. I think EVE Online shows glimmers of a possible future like that, but it is itself sadly limited by a lot of other player-hostile elements that largely center around the encouraged style of player-to-player interaction.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's simple. Because WoW was the first MMO designed to be played by normal people, by actual decent game designers.
Exactly. That's one of the lessons TTRPGs should take from WoW.
Leaving aside whether the team on 4e are "decent game designers" do you think the game will be "designed to be played by normal people"? I'm skeptical.
Quote from: StuartExactly. That's one of the lessons TTRPGs should take from WoW.
Leaving aside whether the team on 4e are "decent game designers" do you think the game will be "designed to be played by normal people"? I'm skeptical.
I guess the question we have to ask next is if normal people like to see the math behind the system and crunch numbers to optimize their builds. I don't believe they do.
However, I think the braintrust at WotC made the decision long ago that D&D was already a game for hardcore geeks, and that a lot of hardcore geeks (the ones who will go out and buy lots of rules expansions, anyway) like nothing better than to crunch numbers and optimize builds. These players enjoy using their analytical number skills to beat the system. So WotC designed a system meant to challenge those players and encourage them to buy books of options that serve as grist for the analytical mill.
Problem is, how do you turn around and make such a game more accessible without alienating the hardcores? All I know is that my group of non-geek, numbers-averse buddies would never have taken up D&D in 1980 if it was in its present 3.x form. But then, none of the players in my group, in 28 years of play, has ever bought a book besides the PHB.
So maybe WotC is smart to ignore them and design the game for people who can't get enough of new rules; maybe it's better to have a smaller number of obsessive customers who buy many books each than to have a larger number of casual customers who each buy one or two books.
Quote from: HaffrungI guess the question we have to ask next is if normal people like to see the math behind the system and crunch numbers to optimize their builds. I don't believe they do. none of the players in my group, in 28 years of play, has ever bought a book besides the PHB.
I'm not into the number crunching and build optimization. It's like doing my taxes.
Quote from: HaffrungSo maybe WotC is smart to ignore them and design the game for people who can't get enough of new rules; maybe it's better to have a smaller number of obsessive customers who buy many books each than to have a larger number of casual customers who each buy one or two books.
Except that they're trying to do that AND trying to copying the success of WoW. It seems a bit dysfunctional to me -- like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Quote from: John MorrowDing! Ding! Ding!
Now someone please clue WotC in to this.
Erm, originally posted on Page 4 of this thread:
Quote from: Wizards of the Coast Market ResearchOne conclusion we draw from this data is that people who play electronic games still find time to play TRPGs; it appears that these two pursuits are "complementary" or "noncompetitive" outside the scope of the macroeconomic "disposable income" competition.
WotC don't think that they hav to compete directly with MMOs. They apparently pretty much never have.
But this doesn't preclude them looking at MMos to see if there are any good elements of game design which might work equally well in a TTRPG, nor does it mean that they shouldn't look at the MMO market to see whether some of the MMO players might
also enjoy TTRPG if they had the chance.
Quote from: TrevelyanWotC don't think that they hav to compete directly with MMOs. They apparently pretty much never have.
So far, the 4e marketing/design philosophy pretty much throws everything Dancey told them out the window, so it's quite likely they abandoned that belief as well.
Remember too that the Dancey studies took place before WoW. And as WoW is much more successful than UO or EQ were, its conceivable that they changed their minds.
Quote from: jgantsSo far, the 4e marketing/design philosophy pretty much throws everything Dancey told them out the window, so it's quite likely they abandoned that belief as well.
Remember too that the Dancey studies took place before WoW. And as WoW is much more successful than UO or EQ were, its conceivable that they changed their minds.
Really, so which bits of the 4E design philosophy are intended to
compete directly with MMOs?
Quote from: HaffrungAll I know is that my group of non-geek, numbers-averse buddies would never have taken up D&D in 1980 if it was in its present 3.x form.
I seriously doubt it would be to do with number adversion. I've seen people that just
loath math take up D&D, starting with 3e. They've been playing for years now. They have even bought a couple of extra books in that time, just none orientated towards twinking a PC (the 3 Freeport adventure books are the ones that come immediately to mind but there were others). If they feel the need for tweaking their character powerwise they do what, in my experience, people that don't like crunching numbers have always done in D&D. Get someone else to do it.
Because tweaking was
always a royal PITA. Doing taxes? Why do you think so much of the AD&D rules were just flat out ignored, or misread? Because it was more obtuse and dysfunctional than what our government puts out. :p
However 3e can be played to have that the "christmas tree" effect (as mentioned by the current designers trying to beat that back) bigtime with little bonuses here, there and everywhere. If you are worried about maxing out potential. You don't HAVE to play that way but it's there and if the other people around the table are too far out of sync with each other bad things tend to happen.
Of course WoW has that in spades, there are huge 3rd party sites dedicated to it. You'll find no brighter christmas trees than in an MMO. But they sort of visually code (along with the numbers) and the computer tracks all the little bonuses so the computer takes the place of your geeky friend.
EDIT: BTW if you look around you'll see that the designers have stated with 4e they aim to
curb the christmas tree effect. Which is heading in a very different direction than most MMOs. How successful they will be given the installed base pressure for their tasty bits of crunchy power? *shrug* Imagine the rip in space fabric from Sett's head imploding when 4e comes out and it's a single page of paper that rules simply state "Talk about your PCs feelings and then have everyone agree what happens next." :D
WOTC maintains a Character Optimization forum wherein number-crunchers can do the math and work out the optimal builds for this or that. WOW's version is a fansite called "Elitist Jerks" (run by the guild of the same name), and this place is also supplemented by the work put in by the elite guilds of WOW--Nilhilum, Death & Taxes, etc.--that put in the time to figure out top-end PVE content long before most players get there. (They make the cookie-cutter builds that dominate the game.)
The net effect is that casual players off-load the work of determining how to wring more effectiveness out of a character to this elite subgroup of players; WOTC would be wise to find some way to do likewise, and the extant scheme is a good start. (They would be good to promote the CharOp forum; posters regularly show their work and walk readers through their builds, explaining the hows and whys of it.)
BTW: WOW has passed the 10 million subscriber mark (http://www.blizzard.com/press/080122.shtml)
Quote from: blakkieI seriously doubt it would be to do with number adversion. I've seen people that just loath math take up D&D, starting with 3e. They've been playing for years now. They have even bought a couple of extra books in that time, just none orientated towards twinking a PC (the 3 Freeport adventure books are the ones that come immediately to mind but there were others). If they feel the need for tweaking their character powerwise they do what, in my experience, people that don't like crunching numbers have always done in D&D. Get someone else to do it.
It's a misconception to say that powergaming requires that you understand numbers. Let me tell you how I minmaxed my dwarf two weapon fighter.
The first step is just to find things that work well together.
One maximizes damage with two weapon fighting with an appropriate exotic weapon (katana, great scimitar, dwarven waraxe, etc.) that can be wielded in one hand, but only with ewp. This works best with the oversized two weapon fighting feat from complete adventurer. Now, instead of having weapon damage be 1d8 and 1d6, you've got 1d10 and 1d10. A small boost, but it helps.
One also maximizes damage with two weapon fighting by having sneak attack damage. You make a full attack with a sneak attack and you deal sneak attack damage on every attack. One attack for a single-classed single weapon rogue (It's a level 7 build, by the way) is 4d6. My guy's only a level 3 rogue, but with four attacks he can potentially deal 8d6 sneak attack damage (in addition to the 4d10 from his weapons).
Now, there's a feat called neraph charge in the planar handbook that lets you catch someone flat footed by charging them (once per encounter on a given foe). And there's a lions pounce alternate class feature for a barbarian that lets you make a full attack on a charge in place of fast movement.
See where I'm going with this? A unique charging flurry attack for four 1d10+2d6 attacks on a flat-footed foe. Also I get to offset any penalties I have by using rage.
I didn't have to understand shit about numbers. Just what combinations of feats and abilities work best together.
Or is this the "christmas tree" you're talking about. If so, this:
QuoteEDIT: BTW if you look around you'll see that the designers have stated with 4e they aim to curb the christmas tree effect. Which is heading in a very different direction than most MMOs. How successful they will be given the installed base pressure for their tasty bits of crunchy power? *shrug* Imagine the rip in space fabric from Sett's head imploding when 4e comes out and it's a single page of paper that rules simply state "Talk about your PCs feelings and then have everyone agree what happens next." :D
actually bothers me. I like breaking things, system included.
Uh beejazz how did you pick and use those combinations? Pouring over a bunch of numbers. Sure you have to read abunch of conditional logic too, good point that it includes that. But unless you understand the numbers, even if someone else told you what was optimal, then you can actually screw yourself over. Power Attack is a great example of that.
P.S. Yes you are a good example of the pressure I was talking about.
Quote from: blakkieUh beejazz how did you pick and use those combinations? Pouring over a bunch of numbers.
I'll give you that on my decision to switch from human to dwarf (either one could have given me prof. in a hand and a half weapon and eased my tri-class worries) for the maxing con and nixing cha was just such number crunching. Otherwise, it was just things that work well together. I'm of the opinion that while the truly effective builds do require a good understanding of numbers, all the really fun ones to play are the ones with the conditional-logic based unique capabilities.
I know someone who could break metamagic to use a divination to nuke a city. There's also a combination of psychic powers that will let you play as a sandwich.
I think that's my beef with the magic and metamagic system. You can minmax it more effectively, but it's just so tedious. In the case of breaking blasters, you really do have to know the numbers or you'll end up shafting your own dude. You've got to constantly compare a low-level blasting spell with metamagic to an equivalent spell already of the higher level. If they make minmaxing magic more like minmaxing combat, I'll be very happy. Hell, the reserve feats, warlock, tome of battle, and anti-vance stance indicate they may be doing just such a thing.
What I really would hate is for minmaxing combat to become like minmaxing magic, with a dozen unique attacks not useful in combination except with "metacombat" logic specifically balanced for modifying existing attacks. That would just suck for mid-level powergamers and noobs alike.
Ultimately, I'm happier finding out magic is more like warlock stuff than I am finding out combat is more like tome of battle. And ultimately, I'm dreading the possibility that individual player options will be better or worse than others. The whole joy of powergaming is knowing that every feat and spell has a purpose in some build somewhere if not your own, and knowing that certain feats, class abilities, skills, etc. are better *in combination* with others.
I like to think I'm not alone in this opinion.
QuoteP.S. Yes you are a good example of the pressure I was talking about.
Hee hee... I'm exerting pressure on the new edition of DnD in a direction not approved of by others on this site.
You don't need to know much more than which numbers are highest to minmax D&D in most cases. Even a child knows that if you get a quarter (or +1d6 sneak attack damage) on an attack, a feat that gives you four attacks will give you four quarters (or sneak attacks). "4 is more than 1" is not a concept which requires a deep understanding of probability.
In those areas where you do need to know more (like Power Point), there are friendly min maxers out there to tell you how, or even write you up a nice spreadsheet for calculating the optimum power attack versus all ACs, if you care to go that far into it but can't do probabilities in your head.
What if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?
If you don't have access to buy any magic item you can afford (you hafta find 'em!) and if special prestige classes and abilities are also only "unlocked" as part of the campagin -- you can't "build out" your character before you start the game. You have to plan to be adaptable. That's how we played pre-WotC D&D.
Quote from: HaffrungWhat if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?
See, firstly you're implying that just because we like an effective character, we aren't playing the game or that we're "rollplaying." That's ridiculous. The in-game antics are as big a deal for us as they are for anyone else... with the exception of at least one guy I know who does seem to think that you can "win" DnD, if you know what I mean.
The only actual difference is that our stats aren't determined primarily by rolling, but by our choices.
As for why the internet is clogged with character optimization and not "cool things my character did this week," there's at least two reasons I can think of. The first is that no one gives a shit what Shinkicker the gnome barbarian/monk did to the orc on a critical hit (though for the record, he sent a shard of bone flying into some other orc's eye... hooray for poorly thought-out crit decks). Conversely, people who don't do the whole character building thing will still be interested to find out how they too can play as a sandwich, fight using vorpal pillows, or be a cancer mage with an infinite strength loop. Secondly, the in-play stuff is more fun in play than it is to retype with strangers. Not that you won't repeat anecdotes and have a good laugh with the people who were actually there and to whom it would be relevant.
Now, on an unrelated note, if I were going to build my own system I'd actually downplay the minmaxing at character generation and make the in-game stuff more interesting. Or I'd try to anyway. We'll see if I succeed at it or not when I actually get around to putting it all to paper.
Quote from: StuartIf you don't have access to buy any magic item you can afford (you hafta find 'em!) and if special prestige classes and abilities are also only "unlocked" as part of the campagin -- you can't "build out" your character before you start the game. You have to plan to be adaptable. That's how we played pre-WotC D&D.
Hey look! It's RAW! It's errata! No, it's HOUSERULES.
Houserules to the rescue.
I've played modded 3x games like this. Hell, it's how I run it (the magic gear part, anyway). It works fine.
Quote from: HaffrungWhat if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?
Easy: roll up a character and play. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you're forced to.
Quote from: James McMurrayEasy: roll up a character and play. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you're forced to.
Sure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't? I believe all games have a target audience. Some have broader target audiences than others. But no game can be all things to all people. Those who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.
11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.
Quote from: HaffrungSure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't?
Look at the three core books for 3.x. Tell me with a straight face that's powergamey. The minmaxing game is mostly about taking advantage of unforseen consequences of combinations of things that are sound and balanced alone. So for casual gamers, Dungeons and Dragons is three fairly balanced books. For minmaxers it's more like twenty seven books riddled with holes.
QuoteThose who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.
Play as a monk, paladin, or druid. Problem solved. You've got a class that isn't customizable. Now look at the starting feat package in the sample PC. Viola. You got yourself a PC you just rolled up without making any decisions. Difficult?
Quote11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.
Now, I think you've caught on to something in that Dungeons and Dragons 3x is almost unique among RPGs... it sells supplements to players as well as DMs.
I do worry about accessibility, but I think 3x core got it about right. within that smaller context, stuff worked. Hell, I can GM a dungeon crawl with no prep. And characters straight out the phb take little effort, even if the dissimilar assets are a pain in the ass (I loathe the beancounting of the skill system... and gearing up characters above fourth level is such tedium with little reward).
I don't know that I've ever really worried much about 4e's mechanics really ruining the game. They won't. If anything does, it'll be a newer crappier look and feel. You know the one... the one where it's trying too hard to look cool. Dragonborn, tieflings, and eladrin in the corebook hit a sour note with me. Likewise the take on halflings. If the special abilities' flavor is as suck as all that, then I'm worried.
QuoteLook at the three core books for 3.x. Tell me with a straight face that's powergamey. The minmaxing game is mostly about taking advantage of unforseen consequences of combinations of things that are sound and balanced alone. So for casual gamers, Dungeons and Dragons is three fairly balanced books. For minmaxers it's more like twenty seven books riddled with holes.
YES.
I say again, in big bold letters:
YES.D&D3, in it's core, is a rather straightforward well balanced game. The easiest solution to keeping it that way is simply to skip all the damn sourcebooks. The game runs just bloody fine without them, a fact that everyone likes to ignore and deliberately start twisting all the corebooks together into some megamass in an attempt to portray the game as uncharitably as possible.
D&D core is a handful of classes, a much smaller collection of feats than it's detractors like to portray, and a pretty piddly number of not-so-hot prestige classes that were largely included as example templates for GMs who want to make their own.
Yup, that's right. Make their own. The DMG has a whole section of advice to GMs on how to design their own feats and classes and other such business, and encourages GMs to do so so they can create neat stuff tailored to their players and their characters.
Hell, I've done it myself. Wanted a neat sniper-y, ranged sort of class, so I made one up in the course of a couple hours, largely ripping off some bits from the other core classes, mainly the Ranger, Druid, and the Rogue.
Oh, wait, wait a minute. That's right, I'm forgetting the grognard rules, only 1e allowed that kind of thing, so obviously I must have imagined all that. :rolleyes:
Not so, J. I could have written 95% of that post of yours, and so could Calithena or Rob, I am sure.
There are different 3.xs. Infraweb chatter is dominated by the fanboiz of one version of it, which resembles 2E Skillz & Powerz raised from the dead, and Teh Grognard Brigade is a response to that. That character build of Beejazz'... no offense BJ, but my eyes just glaze over, please give me some wet paint to watch.
It occurs to me that, while these 3.x builds are often only compared to MMORPGs, there's a structural similarity to a bunch of other games that don't get mentioned as often in this context: the deck in MtG (etc.), the army lists in Warhammer (etc.). What they have in common is: a) frontloading (the game is played before the game begins); b) lots of merchandise to purchase for a); c) deliberate ivory tower approach to rules. Competence in these games = $$$ plus rules research.
Quote from: HaffrungSure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't? I believe all games have a target audience. Some have broader target audiences than others. But no game can be all things to all people. Those who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.
Definitely. But if your play style is different enough from your group's to cause problems, it won't matter what system you're playing. They'll likely be as unhappy with the rules light non-customizabilty of BD&D as you are with the crunchiness of 3.x. If the game is somewhere in the middle (2e perhaps), everyone may have a vague sense of uneasiness.
This applies equally well to any system, not just D&D. It's a preferences problem. Luckily there are tons of game systems and groups out there, so it should be possible for everyone to game happily.
Quote11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.
I won't disagree with that. But I also won't begrudge the company making sound business decisions to further the line.
Quote from: J ArcaneYES.
I say again, in big bold letters: YES.
D&D3, in it's core, is a rather straightforward well balanced game. The easiest solution to keeping it that way is simply to skip all the damn sourcebooks. The game runs just bloody fine without them, a fact that everyone likes to ignore and deliberately start twisting all the corebooks together into some megamass in an attempt to portray the game as uncharitably as possible.
D&D core is a handful of classes, a much smaller collection of feats than it's detractors like to portray, and a pretty piddly number of not-so-hot prestige classes that were largely included as example templates for GMs who want to make their own.
Yup, that's right. Make their own. The DMG has a whole section of advice to GMs on how to design their own feats and classes and other such business, and encourages GMs to do so so they can create neat stuff tailored to their players and their characters.
Hell, I've done it myself. Wanted a neat sniper-y, ranged sort of class, so I made one up in the course of a couple hours, largely ripping off some bits from the other core classes, mainly the Ranger, Druid, and the Rogue.
Oh, wait, wait a minute. That's right, I'm forgetting the grognard rules, only 1e allowed that kind of thing, so obviously I must have imagined all that. :rolleyes:
I don't know if you consider me one of those grognards or not, but I can't agree with you more about your assessment. It's why I am always of two minds about 3e. It's why I was so bummed to discover that instead of extending and improving in some basic ways, WotC decided to, most likely for business reasons based on research and competition (which is all well and good, IMHO), completely reinterpret the game.
It's why I always talk about a weird hybrid of 1e and 3e as being my personal end goal system. And when I say 3e, I mean the three cores, not the 27 extensions...