5e?

[MukkTB]

4e issues semi-regular balance patches that make small non-critical changes to powers. We're talking about that, not just day-1 fixes for issues that got caught after the book was sent to the printer.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

So you release the changes to powers in patch blocks that are easily available. How does that change anything I said? I never said anything about only 1 patch block ever. I said its easier to get rules changes if they come out periodically all at once and all at the same place. That way you can skim through the way you'd skim through a set of MMO patch notes.

So other than your claim that my solution only works once for some reason. Do you have any real facts to discuss?


As far as Case C goes. I said its probably a pipe dream. I listed it because I could see Wizards trying to achieve case C. Do you think that there is no chance Wizards would decide to aim for case C? If I thought Case C was a given I wouldn't have included Case D. If I thought Case C was never going to be attempted then I wouldn't have included Case D.

[Psyren]

Considering how much better they did under the OGL, they might be able to convince them that it is a good idea. Still, its unlikely.

The OGL was a good idea for many reasons, but it also directly led to the genesis of their now greatest competitor. So expanding it even further in 5e would be a very tough sell.

In my opinion - they should accept the fact that anything they do will break the base, and instead take the opportunity to try something completely new. Say, make 5e fully-digital + playable almost entirely over social media like Facebook. The players who want that will transfer instantly, while the ones that don't most likely either want to stick with 4e or stick with 3.P and wouldn't have switched to anything new anyway, so they lose nothing.

Meanwhile, they gain access to a massive market of young people who've probably never tried or even thought of trying tabletop gaming before, but are increasingly being inured to fantasy culture through the success of properties like LotR, Harry Potter, Narnia and Twilight.

[Yora]

Sure you can give your game a boost by developing new destribution channels, but with lots of competitors out there, what you really need is a solid system.
Unfortunately, until 5th Edition gets officially announced, we won't have any details about what they will be doing.

[Karoht]

...playable almost entirely over social media like Facebook.
Meanwhile, they gain access to a massive market of young people who've probably never tried or even thought of trying tabletop gaming before, but are increasingly being inured to fantasy culture through the success of properties like LotR, Harry Potter, Narnia and Twilight.
I'd totally forgot about social media. Clever.

[Eldan]

What I WOULD like, on the other hand, is a metric version of the books ....

German 3.5 was metric. It was weird and clunky, though.
If I never have to read about 1.5 meter steps again, or 10.5 meters of land speed on a monster, I'll be a much happier person.

[Yora]

Maybe they could at least use yards? Those can just be changed to meters without changing the numbers without getting and weird distances.

[Psyren]

I'd totally forgot about social media. Clever.

When they yanked Tiny Adventures I was totally convinced they had lost what few brain cells they had left. But now they're putting up Heroes of Neverwinter, and though it's meant to be an obvious tie-in to the Neverwinter game coming out soon (similar to how Dragon Age Legends gave you bonuses in DA:O and DA2) they at least haven't given up on the platform yet.

[Tyndmyr]

In my opinion - they should accept the fact that anything they do will break the base, and instead take the opportunity to try something completely new. Say, make 5e fully-digital + playable almost entirely over social media like Facebook. The players who want that will transfer instantly, while the ones that don't most likely either want to stick with 4e or stick with 3.P and wouldn't have switched to anything new anyway, so they lose nothing.

I don't think that's true. For instance, I made the 2e->3e switch, and the 3-> 3.5 switch, but did not make the 4e switch. So, clearly, I don't ALWAYS or NEVER switch. The same seems to be true of many others. Hell, lots of us play a wide variety of games, so it need not even be a pure switch.

Honestly, "playable on facebook" would not be a draw for me. It might be a fun facebook game, but it would not fulfill my desire for pen and paper systems. That's more of a fun sideline thing than the future of D&D.

[Seerow]

I don't think that's true. For instance, I made the 2e->3e switch, and the 3-> 3.5 switch, but did not make the 4e switch. So, clearly, I don't ALWAYS or NEVER switch. The same seems to be true of many others. Hell, lots of us play a wide variety of games, so it need not even be a pure switch.

Honestly, "playable on facebook" would not be a draw for me. It might be a fun facebook game, but it would not fulfill my desire for pen and paper systems. That's more of a fun sideline thing than the future of D&D.

Hrm, it depends on how it's handled. I wouldn't mind seeing an encounter builder and virtual tabletop like WotC originally promised us for 4e (Where'd that go anyway? Vaporware!), so games could be easily played electronically without having to rely on third party resources. Bonus points if it includes a built in vent or skype chat so you're talking instead of typing.

I'd still prefer playing in person, but I see nothing wrong with a game trying to support both online play and tabletop equally. If anything supporting online play as a major function of the game could do a lot to help bring new people in. Most of the time you get one person who is somewhat interested in a game, but can't convince their group to switch, or if they're new to tabletops can't find anyone to play with at all. Having a central place for finding online games and an easy way to play online could do a lot to improve the experience for new players.

[Yora]

Where'd that go anyway?
It went the way of gleemax.

Oh boy, now when you look back, the whole post 3rd Ed. mess was far worse than it seemed while it was happening.

[Tyndmyr]

Hrm, it depends on how it's handled. I wouldn't mind seeing an encounter builder and virtual tabletop like WotC originally promised us for 4e (Where'd that go anyway? Vaporware!), so games could be easily played electronically without having to rely on third party resources.

That was easily my most anticipated point of 4e. I remember seeing the virtual tabletop stuff being demoed and everyone I know being very, very excited about it. I mean, sure, I hang out with some pretty geeky types, and I know it wouldn't be practical for everyone...but it certainly garnered some interest!

I'm a bit sad that this hasn't happened yet.

[Psyren]

I don't think that's true. For instance, I made the 2e->3e switch, and the 3-> 3.5 switch, but did not make the 4e switch. So, clearly, I don't ALWAYS or NEVER switch.

The fact that you found the edition you liked does not counter my argument in the slightest.

Fact 1: there will be players that, no matter what 5e is like, not switch from 3.P.
Fact 2: there will be players that, no matter what 5e is like, not switch from 4e/Essentials.

Thus, 5e will fracture the base further - the only question is how much it will do so. The best strategy for WotC is not to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that this won't happen, but to embrace it and turn it into an advantage - an opportunity to recruit a brand new playerbase.


Honestly, "playable on facebook" would not be a draw for me. It might be a fun facebook game, but it would not fulfill my desire for pen and paper systems. That's more of a fun sideline thing than the future of D&D.

You are here (mistakenly) assuming "the future of D&D" has to include you, a self-confessed player of 3.5 (as am I) who willingly snubbed their last updated offering (as I did.) As I posted above, they will always face entropy as they fail to bring some of their existing customers along to new editions. Because of this, the only way for the hobby to remain commercially viable is to continually seek new blood.

There is this strangely widespread assumption that WotC will fail unless they come up with the "perfect system" that will "win back" all the grognards that stayed behind on 2e, 3.x, and even 4e (once Essentials came out.) To which I say - why go after those people at all? They already have what they want, and they're happy with it. You're trying to sell roast chicken to a man that has a turkey dinner, instead of targeting the people that are actually hungry.

[Hoddypeak]

MukkTB presents some good options, and I see two things that are contradictory in terms of pointing towards those options. That WotC rehired Monte Cook suggests they're going to try to unify the games, aiming for Case C.

However, one big reason that 4e is likely so different from 3.x is to prevent the OGL from possibly applying to it. If 5e inherits too much from 3.x, then WotC again loses control via the OGL and more competition can freely spring up using their IP. That isn't going to happen. This would point to Cases A or E.

Actually, what I see is something between Cases A and C being likely. WotC probably pulled in Mr. Cook to bring back some of the 3.x feel to 4e, so any new work can recapture 3.x fans. But because of OGL constraints, they won't be able to get close enough, and we'll probably end up with a 5e that inherits heavily from 4e.

[stainboy]

So you release the changes to powers in patch blocks that are easily available. How does that change anything I said? I never said anything about only 1 patch block ever. I said its easier to get rules changes if they come out periodically all at once and all at the same place. That way you can skim through the way you'd skim through a set of MMO patch notes.

So other than your claim that my solution only works once for some reason. Do you have any real facts to discuss?


Oh, so you do want to talk about errata now!

The point is that non-necessary rules changes are damaging to the game no matter how you disseminate them. Your examples assumed that the errata was necessary (fixing grossly broken mechanics, restoring omitted text, correcting errors in stat blocks, that kind of thing). If you knew more about 4e and the way WotC currently uses errata, you'd know that's frequently not the case. (And no, 3e isn't blameless in this department either. The CPsi power changes can go straight to hell.)

You didn't know this, didn't understand what people were talking about, and still tried to tell everyone to shut up. Then you come back with this strawman about how I'm saying your solution only works once. You don't have a solution, dude. You don't even understand the problem.

[MukkTB]

I'll admit that your argument over errata was so boring that I stopped reading it. I don't care about errata. I'm s 3.x guy. But id still argue that my solution for unnecessary errata is still t eh solution even if the errata is unnecessary and obnoxious.

[stainboy]

The OGL was a good idea for many reasons, but it also directly led to the genesis of their now greatest competitor. So expanding it even further in 5e would be a very tough sell.

In my opinion - they should accept the fact that anything they do will break the base, and instead take the opportunity to try something completely new. Say, make 5e fully-digital + playable almost entirely over social media like Facebook. The players who want that will transfer instantly, while the ones that don't most likely either want to stick with 4e or stick with 3.P and wouldn't have switched to anything new anyway, so they lose nothing.


4e would be competing with another fantasy dungeoncrawler RPG even if the OGL had never existed. AD&D retro-clones exist without any kind of open license. OGL or not, WotC can't stop other companies from releasing games with classes and levels and orcs and similar math and design goals. As long as they make games with relatively narrow appeal like 4e they're not going to corner the market.

As for your second thing, until we see whether Paizo can write a good system all on their own (Pathfinder 2nd, whenever that happens), I'd rather not think about hilarious new ways for WotC to run the brand into a ditch.

[king.com]

4e would be competing with another fantasy dungeoncrawler RPG even if the OGL had never existed. AD&D retro-clones exist without any kind of open license. OGL or not, WotC can't stop other companies from releasing games with classes and levels and orcs and similar math and design goals. As long as they make games with relatively narrow appeal like 4e they're not going to corner the market.

As for your second thing, until we see whether Paizo can write a good system all on their own (Pathfinder 2nd, whenever that happens), I'd rather not think about hilarious new ways for WotC to run the brand into a ditch.

D&D 5th ed will be designed around characters being represented on Pogs.

[stainboy]

D&D 5th ed will be designed around characters being represented on Pogs.

That... doesn't sound terrible.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6117/photoru.jpg

[Eldan]

Considering that I've used bits of eraser, styrofoam, lego figurines, bits of cardboard with character names on them and plain writing-with-pencil-directly-on-the-map before, pogs don't sound that bad.

That said, I prefer no miniatures and battlemats at all. Too distracting.

[turkishproverb]

Considering that I've used bits of eraser, styrofoam, lego figurines, bits of cardboard with character names on them and plain writing-with-pencil-directly-on-the-map before, pogs don't sound that bad.

That said, I prefer no miniatures and battlemats at all. Too distracting.

Depends on the players and the timing for me. Some games are enhanced by a battle-mat at times. Some aren't.

[king.com]

That... doesn't sound terrible.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6117/photoru.jpg

The character sheet that is.

[Psyren]

4e would be competing with another fantasy dungeoncrawler RPG even if the OGL had never existed.

Of course; but that competitor wouldn't have as firm a footing. A great deal of paizo's initial success was due to being able to make claims like "bring in all your existing splatbooks/characters" and "you already know most of the rules" even prior to release - neither of which would be possible without the OGL.

Once they launched, paizo filled a hole that WotC had left open; continued support for 3.x. After spending so much money and effort getting people interested in d20, WotC abandoned it almost entirely in favor of 4e; worse still, they took aeons to pursue the same distribution channels that had proven so successful for the previous editions. How long after 3.0 launched did we get NWN? How long has it been since 4e launched, with still no Neverwinter?


As for your second thing, until we see whether Paizo can write a good system all on their own (Pathfinder 2nd, whenever that happens), I'd rather not think about hilarious new ways for WotC to run the brand into a ditch.

Do you mean the social media idea? It's less a ditch than a new horizon. Whatever player attrition they incur with the switch will be offset by (a) the new players that already have embraced social media as a gaming platform, but want something deeper than X-Ville, and (b) the sunk cost of players that are happy with their current edition and wouldn't have switched anyway.

[Karoht]

More employers that allow internet access ban the SRD website and other related gaming websites, than those which ban Facebook and other social media websites. Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming.

[Seerow]

More employers that allow internet access ban the SRD website and other related gaming websites, than those which ban Facebook and other social media websites. Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming.

Some workplaces actually have facebook as one of their methods of communication. I'm not certain how common it is, but it could explain at least some of the discrepency. There is basically no work related reason to be on the d20 SRD unless you are working for a gaming company.

[stainboy]

Do you mean the social media idea? It's less a ditch than a new horizon. Whatever player attrition they incur with the switch will be offset by (a) the new players that already have embraced social media as a gaming platform, but want something deeper than X-Ville, and (b) the sunk cost of players that are happy with their current edition and wouldn't have switched anyway.

Social media games are fads, not as a whole but individually. Whatever people are playing now, in 3 years they will have moved on to a new thing. And even the people who play Facebook games don't have high regard for them. I know a lot of people who play Zynga games but nobody who would call themselves Zynga fans. Sacrificing 30-40 years of brand loyalty on a Facebook game seems like a really poor choice. If you want to make a Facebook game you do it with a throwaway IP you cooked up for that sole purpose.

Anyway, it seems likely WotC wants to deal with the fractured base by trying to go after everyone's tastes at once. The last Legends & Lore was Monte talking about the same optional rules modules thing Mearls was going on about three months ago. They've been hitting that point really hard.

[Karoht]

Sacrificing 30-40 years of brand loyalty on a Facebook game seems like a really poor choice.I'm sorry, but I'm not following the logic that adding in additional means to access the content (Social Media, ebooks, any other such suggestion) is sacrificing, when it isn't taking anything away. Or is everyone still stuck in this whole mentality that any such suggestion means "this method only, nothing else" or something?

People seem to be asserting rather heavily that there is no room for the physical media AND social media AND electronic media for the same game. Or am I mis-interpreting?



If you want to make a Facebook game you do it with a throwaway IP you cooked up for that sole purpose.On the flip side to what I just said, I see this being more likely if Wizards wanted to dabble in social media.



Anyway, it seems likely WotC wants to deal with the fractured base by trying to go after everyone's tastes at once. The last Legends & Lore was Monte talking about the same optional rules modules thing Mearls was going on about three months ago. They've been hitting that point really hard.Sounds fun, surprisingly. I'll be paying attention to that idea.

[MukkTB]

D&D as a bunch of rules modules that can be slotted together how you like? Like legos I guess. Will there be multiple different rules modules for doing the same thing? If there aren't then what incentive would you have to not include all the rules modules? I mean if you're missing some it sounds like you're playing an incomplete game. I guess you could throw out the arcane and/or divine blocks to create a low magic campaign.

Discussing RAW within the same game system is going to be hard.
Learning one modulated set of rule legos and then moving to another group could be hard. Not quite as much a pain as learning a totally new system, but at least as much of a pain as going from one heavy set of house rules to another.

[Karoht]

D&D as a bunch of rules modules that can be slotted together how you like? Like legos I guess. Will there be multiple different rules modules for doing the same thing? If there aren't then what incentive would you have to not include all the rules modules? I mean if you're missing some it sounds like you're playing an incomplete game. I guess you could throw out the arcane and/or divine blocks to create a low magic campaign.

Discussing RAW within the same game system is going to be hard.
Learning one modulated set of rule legos and then moving to another group could be hard. Not quite as much a pain as learning a totally new system, but at least as much of a pain as going from one heavy set of house rules to another.Well, if you approach it incrimentally and step by step, it's not a bad way to go. It means you only have to learn the rules that are relevant to you. Don't like a module and it's block of rules? Don't use them. Enjoy how another module handles a particular rules snafu? Use that module.

Or at least, thats how I estimate it would work, just going off the description.

[Psyren]

More employers that allow internet access ban the SRD website and other related gaming websites, than those which ban Facebook and other social media websites. Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming.

Well... I doubt more than a fraction of employers even know what the SRD is, especially compared to the ubiquity of Facebook. Unless they have a blanket ban on non-work-related sites, I find this statistic dubious and would need to see a source to accept it.


Social media games are fads, not as a whole but individually. Whatever people are playing now, in 3 years they will have moved on to a new thing.

Let's assume you're right; even if that is so, you're not examining why. Social media games lack depth. There is no real storyline to Farmville; it's an amusing diversion rather than a truly escapist hobby. Even mechanically it is shallow - there is one objective, only two real ways to get there, and no clear endgame in sight.

Compare D&D - which not only has fun mechanics, but has unlimited possibilities for cooperative storytelling. A group of friends designates one as the DM, and the game from there is constrained only by the players' imaginations, from kick-in-the-door dungeon crawls to sprawling epics and persistent worlds.

Add in a computerized platform - say, a facebook app - and the experience is enhanced significantly by automated and impartial tracking of die-rolls, real-time access to statblocks, and above all map/mini generation for combat encounters.


Sacrificing 30-40 years of brand loyalty on a Facebook game seems like a really poor choice. If you want to make a Facebook game you do it with a throwaway IP you cooked up for that sole purpose.

How is your loyalty "sacrificed" by them making a facebook D&D game?
The players that have been invested in D&D for that length of time have an edition that they like to play already. The return on investment for trying to seduce you away from something you already enjoy is going to be less than that of bringing in new players.

A throwaway IP is a similarly bad proposition. You have to spend time "cooking up" (by which I take you to mean designing and playtesting) such an IP from scratch, and you get none of the brand value that comes with the D&D name. Even if it catches on, you then have the brand cannibalism that will come from your IPs competing with each other, as any company with more than one strong IP aimed at similar audiences comes to realize. (How many WoW subscriptions do you think will be cancelled when Diablo 3 comes out, for instance?)


Anyway, it seems likely WotC wants to deal with the fractured base by trying to go after everyone's tastes at once.

If this is true, they are doomed to fail. The core aspects of 3.P that its fans find appealing are the very things that 4e fans dislike, and vice-versa. The differences are simply irreconcilable.

[MukkTB]

Well Wizards could have alternate mods that could be substituted in for dealing with the same set of situations. They could have one set that plays like 4E and one that plays like 3.X. Essentially supporting both product lines within one edition.

Its like trying to have your cake an eat it too.

[Karoht]

Even if it catches on, you then have the brand cannibalism that will come from your IPs competing with each other, as any company with more than one strong IP aimed at similar audiences comes to realize.Brand cannibalism isn't such a bad thing, as it means 2 IP's to attract players with rather than 1, and either way the money is going to the same place.


(How many WoW subscriptions do you think will be cancelled when Diablo 3 comes out, for instance?)Somewhere between more-than-I-think and less-than-you-think. Also, the Annual Pass is getting really good numbers so far, and there is actually more of a genre difference than most people realize. To apply that to DnD, incentivization between 2 brands can make brand cannibalism work for you, rather than against you, because you can appeal to a broader market while still serving the needs of both fanbases, rather than fracturing them in one product. You get fans playing two things they love, rather than one, and either way they're giving you their money.


I'm not saying that brand cannibalism is good, but it isn't always bad, especially if you can position it correctly.



Well Wizards could have alternate mods that could be substituted in for dealing with the same set of situations. They could have one set that plays like 4E and one that plays like 3.X. Essentially supporting both product lines within one edition.

Its like trying to have your cake an eat it too.My point exactly.

[The Glyphstone]

Brand cannibalism isn't such a bad thing, as it means 2 IP's to attract players with rather than 1, and either way the money is going to the same place.

Somewhere between more-than-I-think and less-than-you-think. Also, the Annual Pass is getting really good numbers so far, and there is actually more of a genre difference than most people realize. To apply that to DnD, incentivization between 2 brands can make brand cannibalism work for you, rather than against you, because you can appeal to a broader market while still serving the needs of both fanbases, rather than fracturing them in one product. You get fans playing two things they love, rather than one, and either way they're giving you their money.


I'm not saying that brand cannibalism is good, but it isn't always bad, especially if you can position it correctly.


My point exactly.

That might be how WoTC sees it, but Hasbro makes the big decisions up top, and they might not be so far-sighted. If your $10million (random number) revenue stream splits into two $5million revenue streams, sure you're still making $10million, but it'd be entirely typical Business Executive Logic (TM) to look at the raw numbers and say 'this isn't as profitable, cancel Product Line B and go back to only selling Product A'.

[Psyren]

Brand cannibalism isn't such a bad thing, as it means 2 IP's to attract players with rather than 1, and either way the money is going to the same place.

The money coming in isn't the problem with brand cannibalism; it's the money going out, i.e. the cost. If you divide your existing customers between two IPs, it's true that you haven't lost any of them. But if your second IP requires additional resources to develop, market, maintain, defend etc., then the result is a net reduction in your income. You have to hope that the second one brings in enough new blood that the it can compensate for the loss of revenue going to the first, allowing you to keep both up.

To continue to use Blizzard as an example, they can leverage some resources from their WoW team to their Diablo team. But not all, and there are only so many hours in the day and resources can translate from one project to another only so well etc. Meanwhile, the closer your IPs/brands are to one another thematically, the more acute the cannibalism issue becomes; WoW and Diablo are much closer together in the gaming world than, say, WoW and Starcraft, and may who play one are interested in playing the other. And we simply don't have a metric for how strong this effect will be on the bottom line (subscriptions), because this is the first Diablo game to come out since WoW exploded.

Now, you and I both know that Blizzard isn't in trouble. But WotC is. Cannibalism is a real fear for them, and thus far they've avoided it by throwing all their designers, marketing, infrastructure, everything behind each new edition, while all-but abandoning the former. And even going to that extreme they've had significant attrition with each edition.

As far as the "cooking up a new IP" approach... even if they came up with something they could feel comfortable publishing, what would that be? They've tried Eastern (Rokugan), modern, futuristic, etc. - all with lukewarm results. And if they go standard fantasy, the cannibalism gets compounded, as now they are crunch and fluff competing with themselves.


That might be how WoTC sees it, but Hasbro makes the big decisions up top, and they might not be so far-sighted. If your $10million (random number) revenue stream splits into two $5million revenue streams, sure you're still making $10million, but it'd be entirely typical Business Executive Logic (TM) to look at the raw numbers and say 'this isn't as profitable, cancel Product Line B and go back to only selling Product A'.

The executive wouldn't be totally wrong to say that either, because cost streams are much harder to split than revenue streams. And if your net profit dips, so does your EPS, which means your stock price goes, which means the executives aren't doing their job right.

[Jayabalard]

More employers that allow internet access ban the SRD website and other related gaming websites, than those which ban Facebook and other social media websites. Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming.[citation needed]

Do you actually have some source on that?

[Karoht]

[citation needed]

Do you actually have some source on that?

Look at most of the 'net nanny' systems in place. You can look up their typical blocked sites. SRD is on there in most cases as it is flagged for 'Gaming.' I've worked with 5 different providers of such software over the years.
Facebook however, is typically allowed in quite a few business environments (it's a common exception of the 'net nanny' software), and according to Wikipedia's Facebook article, more employers in the UK are allowing their workers facebook access than any other country in the world.

Either way, more likely people will visit Facebook during the day than the SRD while they are at work. Also more likely is that people with smartphones will visit Facebook as opposed to SRD.

[Yora]

If it is actually true, that's because the developers of the software have SRDs on the preset blacklists, while social media are not, or because employers decide to specifically allow access to them.
Doesn't say anything about the SRDs, only about the acceptance of facebook.

[ZeltArruin]

[citation needed]

Do you actually have some source on that?

All government computers, as far as I can tell, block srd's, but allow facebook. That is, ones that need to be secure and junk.

[Jayabalard]

Look at most of the 'net nanny' systems in place. You can look up their typical blocked sites. SRD is on there in most cases as it is flagged for 'Gaming.' I've worked with 5 different providers of such software over the years.That's not really a source, that's just a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about"


Facebook however, is typically allowed in quite a few business environments (it's a common exception of the 'net nanny' software), and according to Wikipedia's Facebook article, more employers in the UK are allowing their workers facebook access than any other country in the world.Eh, I can see studies showing that more than 50% of employers in the UK block facebook, and in another, only 33% of the ones in Australia do.


All government computers, as far as I can tell, block srd's, but allow facebook. That is, ones that need to be secure and junk.So, is the source on that some guy you met in a pub? Or some actual study?

Government for what countries?

[Psyren]

Even if that is true, Yora's conclusion is the correct one. Employers allow Facebook for communication, networking and possibly morale reasons, but blanket-ban gaming sites as their business use cannot be justified. Says nothing about the lack of acceptance of D&D vs Facebook in particular. I'm sure more hours of productivity are lost to fb than any number of SRD sites.

In addition, d20srd may be blocked in several places, but you can always (a) download the whole thing since it's all text and doesn't change or (b) find it (or text from it) on an unblocked site.

[Typewriter]

All government computers, as far as I can tell, block srd's, but allow facebook. That is, ones that need to be secure and junk.

I've spent 8 years in the AF, 6 enlisted and 2 as a contractor and I have never had any trouble accessing d20srd.org

I've also not had any problems accessing pathfinders PRD since pathfinder came out.

[Jayabalard]

Even if that is true, Yora's conclusion is the correct one. Employers allow Facebook for communication, networking and possibly morale reasons, but blanket-ban gaming sites as their business use cannot be justified. Says nothing about the lack of acceptance of D&D vs Facebook in particular. I'm sure more hours of productivity are lost to fb than any number of SRD sites.

In addition, d20srd may be blocked in several places, but you can always (a) download the whole thing since it's all text and doesn't change or (b) find it (or text from it) on an unblocked site.Also, even if the claim is true(I'm not convinced), an alternate possibility: d20srd may be banned because it has specific keywords (lots of possibilities there come to mind) that push it's score over the limit based on some sort of automated sampling, rather than any sort of explicit ban on gaming websites because they're gaming websites.

[Indeed It Is]

Not that it really relate too much to the topic at hand.. but..

I work in IT and have setup several web fitlering policies that block any site categorized as "Games" using 3rd party web filtering vendors. This is mainly meant to stop employees from playing browser based games. However, the Games category typically lumps together web-based games and anything having anything to do with gaming (sometimes even businesses like gamestop.com). The SRD is often included in this category.

Just to give an exampe:

http://url.fortinet.net/fglookup/url_lookup.php

Look up your favorite SRD location and see what category it comes up as.

Your mileage may vary on Social Media sites, but it's a safe bet that if a company is using a web filtering service that they're blocking games.

[Karoht]

My overall point is that facebook is more widely acceptable, SRD more or less isn't, although SRD does have an offline method available (download the whole thing, stick it on a disc or flash drive), where Facebook does not.
Also, you can't SRD with friends at work, but you can Facebook with pretty much anyone at work. Or at home. Or on a smartphone. Etc.


As for the cost of providing the ebook option, it's as simple as calling up their current publishing provider, saying "hey, send the files over to the ebook people, tell em we want a cut of x%" and there it goes.

The facebook concept is a bit more investment. However, Facebook applications and smartphone apps are actually rather simple and the coding system is quite user friendly, according to someone I know who makes iPhone apps for a living.

As for a new IP, you wouldn't be making a new game from the ground up per se. The game systems and resources are already there, you're basically just coming up with new story and artwork assets. Yes, these have costs but not the the point where it costs the same as the development of the existing system. A refluff of 3.5 would be very simple to put on Facebook, mostly because 3.5 already exists. Same with 4e or Pathfinder.

IE-Paizo decides to dump Pathfinder on Facebook, but under the name Dungeoncrawler Adventure Alpha Plus.
They port over Pathfinder. They add in some new art assets to make it more compatible with Facebook's style (IE-Slightly modernize it), they change the layout and structure (formatting change) somewhat to make it more readable for facebook. Everything else is a giant copy and paste, and maybe they build some kind of quick reference interface and encounter/dungeon generator.

There is no way that the total expense of any of the above costs what it did to make Pathfinder.
Therefore, the additional expense is minimal in comparison to the original product. So if 'splitting' Pathfinder as such via facebook and physical media suddenly were to cut their profits evenly between the two, the facebook app is still ahead on paper. Greatly ahead in fact. To take Glyph's made up number of 10 million and split it into 2x 5, the one that cost 1 million makes a 4:1 ratio of profit, while the one that built on that 1 million and yet only cost half a million on paper, just made a ratio of 8:1.

Coming up with new ways to sell the same product is what smart businesses do. Oh wait, we're talking about WoTC, the people who can't even use a spell check or playtest their games. Nevermind.

[Jayabalard]

My overall point is that facebook is more widely acceptable, SRD more or less isn't, although SRD does have an offline method available (download the whole thing, stick it on a disc or flash drive), where Facebook does not.I know that was your claim... I was asking if you had any source on that beyond "trust me, I know what I'm talking about"

without that, you're certainly not actually showing anything re "acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming." And like I said above, even if you're correct, it's still debatable whether it has anything to do with gaming vs social media.


However, Facebook applications and smartphone apps are actually rather simple and the coding system is quite user friendly, according to someone I know who makes iPhone apps for a living.Non-programmers can make smartphone apps using a wysiwyg like Conduit (http://mobile.conduit.com/)... which is plenty sufficient for making something like the SRD, though if you want to do complicated stuff not so much.

[Karoht]

without that, you're certainly not actually showing anything re "acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming." And like I said above, even if you're correct, it's still debatable whether it has anything to do with gaming vs social media.I wasn't clarifying my position for just you. In fact, you're kinda sorta complicating what I was trying to say.
More people can access facebook from work VS the SRD.
It has nothing to do with acceptance of one or the other.
Accessability is rather relevant in terms of being able to market your product. The point I was trying to make is that Facebook and other social media are accessable, SRD not always, Facebook is already highly used (in day to day life for some), SRD not so much.

I'm more or less pointing to a busy street corner and saying "Hey, hotdog vendor, you might want to get another cart over here."



Non-programmers can make smartphone apps using a wysiwyg like Conduit (http://mobile.conduit.com/)... which is plenty sufficient for making something like the SRD, though if you want to do complicated stuff not so much.Thats good to know.

[ZeltArruin]

So, is the source on that some guy you met in a pub? Or some actual study?

Government for what countries?

Me using government computers for the last 2 years? Oh, and that's US government. I would imagine our not super security important systems aren't as strict, but who knows.



I've spent 8 years in the AF, 6 enlisted and 2 as a contractor and I have never had any trouble accessing d20srd.org

I've also not had any problems accessing pathfinders PRD since pathfinder came out.

Weird, I could barely get on this site without some shenanigans.

[Psyren]

I'm more or less pointing to a busy street corner and saying "Hey, hotdog vendor, you might want to get another cart over here."


This is my point. Not only that - as a percentage of the number of people on that corner, VERY few are eating hot dogs. Massive growth potential and such.

They just need to figure out how to make a D&D hotdog. If Tiny Adventures was any indication, they're not too shabby at it.

[stainboy]

I'm sorry, but I'm not following the logic that adding in additional means to access the content (Social Media, ebooks, any other such suggestion) is sacrificing, when it isn't taking anything away. Or is everyone still stuck in this whole mentality that any such suggestion means "this method only, nothing else" or something?

People seem to be asserting rather heavily that there is no room for the physical media AND social media AND electronic media for the same game. Or am I mis-interpreting?


I think so, at least for stuff I said. I'm all for e-books and online resources.

Building a virtual tabletop is a fine idea, or would be if I expected WotC to actually deliver such a thing. (That's what Neverwinter Nights was supposed to be. NWN was great for 3e for a lot of reasons, but the original idea was that every week you'd play through a module your DM whipped up in his spare time. That never panned out, for reasons I'm sure were obvious to Bioware years before release.)

However, hitching the virtual tabletop to Facebook is just poisoning the brand. As soon as it becomes an actual Facebook game people think of it and D&D in general as Dungeon Wars.

In general I think it's misguided to reach out to new players directly at the expense of keeping current players happy. If you give five new players the core books and just tell them to figure it out, no matter how excited they are they probably won't be willing to learn all the rules. It's much easier to learn RPGs at a table with other people to help you. The best way to bring new people into the hobby is to get the people who already play excited about running games.

[Jayabalard]

Me using government computers for the last 2 years? Oh, and that's US government. I would imagine our not super security important systems aren't as strict, but who knows.That's not actually a very convincing source, considering that you've less experience than the guy who's contradicting you (Typewriter) and I (consultant developer, mostly state and local governments).


More people can access facebook from work VS the SRD.You keep saying this... but I don't understand why folks are just supposed to accept it as true if you can't be bothered cite any sort of source...


It has nothing to do with acceptance of one or the other.Then why argue that "facebook is more widely acceptable, SRD more or less isn't," and "Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming."

[ZeltArruin]

That's not actually a very convincing source, considering that you've less experience than the guy who's contradicting you (Typewriter) and I (consultant developer, mostly state and local governments).

*Shrug* Whatever, every navy and army computer I've ever touched.

[Karoht]

That's not actually a very convincing source, considering that you've less experience than the guy who's contradicting you (Typewriter) and I (consultant developer, mostly state and local governments).

You keep saying this... but I don't understand why folks are just supposed to accept it as true if you can't be bothered cite any sort of source...

Then why argue that "facebook is more widely acceptable, SRD more or less isn't," and "Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming."
Apparently you'd rather nitpick the claim of acceptance rather than the point about the demographic.
Very well. In the interest of moving the conversation along, I retract any and all statements regarding the usage of SRD or Facebook, including my own anecdotal experience in the matter, however I do so without invalidating the anecdotal experience of others.

However, taking advantage of the demographics of Facebook vs not would still be a smart business move on the part of any tabletop gaming company at the moment. Same with the demographic of smartphone/tablet/ebook users. Again, hot dog vender, this street corner over here is pretty busy and doesn't have anyone selling hot dogs. You might want to look into it. You don't have to move your cart from the current location, maybe get another cart?

[Jayabalard]

Apparently you'd rather nitpick the claim of acceptance rather than the point about the demographic.I questioned the accuracy of the statement:
"More employers that allow internet access ban the SRD website and other related gaming websites, than those which ban Facebook and other social media websites. Just an interesting fact regarding the acceptance of social media VS the acceptance of gaming."

because
1. You don't give any source; you've repeatedly not given any source, so I'm going to assume that there isn't one.
2. It does not match with my experience
3. You draw a conclusion about the acceptance of social media vs the acceptance of gaming that isn't valid.

I'm not really sure how continuing to ask to to back up that statement is nitpicking anything.

[Karoht]

I questioned the accuracy of the statement
~snip~
aaaaaaand after retracting it, you're still on about it. Rather than the point of "here's a demographic which could be marketed to" or moving along with the conversation.

Are you done, or am I getting another post from you to keep beating the dead horse?

[The Glyphstone]

There is no way that the total expense of any of the above costs what it did to make Pathfinder.
Therefore, the additional expense is minimal in comparison to the original product. So if 'splitting' Pathfinder as such via facebook and physical media suddenly were to cut their profits evenly between the two, the facebook app is still ahead on paper. Greatly ahead in fact. To take Glyph's made up number of 10 million and split it into 2x 5, the one that cost 1 million makes a 4:1 ratio of profit, while the one that built on that 1 million and yet only cost half a million on paper, just made a ratio of 8:1.

Coming up with new ways to sell the same product is what smart businesses do. Oh wait, we're talking about WoTC, the people who can't even use a spell check or playtest their games. Nevermind.

Of course, that brings risks of its own - if the profit/investment ratios are shown, we might end up with executives saying "wait, D&D Facebook makes double the profit margin of D&D Paper? Ok, stop selling D&D Paper and focus all your marketing on D&D Facebook. Oh, and program in a way to buy items with Facebook Coins while you're at it."

[Karoht]

Of course, that brings risks of its own - if the profit/investment ratios are shown, we might end up with executives saying "wait, D&D Facebook makes double the profit margin of D&D Paper? Ok, stop selling D&D Paper and focus all your marketing on D&D Facebook. Oh, and program in a way to buy items with Facebook Coins while you're at it."In an 'on paper only' analysis sort of way, yes. But no business is going to cut a revenue stream if it's pulling in what it's supposed to. Especially when the two can work together. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can buy the books and still use facebook, ebooks, etc, and the inverse is still true. People nowadays have books at the table and still occasionally reference SRD.
There's also the notion that those brought in by the Facebook game might actually be interested enough to buy the physical media, even if the IP's are different (but not radically so).

There is cannibalization, but there is also cross-pollenation.

[Jayabalard]

aaaaaaand after retracting it, you're still on about it. No, actually asked a different question based on a disagreement with a different statement, reiterating the context of that question. Was that unclear?


Rather than the point of "here's a demographic which could be marketed to"Were you under the impression that I was disagreeing with that?


Are you done, or am I getting another post from you to keep beating the dead horse?What dead horse is that?


But no business is going to cut a revenue stream if it's pulling in what it's supposed to.Actually, companies do it fairly regularly.

and since a pen and paper and facebook versions of D&D are both entertainment, they do compete with each other.

[Karoht]

No, actually asked a different question based on a disagreement with a different statement, reiterating the context of that question. Was that unclear?I retracted the statement and moved on with the conversation. Was that unclear?


What dead horse is that?/facepalm

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Let's move on, shall we, or just step away and let everything cool down for a bit? Line-by-line dissections of each other's posts isn't actually contributing anything to the discussion, and only really works to get people upset.

[Tvtyrant]

You know what I would like in 5e? I would like subsystems to be considered the central point of the game. No "Casters, partial casters, mundane." Every single class uses a different mechanic, and has radically different abilities. The Ranger gets nature themed abilities, but they are extremely different from those of the Druid. Instead of spells they get to craft a limited number of effect arrows (like a better version of the arcane archer say), or their two weapon fighting can be used to do disabling effects on favored enemies (which they pick each morning). Something for each class that is completely different in the way it works and what it does would make the experience much better in my opinion.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You know what I would like in 5e? I would like subsystems to be considered the central point of the game. No "Casters, partial casters, mundane." Every single class uses a different mechanic, and has radically different abilities. The Ranger gets nature themed abilities, but they are extremely different from those of the Druid. Instead of spells they get to craft a limited number of effect arrows (like a better version of the arcane archer say), or their two weapon fighting can be used to do disabling effects on favored enemies (which they pick each morning). Something for each class that is completely different in the way it works and what it does would make the experience much better in my opinion.
You should play pre-4th Edition Shadowrun.

It's a real treat to have a Decker, Rigger, Mage and Street Sam in a single party. Double points if you have a Drone Rigger and a regular Rigger :smalltongue:

[Tvtyrant]

You should play pre-4th Edition Shadowrun.

It's a real treat to have a Decker, Rigger, Mage and Street Sam in a single party. Double points if you have a Drone Rigger and a regular Rigger :smalltongue:

I don't even know what you just said, but it sounds awesome. Maybe I should buy a 3rd edition shadowrun set.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I don't even know what you just said, but it sounds awesome. Maybe I should buy a 3rd edition shadowrun set.
Absolutely! They even have different subsystems for melee and ranged combat :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Absolutely! They even have different subsystems for melee and ranged combat :smallbiggrin:

Its like Burning Wheel all over again.

[The Glyphstone]

Absolutely! They even have different subsystems for melee and ranged combat :smallbiggrin:

Now, make so every individual category of weapon has its own sub-subsystem and we'll be getting somewhere...

[Knaight]

Now, make so every individual category of weapon has its own sub-subsystem and we'll be getting somewhere...

Rolemaster? Is that you?

[Psyren]

You know what I would like in 5e? I would like subsystems to be considered the central point of the game. No "Casters, partial casters, mundane." Every single class uses a different mechanic, and has radically different abilities.

You can already do that in 3.5 though. Make Incarnates and Binders into the new clerics, Crusaders into the new paladin, Warblades into the fighter, Swordsage into the Monk/Ninja, Factotum into the Rogue, Totemists into the new Druid, split Wizard/Sorcerer into the limited-list casters like Beguiler and DN (and add in stuff like DFA/fixed Shadowcaster to replace sorcerer) etc.

Lightly dust with homebrew (Saph's Teleporter, Kyeudo's Truenamer) and some backported PF material (PF Soulknife, PF Psywar/Marksman, PF Alchemist, PF Magus), chill over ice and serve. Every single class plays differently from one another.

[Tyndmyr]

The fact that you found the edition you liked does not counter my argument in the slightest.

Fact 1: there will be players that, no matter what 5e is like, not switch from 3.P.
Fact 2: there will be players that, no matter what 5e is like, not switch from 4e/Essentials.

Thus, 5e will fracture the base further - the only question is how much it will do so. The best strategy for WotC is not to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that this won't happen, but to embrace it and turn it into an advantage - an opportunity to recruit a brand new playerbase.

No. The point is that not all version upgrades fracture the playerbase.

And you ALWAYS want to attract new players...but ignoring the old just guarantees fracturing. Fracturing is bad for WoTC...but also bad for the community. Makes it harder to find a game unless you learn and play them all, and let's face it...new players don't want to do that. Fracturing your playerbase makes it harder to recruit new players, not easier.


You are here (mistakenly) assuming "the future of D&D" has to include you, a self-confessed player of 3.5 (as am I) who willingly snubbed their last updated offering (as I did.) As I posted above, they will always face entropy as they fail to bring some of their existing customers along to new editions. Because of this, the only way for the hobby to remain commercially viable is to continually seek new blood.

They don't need me specifically, no. However, the category of "older players who played previous versions, and spend giant piles of money on sourcebooks, and frequently are the core of gaming groups" IS a category they should not ignore.


There is this strangely widespread assumption that WotC will fail unless they come up with the "perfect system" that will "win back" all the grognards that stayed behind on 2e, 3.x, and even 4e (once Essentials came out.) To which I say - why go after those people at all? They already have what they want, and they're happy with it. You're trying to sell roast chicken to a man that has a turkey dinner, instead of targeting the people that are actually hungry.

They don't have to win over *all* of them. They DO have to win over a majority of them. If the majority of people in the shop are not playing your new version, then you have a significant obstacle to convincing new players to invest in it.

On social media
---------------
Going to facebook, etc would be terrible for WoTC. Here's why.

1. Lack of revenue. This is the big one. You can't charge subscriptions for a facebook game, or nobody will play. And social media without players is a failure. Facebook won't pay money for your game. Quite the reverse, it COSTS money to have your game published on facebook. So, you need to sell in-game purchases(yeah, imagine how well that will work out for RPGs), force people to spam their buddy lists to progress(gotta get that advertising cheap), and so on.

2. Lack of depth. There's a reason that facebook games lack depth. It has to do with 1 and 3. Depth is expensive to make, both in developer dollars and computing time.

3. Lack of performance. Seriously, you're basically competing with MMOs, but using flash. It's like...runescape at best. That's the closest analogy to what this would be. It'd be pretty horrible.

[Karoht]

---------------
1. Lack of revenue. This is the big one. You can't charge subscriptions for a facebook game, or nobody will play. And social media without players is a failure. Facebook won't pay money for your game. Quite the reverse, it COSTS money to have your game published on facebook. So, you need to sell in-game purchases(yeah, imagine how well that will work out for RPGs), force people to spam their buddy lists to progress(gotta get that advertising cheap), and so on.So, selling the electronic media itself (as well as the fact that it advertises for the physical media) wouldn't generate revenue?



2. Lack of depth. There's a reason that facebook games lack depth. It has to do with 1 and 3. Depth is expensive to make, both in developer dollars and computing time.In reference to my reply to point 1, the existing game has depth.



3. Lack of performance. Seriously, you're basically competing with MMOs, but using flash. It's like...runescape at best. That's the closest analogy to what this would be. It'd be pretty horrible.Who said the media on facebook need to be a game? I mean, beyond the obvious detail that yes, the media is about a game, the media itself could be called a game the same way a DnD book is considered a game, but there was never any implication that a DnD app on Facebook would have to be some flash game similar to the existing ones.

[Psyren]

No. The point is that not all version upgrades fracture the playerbase.

Name ONE D&D edition change that hasn't. Hell, I'll go to the OD&D boards on this very site right now, and point out several posters that never (or almost never) set foot in the 3.5 section, or do the same for the 3.5->4e sections.

Before the Playground was subdivided, sometimes the only reason for some of us to interact at all was in edition-war threads that ended up getting {scrubbed} and locked. Yes, there are plenty of posters that do migrate among editions, but there are also plenty that don't, or that only hang out with the players of the newer edition without actually spending money on any of their books. Attrition is therefore an inevitability.

Therefore, I believe the proper response is to plan and design around this occurrence, rather than futilely trying to stave it off. If you see a tidal wave coming, you can either stand on the beach with your hands outstretched to stop it... or you can build a boat.


And you ALWAYS want to attract new players...but ignoring the old just guarantees fracturing. Fracturing is bad for WoTC...but also bad for the community. Makes it harder to find a game unless you learn and play them all, and let's face it...new players don't want to do that. Fracturing your playerbase makes it harder to recruit new players, not easier.
...
They don't need me specifically, no. However, the category of "older players who played previous versions, and spend giant piles of money on sourcebooks, and frequently are the core of gaming groups" IS a category they should not ignore.

I don't, and won't, subscribe to the false dichotomy that employing a new avenue of distribution automatically means ignoring an entire category of existing players. Certainly some of us (those who dislike playing games over social media for instance) would be left behind, but plenty of others wouldn't, and these are both subsets of the larger, sourcebook-buying category you describe.


They don't have to win over *all* of them. They DO have to win over a majority of them. If the majority of people in the shop are not playing your new version, then you have a significant obstacle to convincing new players to invest in it.

This archaic notion of a "shop" is similarly limited in scope. In social media, the entire world could potentially be your FLGS, or at least your friends list and/or the subscribers of a famous gaming site. Limiting gaming geographically is the biggest obstacle to its growth, because any given geographic area (even somewhere as diverse as a city) has only so many D&D players.

This is why D&D is typically so big in a college environment; you get nerds and potential nerds from all over the country to congregate in one area and sit at a table together. Conventions multiply this effect exponentially, but suffer from being temporary occurrences with far too large a player:DM ratio.

Social media, by contrast, is far more permanent that both college and conventions. It has the potential to involve both college-age students, as well as players both significantly older and significantly younger. And your players never "move away." No matter how many times they physically relocate or where life takes them, they stay on your Facebook until they willingly separate. They never have to drive long distances on friday night to meet up with you all. And the DM doesn't have to provide the snacks either. :smalltongue:




On social media
---------------
Going to facebook, etc would be terrible for WoTC. Here's why.

1. Lack of revenue. This is the big one. You can't charge subscriptions for a facebook game, or nobody will play. And social media without players is a failure. Facebook won't pay money for your game. Quite the reverse, it COSTS money to have your game published on facebook. So, you need to sell in-game purchases(yeah, imagine how well that will work out for RPGs), force people to spam their buddy lists to progress(gotta get that advertising cheap), and so on.

2. Lack of depth. There's a reason that facebook games lack depth. It has to do with 1 and 3. Depth is expensive to make, both in developer dollars and computing time.

3. Lack of performance. Seriously, you're basically competing with MMOs, but using flash. It's like...runescape at best. That's the closest analogy to what this would be. It'd be pretty horrible.

1) Revenue:
No successful facebook game uses a subscription model, so I'm not sure why that would even realistically come up. This leaves advertising and microtransactions. I'll focus on the latter as that's where the money is.

Now, I see microtransactions actually being a boon for this hobby. Instead of coming up with an entire splat, only having time to playtest half of it, and then figuring out some unifying theme to market it under ("Complete Adventurer?" Could that have been any vaguer? "Player's Handbook 2: Here's some extra stuff we thought of!" etc.) - now designers can design the way their minds actually work - flashes of inspiration interspersed with proper procedural testing. Hey, I came up with a great idea for a prestige class/paragon path - 50 cents! Here are a nice set of monk archetypes - $1.50! 6 new breeds of dragon, complete with age advancement - $3.00! And so on.

The best part is that they can still follow the golden rule of monetization (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions) - sell convenience, not power. For instance, you can still let players homebrew anything they want, but if they want a nice premade class/module/monster that they don't have to waste energy statting up, fleshing out and balancing themselves, they just buy one of yours. Or if they want slots for more characters, they buy those too. Ultimately, it's just like buying a sourcebook, except players get exactly what they want instead of paying for gold mixed with dross. It would revolutionize buying splats the same way mp3s revolutionized buying music.

Finally, you eliminate the restrictive release schedule of the publishing cycle. And if you ever do want to release a dead-trees version compiling the best tidbits of your online offerings? Not only can you do that, you've had the benefit of a massive playtesting audience that entire time, letting you incorporate errata and clarifications seamlessly into the paper product.

Best of all, you'll have concrete data on which items were popular and which weren't, before committing expensive paper-space to them.

2) Depth:
You're arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Facebook games lack depth, not because depth is so prohibitively costly as to not be worthwhile, but because the shallow ones make just as much money. That doesn't mean nobody out there wants depth, it means that nobody has had real incentive to try.

But the casual gamer dollar is spent, and the casual bubble is beginning to burst. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114077-Zyngas-Profits-Continue-To-Drop) People want to do more on Facebook after they've checked all their notifications and added the latest wing to their farm, and that is where deeper games come in that they can play with friends.

Now, you're correct in that deeper games usually mean greater cost. But that's for building a system from scratch. D&D - even 4e D&D - is plenty deep already, and doesn't even need a ton of shiny graphics or animations to do it. Hell, you can make the graphical interface look like Exile (http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-3c8b45d3372dc620861e38f1b9b8964a) and it would be perfectly playable - all you really need are a grid and minis after all, with maybe some imagination-stimulating full-size fantasy art for the monster entries, various spells and equipment etc.

The rest of the game is played through spreadsheets and grandiose storytelling. There is no reason that can't be translated to an online platform, and even benefit from the transition. (No flipping through 100 pages to find the grapple rules, or the statblock of the monster the PC wants to summon etc. - the computer does that instantaneously.)

3) D&D vs. MMOs:
MMOs are a totally different environment. For one thing, MMOs have no DM. You've got a world, and all the players are inhabitants of that world, but nobody but the designers have control over what goes on. There's no opportunity for storytelling in an MMO other than what carrot the designers come up with to dangle in front of you. "Beat this boss!" "Get this loot!" "See this cutscene!"

Comparing that to D&D's cooperative storytelling is ludicrous. There is no electronic game that does this well. NWN was a smash hit, and even their PWs lack considerable depth, are based on archaic rules sytems and architecture, and are larded with bugs. But in Facebook D&D, you wouldn't have to worry about thorny issues like A.I. and 3D rendering. What you would have to worry about are simple things like automatic dice-rolling, resource tracking, build auditing ("you can't take that PrC at that level"), monster statting, and other tools to make the DM's life easier.

[Knaight]

Name ONE D&D edition change that hasn't. Hell, I'll go to the OD&D boards on this very site right now, and point out several posters that never (or almost never) set foot in the 3.5 section, or do the same for the 3.5->4e sections.

Before the Playground was subdivided, sometimes the only reason for some of us to interact at all was in edition-war threads that ended up getting {scrubbed} and locked. Yes, there are plenty of posters that do migrate among editions, but there are also plenty that don't, or that only hang out with the players of the newer edition without actually spending money on any of their books. Attrition is therefore an inevitability.

WotC and TSR have done a pretty poor job. However, other companies have changed editions just fine. GURPS is going strong, as is Hero. Shadowrun didn't fracture until 4e. Fate didn't fracture the Fudge base, and greatly expanded it. So on and so forth.

[TheArsenal]

Say I must ask, what IS wrong with Shadowrun 4e?

[turkishproverb]

WotC and TSR have done a pretty poor job. However, other companies have changed editions just fine. GURPS is going strong, as is Hero. Shadowrun didn't fracture until 4e. Fate didn't fracture the Fudge base, and greatly expanded it. So on and so forth.

I think the issue is that D&D editions, and shadowrun 4E attempted to reinvent their version of the Wheel, rather than just make it more round than before.

4E shadowrun is an especially good argument that way, as it's the first one where the game really changed noticeably, in comparison to the first three, which were largely comparable.

By the same token, AD&D has had breaks at at least 2nd, 3rd/3.5th, and 4th edition, where the biggest changes occurred.



Say I must ask, what IS wrong with Shadowrun 4e?
Very Different basic system, and a heavily modified setting that removes a chunk of the 80's cyber-grunge feel the old one had. Everything and it's tonails being wireless, for example.

Between the changes, it's really a very different game. Not necissarily 3.5-4E different, but easily 2.0-3.0 Different, if not the same comparative difficulty.

There's also the large number of 4e Shadowrun books that are totally wack, simply because they were made when there were...labor troubles...with the writers who knew the system.

[Psyren]

WotC and TSR have done a pretty poor job. However, other companies have changed editions just fine. GURPS is going strong, as is Hero. Shadowrun didn't fracture until 4e. Fate didn't fracture the Fudge base, and greatly expanded it. So on and so forth.

I don't know anything about those games, only D&D; nor do they really matter, because I specified D&D. And D&D's fracture has been largely due to the huge gameplay changes between editions. (Not at all a bad thing - at least, I was definitely on board with the 2e->3e change - but definitely something they should come to expect by now.)

Whether Shadowrun et al. changed significantly between editions I would have no idea.


I think the issue is that D&D editions, and shadowrun 4E attempted to reinvent their version of the Wheel, rather than just make it more round than before.

This sounds the most plausible explanation to me.

[Eldan]

One explanation I heard was that, well, it felt a bit dated to most people. I tried playing Shadowrun (and Cyberpunk) with a few younger players. I mostly got laughs when they found out that (in Cyberpunk, here) a cell phone costs 500 dollars, is the size and weight of a brick and is ,really, just a phone (but still requires an explanation on what it can and can not do that is a quite sizeable paragraph). They had problems taking anything serious afterwards.

The problem was that, really, RL technology started to overtake cyberpunk technology in some aspects. It works if the players can see it as an alternate world that doesn't share too much in common, but if you introduce it as "the future", people will assume that they can buy smart phones, use Google and get wireless internet.

[turkishproverb]

One explanation I heard was that, well, it felt a bit dated to most people. I tried playing Shadowrun (and Cyberpunk) with a few younger players. I mostly got laughs when they found out that (in Cyberpunk, here) a cell phone costs 500 dollars, is the size and weight of a brick and is ,really, just a phone (but still requires an explanation on what it can and can not do that is a quite sizeable paragraph). They had problems taking anything serious afterwards.

The problem was that, really, RL technology started to overtake cyberpunk technology in some aspects. It works if the players can see it as an alternate world that doesn't share too much in common, but if you introduce it as "the future", people will assume that they can buy smart phones, use Google and get wireless internet.

Fair, but two poitns

1. SHADOWRUN has dragons and trolls. They've already passed up "the future" in traditional senses

2. They game system severely changed in 4E too. As I said, prior to that, 1-3 could be used more or less interchangeably, to the point some 2E books out and out said you didn't need to buy them if you had the 1st Edition equivalent.

[Seerow]

Fair, but two poitns

1. SHADOWRUN has dragons and trolls. They've already passed up "the future" in traditional senses

2. They game system severely changed in 4E too. As I said, prior to that, 1-3 could be used more or less interchangeably, to the point some 2E books out and out said you didn't need to buy them if you had the 1st Edition equivalent.

Honestly, the Shadowrun game system needed changing even worse than the 3.5 game system did. The 4e system makes gameplay much smoother and easier to balance, without totally gutting the way the game is played. The only real loss is in the setting department, which is fluff that can be switched in and out except for the wireless matrix (which honestly was another change that really needed to happen. I don't care if you think it's more cyberpunk to have wires, we have ubiquitous wireless in the real world, why would our technology regress so far in that area over 100 years while advancing everywhere else?).

My group hesitated in changing systems, but since we did we haven't looked back at all. As opposed to with 4e D&D after playing, some of us still prefer 3.5, some prefer 4, and as a result we end up splitting game time between the two.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Honestly, the Shadowrun game system needed changing even worse than the 3.5 game system did. The 4e system makes gameplay much smoother and easier to balance, without totally gutting the way the game is played. The only real loss is in the setting department, which is fluff that can be switched in and out except for the wireless matrix (which honestly was another change that really needed to happen. I don't care if you think it's more cyberpunk to have wires, we have ubiquitous wireless in the real world, why would our technology regress so far in that area over 100 years while advancing everywhere else?).
Eh, there's some fluff you can't get back because it is tied to the rules.
Shamantic & Hermetic magic for example -- there's no functional difference between the two styles anymore. It used to be that corps didn't hire shamans because "Coyote takes coffee breaks whenever he damn well pleases" and Hermetic Magic was therefore much more "modern." Likewise, the more technical feel of summoning and carting around elementals to aid in spellcasting and whatnot vs. shaman basically praying up a powerful and unspecialized Spirit when they get into trouble. That is all gone in SR4, and you can't get it back without reverting the mechanics.

Additionally, one of the things about wireless that is so weird from the pre-SR4 mindset is how you can hack into them. Can you imagine a SR3 Street Sam running his Smartlink wirelessly? No, because paranoia ruled in pre-SR4 and most runners didn't even carry cell phones in case some corp decided to use it to triangulate them. Wireless is just so... insecure.

Also, the increase of cyberization diminishes what used to be the tradeoff between humanity and effectiveness: cyberware wasn't supposed to be something you'd load on your character until they had 1/100 of an Essence left; every point of essence you traded away was a bit of connection to meatspace that you lost (see e.g. social penalties for cyberware). Admittedly, that sort of thinking has diminished since SR1 but in SR4 the rules encourage everyone (even mages!) to blow at least a few points of essence just to be cool.
But yeah, SR needed a dramatic reworking of the rules set just like D&D did. TSR D&D and FASA SR both operated in a different world than modern games. Specifically, they weren't really games so much as a system of rules to "rigorously" tell stories. Game design as an art wasn't really considered and the slow process of edition refinement is where it was born.

IMHO, WotC's decision to dramatically revamp D&D for 3.0 is what started the modern era of P&P RPGs: games to play, rather than stories to model.

[Tyndmyr]

Name ONE D&D edition change that hasn't. Hell, I'll go to the OD&D boards on this very site right now, and point out several posters that never (or almost never) set foot in the 3.5 section, or do the same for the 3.5->4e sections.

One or two grognards playing older editions isn't a base fracturing. That always happens. Hell, I have some 2e sourcebooks around still...and while nobody in my area plays 2e, if I could find a spelljammer campaign locally, I wouldn't be adverse to it.

However, the opposite of player base fracturing is not abandonment of the old system. It's fairly universal adoption of the new system socially. That group that never buys new books and never goes to a shop? They don't matter to the company. They could just as easily not play.

When you have a player base fracture is when, at the game shop, people have to ask "what version" after you say the game is D&D. And the answer tends to determine if they're interested or not. It's a deep divide, and it's why Pathfinder is what it is. I'd argue that this in specific is much more notable than other editions.


I don't, and won't, subscribe to the false dichotomy that employing a new avenue of distribution automatically means ignoring an entire category of existing players. Certainly some of us (those who dislike playing games over social media for instance) would be left behind, but plenty of others wouldn't, and these are both subsets of the larger, sourcebook-buying category you describe.

A goodly subset of even first world countries do not have internet at all. Another very notable subset of people with internet do not utilize facebook.
Plenty of people who use facebook don't use the games(Over half).

You're moving to a media that the majority of the market does not use. That is quite risky at best.


This archaic notion of a "shop" is similarly limited in scope. In social media, the entire world could potentially be your FLGS, or at least your friends list and/or the subscribers of a famous gaming site. Limiting gaming geographically is the biggest obstacle to its growth, because any given geographic area (even somewhere as diverse as a city) has only so many D&D players.

And this is why people play WoW. I've played WoW. It's very good for what it is, but it does not substitute for p&p roleplaying games. Hell, even play by post or skype has many weaknesses compared to being physically located together. This is most certainly not a pure advantage.


This is why D&D is typically so big in a college environment; you get nerds and potential nerds from all over the country to congregate in one area and sit at a table together. Conventions multiply this effect exponentially, but suffer from being temporary occurrences with far too large a player:DM ratio.

Yup. Notice that those are both PHYSICALLY co-located. Playing by skype, gametable, etc is still a niche, though it's been possible for quite some time.


Social media, by contrast, is far more permanent that both college and conventions. It has the potential to involve both college-age students, as well as players both significantly older and significantly younger. And your players never "move away." No matter how many times they physically relocate or where life takes them, they stay on your Facebook until they willingly separate. They never have to drive long distances on friday night to meet up with you all. And the DM doesn't have to provide the snacks either. :smalltongue:

No, it's not. Facebooks the fad now. Before, it was myspace. Back in the day, everyone had Geocities pages and what not. There is absolutely no guarantee that Facebook will stay on top of the heap.

Social media is also shallow. Just because I have you on my friends list doesn't mean I interact with you in a meaningful way.



1) Revenue:
No successful facebook game uses a subscription model, so I'm not sure why that would even realistically come up. This leaves advertising and microtransactions. I'll focus on the latter as that's where the money is.

Now, I see microtransactions actually being a boon for this hobby. Instead of coming up with an entire splat, only having time to playtest half of it, and then figuring out some unifying theme to market it under ("Complete Adventurer?" Could that have been any vaguer? "Player's Handbook 2: Here's some extra stuff we thought of!" etc.) - now designers can design the way their minds actually work - flashes of inspiration interspersed with proper procedural testing. Hey, I came up with a great idea for a prestige class/paragon path - 50 cents! Here are a nice set of monk archetypes - $1.50! 6 new breeds of dragon, complete with age advancement - $3.00! And so on.

The best part is that they can still follow the golden rule of monetization (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions) - sell convenience, not power. For instance, you can still let players homebrew anything they want, but if they want a nice premade class/module/monster that they don't have to waste energy statting up, fleshing out and balancing themselves, they just buy one of yours. Or if they want slots for more characters, they buy those too. Ultimately, it's just like buying a sourcebook, except players get exactly what they want instead of paying for gold mixed with dross. It would revolutionize buying splats the same way mp3s revolutionized buying music.

Finally, you eliminate the restrictive release schedule of the publishing cycle. And if you ever do want to release a dead-trees version compiling the best tidbits of your online offerings? Not only can you do that, you've had the benefit of a massive playtesting audience that entire time, letting you incorporate errata and clarifications seamlessly into the paper product.

Best of all, you'll have concrete data on which items were popular and which weren't, before committing expensive paper-space to them.

Microtransactions are very, very frequently bad. So, to take your idea, I get to play more classes if I buy them, right? So, when I find the most broken combos, I can buy my way to power, right? And finding them is mostly just a google search away.

So, what then...nerf away my power that I paid for? Bump other things up in a power spiral? It's a giant mess, and microtransaction MMOs have tried this before, and it makes the game terrible. Example: Aion. Very interesting gameplay, esp pvp, but the ability to buy power and the grind emphasis that accompanies this really hurts the game.


2) Depth:
You're arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Facebook games lack depth, not because depth is so prohibitively costly as to not be worthwhile, but because the shallow ones make just as much money. That doesn't mean nobody out there wants depth, it means that nobody has had real incentive to try.

But the casual gamer dollar is spent, and the casual bubble is beginning to burst. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114077-Zyngas-Profits-Continue-To-Drop) People want to do more on Facebook after they've checked all their notifications and added the latest wing to their farm, and that is where deeper games come in that they can play with friends.

Now, you're correct in that deeper games usually mean greater cost. But that's for building a system from scratch. D&D - even 4e D&D - is plenty deep already, and doesn't even need a ton of shiny graphics or animations to do it. Hell, you can make the graphical interface look like Exile (http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-3c8b45d3372dc620861e38f1b9b8964a) and it would be perfectly playable - all you really need are a grid and minis after all, with maybe some imagination-stimulating full-size fantasy art for the monster entries, various spells and equipment etc.

The rest of the game is played through spreadsheets and grandiose storytelling. There is no reason that can't be translated to an online platform, and even benefit from the transition. (No flipping through 100 pages to find the grapple rules, or the statblock of the monster the PC wants to summon etc. - the computer does that instantaneously.)

Invention of rules is not where the cost of coding a game comes from, generally. It comes from making the damned rules work. I can sketch out the basic rules for a game in minutes that it will take me weeks or months to code.

Note that this does not get easier when you're trying to do heavy stuff in flash. This is a particularly poor choice, and will make development of this game a nightmare.


3) D&D vs. MMOs:
MMOs are a totally different environment. For one thing, MMOs have no DM. You've got a world, and all the players are inhabitants of that world, but nobody but the designers have control over what goes on. There's no opportunity for storytelling in an MMO other than what carrot the designers come up with to dangle in front of you. "Beat this boss!" "Get this loot!" "See this cutscene!"

Comparing that to D&D's cooperative storytelling is ludicrous. There is no electronic game that does this well. NWN was a smash hit, and even their PWs lack considerable depth, are based on archaic rules sytems and architecture, and are larded with bugs. But in Facebook D&D, you wouldn't have to worry about thorny issues like A.I. and 3D rendering. What you would have to worry about are simple things like automatic dice-rolling, resource tracking, build auditing ("you can't take that PrC at that level"), monster statting, and other tools to make the DM's life easier.

MMOs are to facebook games what 4e is to the D&D boardgame.

I have yet to hear anything that this hypothetical facebook game offers that isn't better served by gametable. If it DOES have additional features beyond that, then as previously mentioned, flash is terrible for anything of size. Most flash games on facebook require frequent reloading, have notable item limits, and still have huge load times. The closest thing to a rendering of what a D&D game might look like would be the Sims Social. Go on. Try it out. Consider how much you would have to add to make it akin to any version of D&D. Look at how much time you spend waiting.

It's not a reasonable option. Note that I'm a professional software engineer, and know a number of developers in the game industry.

[Psyren]

One or two grognards playing older editions isn't a base fracturing. That always happens. Hell, I have some 2e sourcebooks around still...and while nobody in my area plays 2e, if I could find a spelljammer campaign locally, I wouldn't be adverse to it.

However, the opposite of player base fracturing is not abandonment of the old system. It's fairly universal adoption of the new system socially. That group that never buys new books and never goes to a shop? They don't matter to the company. They could just as easily not play.

When you have a player base fracture is when, at the game shop, people have to ask "what version" after you say the game is D&D. And the answer tends to determine if they're interested or not. It's a deep divide, and it's why Pathfinder is what it is. I'd argue that this in specific is much more notable than other editions.

Every edition change (save perhaps "1e" -> 2e) has divided many more players than "one or two grognards." But even if we agree to disagree on that point, you can't deny that 3.x -> 4e was a base fracture. And we're staring into another one; WotC's chances of winning back the Pathfinder converts are minimal at best, and even if they do, they'll only succeed in alienating the 4e fans that didn't want what Pathfinder had to offer. Pleasing both sets of fans with the same game is an impossibility.

Never mind the very distinct possibility that 5e will alienate a large chunk of both camps (3.P lovers, and 4e lovers alike) no matter what they do.


A goodly subset of even first world countries do not have internet at all. Another very notable subset of people with internet do not utilize facebook.
Plenty of people who use facebook don't use the games(Over half).

You're moving to a media that the majority of the market does not use. That is quite risky at best.

Yet even with all this subdividing, I'm willing to bet there are orders of magnitude more facebook profiles than there were DDI subs even at its peak. Social media is a largely untapped market for cooperative storytelling games.

As for risk - well, that is how investment works; higher risk, higher return. But is the risk really as high as you think? Developing a facebook D&D app isn't beyond them after all - they've done it twice already. So they have access to people who understand the facebook API, as well as code that handles the dicerolling and other aspects, already. It's simply a matter of expanding, and allowing more character creation choice.

Extra Credits recently had another video (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-diablo-iii-marketplace) related to this topic. Yes, always-on connection requirements are a drawback for any game that requires them, but not an insurmountable one.


And this is why people play WoW. I've played WoW. It's very good for what it is, but it does not substitute for p&p roleplaying games. Hell, even play by post or skype has many weaknesses compared to being physically located together. This is most certainly not a pure advantage.
...
Yup. Notice that those are both PHYSICALLY co-located. Playing by skype, gametable, etc is still a niche, though it's been possible for quite some time.

1) I'm really not sure what WoW has to do with anything here. I never claimed it did, or should, replace any RPG.

2) PbP and Skype ARE related to what I'm saying. However, while they're both useful, the key issue with them is that they are not designed for playing D&D. These applications don't have a number of useful tools - no grids, no minis, no dicerollers, no encounter/treasure generators, etc. PbP incorporates some of these (depending on forum) but suffers from not being real-time, having no face-to-face, etc.

Each has useful features the other lacks. Social Media - and specifically Facebook in this example, though Google + works as well - would be the first platform to combine all of these features in one, and moreover do so without requiring a single additional download on the part of the players. Face time, monster stats, rules adjudication, damage and HP tracking, grids and minis... all of it can be there. You could even add speech-to-text functionality so the DM can say "you enter a dark room" and have it pop up without needing to be typed. (Resulting in hilarious typos I'm sure, but still.)

As for physical D&D, I love it. And it can still be a component of this new direction in some way. The problem is that I think both 3.5 and 4e already capture the needs of physical D&D players; going after these same players with 5e is like releasing another Madden, except you don't even have a roster update to tempt people with.


No, it's not. Facebooks the fad now. Before, it was myspace. Back in the day, everyone had Geocities pages and what not. There is absolutely no guarantee that Facebook will stay on top of the heap.

I'm disappointed in you; you say you're a professional software engineer, yet you immediately dismiss Facebook's robust API, lumping it in with also-rans like Myspace and... Geocities (seriously?) Even Google programmers admit (https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX) that Facebook's API - not the farms or the novelty of tracking down your high-school classmates - is the reason for its long-term success.

And by focusing on Facebook's chances of staying on top, you're missing the main point. The point isn't so much "can we make a Facebook D&D?" Rather, the point is "can we make social media D&D?" Facebook just happens to be the most accessible one, while simultaneously being pretty easy to dev for (and the one WotC already has experience with.)


Social media is also shallow. Just because I have you on my friends list doesn't mean I interact with you in a meaningful way.

Putting aside the fact that this says more about your personal friends list criteria than Facebook as a platform, millions of people game together on facebook every day, even the ones that don't otherwise interact "meaningfully." And frankly I don't need to go out to a bar with someone or invite them to my son's graduation to know that they're a badass drow assassin. (If that deeper connection happens later, great! And it might even happen due to the game itself.)


Microtransactions are very, very frequently bad. So, to take your idea, I get to play more classes if I buy them, right? So, when I find the most broken combos, I can buy my way to power, right? And finding them is mostly just a google search away.

So, what then...nerf away my power that I paid for? Bump other things up in a power spiral? It's a giant mess, and microtransaction MMOs have tried this before, and it makes the game terrible. Example: Aion. Very interesting gameplay, esp pvp, but the ability to buy power and the grind emphasis that accompanies this really hurts the game.

1) How is this different from learning about which paper sourcebooks have the broken combos and buying those?
2) You're again thinking of this as an MMO. No, WotC doesn't have to nerf the power you paid for. It's the DM's responsibility to allow or deny certain combinations at his table, just like it would be offline. All WotC has to do is clarify ambiguous wording or blatantly unintended interactions - again, just like they do (or should be doing) now.
3) Your Aion example is irrelevant here. D&D was never, ever, designed for PvP, and 4e even actively discourages it.


Invention of rules is not where the cost of coding a game comes from, generally. It comes from making the damned rules work. I can sketch out the basic rules for a game in minutes that it will take me weeks or months to code.

Note that this does not get easier when you're trying to do heavy stuff in flash. This is a particularly poor choice, and will make development of this game a nightmare.

And yet WotC has experience with coding/automating complex rules in-house - they did it quite successfully with MTGO, an extremely complicated game, and the vast majority of its rules were coded in half a decade ago. They did it so well that they're able to play tournaments in it, for real actual money, without getting sued out of business.

D&D doesn't even require anywhere near that level of automation, nor does it require 5th-level-judge adjudication; just a handful of tools to make the DM's life easier, so he isn't having to manually track which monsters are bloodied or how many surges the party has left, or who's already used up their encounter powers or what have you.

The really complicated stuff, like "is this template legal?" or "how many feats do I have after i reincarnate 3 times" (well, both of those are pretty unique to 3e, which is unlikely to be digitized anyway - by WotC at least...); that stuff doesn't need automation because the number of groups that know of, much less entertain, that level of system manipulation are very much the minority.


I have yet to hear anything that this hypothetical facebook game offers that isn't better served by gametable.

1) An audience. Gametable's biggest problem is lack of notoriety. Skype has that, but lacks a social aspect (how do you meet new people?) and as I said above isn't designed for gaming.
2) Gametable and Skype both require downloading a client. This is a barrier to entry for prospective users, particularly the ones that want to kill an hour at work or in the school computer lab, and can even keep them off of tablets, linux PCs, Macs etc., without workarounds which are onerous to the casual user. A browser-based variant would overcome both these hurdles.
3) Gametable's default images are, quite frankly, hideous. WotC has a massive library of high-quality art resources across several product lines, and making something lightweight and functional even out of the static images they have on hand would be much more attractive.


If it DOES have additional features beyond that, then as previously mentioned, flash is terrible for anything of size. Most flash games on facebook require frequent reloading, have notable item limits, and still have huge load times. The closest thing to a rendering of what a D&D game might look like would be the Sims Social. Go on. Try it out. Consider how much you would have to add to make it akin to any version of D&D. Look at how much time you spend waiting.

It's not a reasonable option. Note that I'm a professional software engineer, and know a number of developers in the game industry.

Sims Online is a terrible benchmark; they're rendering fairly detailed assets in real-time to try and draw you into a 3D world. D&D doesn't have to do that online anymore than it does in real life. By using lightweight grids and relying on the players' imaginations - again, just like it does in real life - they make the audiovisual footprint and therefore the loading and other technical limitations much less of a factor.

I'm not saying it has to look like Nethack, or even Castle of the Winds, but it doesn't have to look like Ultima VII either.

[Tyndmyr]

Every edition change (save perhaps "1e" -> 2e) has divided many more players than "one or two grognards." But even if we agree to disagree on that point, you can't deny that 3.x -> 4e was a base fracture.both camps (3.P lovers, and 4e lovers alike) no matter what they do.

I have....already said all that? Why would I deny it?


And we're staring into another one; WotC's chances of winning back the Pathfinder converts are minimal at best, and even if they do, they'll only succeed in alienating the 4e fans that didn't want what Pathfinder had to offer. Pleasing both sets of fans with the same game is an impossibility.

Never mind the very distinct possibility that 5e will alienate a large chunk of both camps (3.P lovers, and 4e lovers alike) no matter what they do.

That's fairly pessimistic. Yes, 4e and 3.P folks like different things. That doesn't mean it's impossible to please the majority of both...merely difficult. Both sides will need a fair bit of attention paid to what they care about.


Yet even with all this subdividing, I'm willing to bet there are orders of magnitude more facebook profiles than there were DDI subs even at its peak. Social media is a largely untapped market for cooperative storytelling games.

That's because DDI was terrible, and failed with the quickness. I stopped playing well before the trial month, and a vast number of others did exactly the same. A change of venue will not cure an inherent lack of quality.


As for risk - well, that is how investment works; higher risk, higher return.

Correction. A higher risk is WORTHWHILE for a higher return. A higher risk in no way guarantees a higher return.

If you agree it has a high risk, you need to demonstrate the high return in order for it to even remain a plausible possibility.

[uote] But is the risk really as high as you think? Developing a facebook D&D app isn't beyond them after all - they've done it twice already. So they have access to people who understand the facebook API, as well as code that handles the dicerolling and other aspects, already. It's simply a matter of expanding, and allowing more character creation choice.[/quote]

Dicerolling code? Seriously? That's like saying "Well, building this ship won't be hard. We'll just re-use the american flag. It's just a matter of expanding on that."

Also, no, they don't have people who understand the API. They contracted that out. They'll have to do so again.

Also, neither of those games are popular. Daggerdale has about a third of the popularity as Heroes. Consider, about 7k likes on it. Not active users, likes. They don't display active users for a reason. Farmville has like, 30mil active users and change. So, no, they're already trying this, and it's failing.


Extra Credits recently had another video (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-diablo-iii-marketplace) related to this topic. Yes, always-on connection requirements are a drawback for any game that requires them, but not an insurmountable one.

So, drawbacks with no positive gets you...very few customers who care about it. You need notable plusses to make it matter.


1) I'm really not sure what WoW has to do with anything here. I never claimed it did, or should, replace any RPG.

If you're getting into the online, multiplayer, for profit, RPG business, you're competing with Wow.


2) PbP and Skype ARE related to what I'm saying. However, while they're both useful, the key issue with them is that they are not designed for playing D&D. These applications don't have a number of useful tools - no grids, no minis, no dicerollers, no encounter/treasure generators, etc. PbP incorporates some of these (depending on forum) but suffers from not being real-time, having no face-to-face, etc.

*looks at gametable and vassal* No, I don't think that's the reason for lack of popularity. Those are already things that are used by a tiny, tiny niche at best.

Pbp is played for other reasons.


Each has useful features the other lacks. Social Media - and specifically Facebook in this example, though Google + works as well - would be the first platform to combine all of these features in one, and moreover do so without requiring a single additional download on the part of the players. Face time, monster stats, rules adjudication, damage and HP tracking, grids and minis... all of it can be there. You could even add speech-to-text functionality so the DM can say "you enter a dark room" and have it pop up without needing to be typed. (Resulting in hilarious typos I'm sure, but still.)

Again, I refer you to gametable and vassal.


As for physical D&D, I love it. And it can still be a component of this new direction in some way. The problem is that I think both 3.5 and 4e already capture the needs of physical D&D players; going after these same players with 5e is like releasing another Madden, except you don't even have a roster update to tempt people with.

RPG players buy new RPG books all the time. Just because you like version X doesn't mean you are uninterested in version X+1. It's safe to say that nearly any gamer also has a wish list of things they'd like to see added to their favorite game.


I'm disappointed in you; you say you're a professional software engineer, yet you immediately dismiss Facebook's robust API, lumping it in with also-rans like Myspace and... Geocities (seriously?) Even Google programmers admit (https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX) that Facebook's API - not the farms or the novelty of tracking down your high-school classmates - is the reason for its long-term success.

You have misrepresented my words. I did not say that Facebook's API is the same same quality as Myspace or Geocities. I'm not sure how you could read what I wrote as saying that.

I stated that like those that came before(Myspace and Geocities), Facebook can be unseated by a newer, shinier contender. Thus, assumptions that Facebook will dominate social media for the extended future are unwarranted. Since you quote Google, you'll note that Google clearly thinks there's room in this market to unseat them via Google+.


And by focusing on Facebook's chances of staying on top, you're missing the main point. The point isn't so much "can we make a Facebook D&D?" Rather, the point is "can we make social media D&D?" Facebook just happens to be the most accessible one, while simultaneously being pretty easy to dev for (and the one WotC already has experience with.)

Why should we make it facebook tied? What's the POINT of it all? It costs you a giant pile of money, locks you into inferior tech, and ties you to a single point of failure for a company. Why would you want all that?

"social media" is not a reason. Playing counterstrike with your clan is also social, and that worked long before facebook existed.

Is the ability to spam your friends with "Erikos needs 5 more gold coins! Click here to help him out!" messages really a plus?


1) How is this different from learning about which paper sourcebooks have the broken combos and buying those?

Social pressure is a lot stronger when it's people sitting around a table as opposed to interacting with anonymous, or basically anonymous people on the internet. People act the fool on MMOs and the like because, basically, there's no consequences for it.


2) You're again thinking of this as an MMO. No, WotC doesn't have to nerf the power you paid for. It's the DM's responsibility to allow or deny certain combinations at his table, just like it would be offline. All WotC has to do is clarify ambiguous wording or blatantly unintended interactions - again, just like they do (or should be doing) now.

So, you want a way for the DM to override any and all rules? How will this work, exactly? Especially in a system that does all the math for you, as you were proposing?


3) Your Aion example is irrelevant here. D&D was never, ever, designed for PvP, and 4e even actively discourages it.

You misunderstand. PvP was the BEST part of that game. The rest was worthless. Tossing the PvP does not result in a fixed solution.


And yet WotC has experience with coding/automating complex rules in-house - they did it quite successfully with MTGO, an extremely complicated game, and the vast majority of its rules were coded in half a decade ago. They did it so well that they're able to play tournaments in it, for real actual money, without getting sued out of business.

I am aware of MTGO. I played tournaments in it for quite some time. I'm also aware that they do NOT use real actual money for the prizes, but instead, give out virtual tickets that are redeemable for cards/boosters/etc. Yes, there's an aftermarket ticket/cash exchange on ebay and the like, but claiming that they're using cash without being sued because they're so reliable is....false.

Also, they contracted out that coding, too. So, no, no experience in house.


1) An audience. Gametable's biggest problem is lack of notoriety. Skype has that, but lacks a social aspect (how do you meet new people?) and as I said above isn't designed for gaming.

Saying Skype lacks a social aspect is like saying your phone lacks a social aspect. Socializing with others is the entire purpose of it.


2) Gametable and Skype both require downloading a client. This is a barrier to entry for prospective users, particularly the ones that want to kill an hour at work or in the school computer lab, and can even keep them off of tablets, linux PCs, Macs etc., without workarounds which are onerous to the casual user. A browser-based variant would overcome both these hurdles.

Yes, because flash works absolutely everywhere with no problems. :smallconfused:


3) Gametable's default images are, quite frankly, hideous. WotC has a massive library of high-quality art resources across several product lines, and making something lightweight and functional even out of the static images they have on hand would be much more attractive.

Sims Online is a terrible benchmark; they're rendering fairly detailed assets in real-time to try and draw you into a 3D world. D&D doesn't have to do that online anymore than it does in real life. By using lightweight grids and relying on the players' imaginations - again, just like it does in real life - they make the audiovisual footprint and therefore the loading and other technical limitations much less of a factor.

Er, if you want good graphics, you kind of have to pay the hit. Sims Online isn't that fantastic. It's not true 3d or a real 3d engine, it's just an isometric display of a 2d world. So, when you say "lightweight grids" I wonder what on earth you're talking about. And when you say "relying on player's imaginations", I wonder why you're talking about the good graphics being critical.

[stainboy]

2) Gametable and Skype both require downloading a client. This is a barrier to entry for prospective users, particularly the ones that want to kill an hour at work or in the school computer lab, and can even keep them off of tablets, linux PCs, Macs etc., without workarounds which are onerous to the casual user. A browser-based variant would overcome both these hurdles.


"Kill an hour at work?" D&D can't be played that way. A casual user by software standards literally can't play D&D because they aren't willing to devote the time to it. You're proposing WotC make an entirely different game and set 99% of their current brand loyalty on fire in the process. And farm out the development to an actual software development house, which WotC is not. And then, after they hire someone else to do all of their work, somehow convince Hasbro that they should still have jobs.

[Karoht]

...somehow convince Hasbro that they should still have jobs.Um, how did they convince Hasbro of this in the last 10 years? If Hasbro execs ever read their books or websites like this and saw how little a publishing company proof-read their work, I don't think WoTC would have jobs.

You bring up an interesting point though. To even attempt to enter some of these modern media, WoTC would have to learn it all from scratch or farm it out. This says (to me) that the company is starting to fall out of touch rather than at least keep up with technology. Oh well, hind sight and all that?

[Psyren]

Daggerdale

What in the Nine Hells does Daggerdale have to do with anything? Why do you keep trying to counter arguments I'm not even making? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

Daggerdale was a full-priced XBLA/PSN title, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons:_Daggerdale) and a mediocre one at that; not an attempt at social media D&D, so it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, it had a fixed story with no opportunities to DM or even do much customization.

In short, it was not true D&D; it merely had the brand name and some set pieces. I'm not discussing {video-game tie-in with D&D brand} - I'm discussing real actual electronic D&D, i.e. friends get together and cooperatively craft a story, DM adjudicates the rules, decides what belongs at his table and what doesn't. Just like we have now, except your audience won't have to head down to a dank hobby store to do it.

Tiny Adventures was much closer to what I'm proposing and even THAT was heavily scripted and restricted. There is much more they could do in this field that they aren't doing.


If you're getting into the online, multiplayer, for profit, RPG business, you're competing with WoW.

In the superficially-broad, "these are both fantasy games with elves and levels" sense? Probably. But last time I checked, WoW has no dungeon master, no opportunity to craft a setting, no control over what challenges you face, no way to solve major conflict without combat etc.

You don't need me to point out the differences between WoW and D&D, do you?



Facebook can be unseated by a newer, shinier contender.

So, because a new contender may unseat Facebook, we should ignore all social media forever?

Hey, why bother releasing games via Steam? A new platform could come out any day now. It's pointless to program for XBLA and PSN, they could be obsoleted at any time! Who cares how successful other companies are getting doing it, we're the smart ones for sitting on our hands, mark my words.


Why should we make it facebook tied? What's the POINT of it all? It costs you a giant pile of money, locks you into inferior tech, and ties you to a single point of failure for a company. Why would you want all that?

- "Giant pile of money?" Do you have any actual numbers for that? (Besides "bajillion" anyway.)
- Inferior to what? Is there a better social platform than Facebook and G+ that I don't know about?
- You're right; if digital D&D fails, they'll have all those unsold sourcebooks and minis to dispos- oh, wait.



"I am aware of MTGO. I played tournaments in it for quite some time. I'm also aware that they do NOT use real actual money for the prizes, but instead, give out virtual tickets that are redeemable for cards/boosters/etc.

They don't pay out "real actual money," but they do take it in, and that's the point. If you're going to charge people to play a tournament based on your game, you need a robust rules system or else people will be upset. MTGO is plenty robust.

D&D doesn't need that; no tourneys. They can still leverage the lessons they learned there, but don't need nearly the depth of coding perfection.


Er, if you want good graphics, you kind of have to pay the hit.

Nah; you can get better than Gametable's default without going isometric, or even needing animations. (The only things I would personally animate are spell effects, similar to the Exile series from Spiderweb, a nearly 20-year-old game that is still fun to play.)

And yeah, they had to contract out to make Tiny Adventures - how is this somehow more expensive than having programmers in-house? Either way they need to be paid. The point is that they have a pre-existing relationship to draw upon, experience with what kind of resources are needed and


Saying Skype lacks a social aspect is like saying your phone lacks a social aspect. Socializing with others is the entire purpose of it.

Skype, like your phone, is not used for meeting new people - it's used for communicating with people you've already met. That is why I say Skype lacks a social aspect. You don't just start calling random strangers on skype and asking if you have anything in common. (At least, I don't.)

Facebook lets you meet people. Either you follow a chain from one friend, to a friend of that friend, to {stranger that shares your interests and seems interesting}, or - as would happen here - you get a bunch of people to "like" or play the same thing and suddenly you're connected.

[Tyndmyr]

"Kill an hour at work?" D&D can't be played that way. A casual user by software standards literally can't play D&D because they aren't willing to devote the time to it. You're proposing WotC make an entirely different game and set 99% of their current brand loyalty on fire in the process. And farm out the development to an actual software development house, which WotC is not. And then, after they hire someone else to do all of their work, somehow convince Hasbro that they should still have jobs.

This is it in a nutshell.

D&D is not the sort of game that Farmville is. It should NEVER be the sort of game that Farmville is, since that is very, very far from the RPG market, the market in which the D&D brand is known.


What in the Nine Hells does Daggerdale have to do with anything? Why do you keep trying to counter arguments I'm not even making? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

Daggerdale was a full-priced XBLA/PSN title, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons:_Daggerdale) and a mediocre one at that; not an attempt at social media D&D, so it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, it had a fixed story with no opportunities to DM or even do much customization.

In short, it was not true D&D; it merely had the brand name and some set pieces. I'm not discussing {video-game tie-in with D&D brand} - I'm discussing real actual electronic D&D, i.e. friends get together and cooperatively craft a story, DM adjudicates the rules, decides what belongs at his table and what doesn't. Just like we have now, except your audience won't have to head down to a dank hobby store to do it.

Tiny Adventures was much closer to what I'm proposing and even THAT was heavily scripted and restricted. There is much more they could do in this field that they aren't doing.

Yeah, that's not how tech works.

Your "real, electronic D&D" does not work that way in a flash world. Even in an XBLA world, it'd be challenging in the extreme.

This is like complaining that a movie has many less words than a novel. It has to. The medium enforces it. The same is true of a flash game on facebook. You cannot simply get the same game as you have on the tabletop.

[Psyren]

The hour at work was a bad example (though certainly some aspects of the game can be played in that time, e.g. character creation. Or the DM can certainly piece a campaign together during downtime like that. But I digress.)

That doesn't mean that people aren't using social media for longer stretches of time on the weekends, or while stationed overseas etc. - i.e. the exact same times they would be playing D&D normally.


Tyndmyr, as compelling as your e-credentials are, I'm not of the opinion that a largely text-based game is somehow too unwieldy to translate to a largely text-based medium.

People were playing D&D through MUDs at the dawn of the internet. But those tended to be the same people that knew of and played it offline. Now we have the chance to open it up to a brand new audience, and add a smattering of art to make it more visually appealing while running it on some of the most robust servers on the planet. This is a step forward.

[stainboy]

The hour at work was a bad example (though certainly some aspects of the game can be played in that time, e.g. character creation. Or the DM can certainly piece a campaign together during downtime like that. But I digress.)


But if you can't go after casual users, then there's no defensible reason to use casual games as a template. I'm all for online tools, but you can make online tools without committing brand suicide by hitching your cart to Facebook or trying to emulate Facebook games.

Furthermore there's no reason WotC would benefit from making a browser game instead of a tabletop game. They don't have any technical skills to offer and they don't even own the D&D brand (Hasbro does). Moving away from tabletop as the primary mode of play would be engineering their own obsolescence.

[Psyren]

But if you can't go after casual users, then there's no defensible reason to use casual games as a template.

Who said you couldn't go after casual users? Last time I checked, they get weekends off too.



Furthermore there's no reason WotC would benefit from making a browser game instead of a tabletop game. They don't have any technical skills to offer and they don't even own the D&D brand (Hasbro does). Moving away from tabletop as the primary mode of play would be engineering their own obsolescence.

Why does the parent company matter? Hasbro owns D&D the same way that Vivendi owns Starcraft and Viacom owns Tosh.0. That doesn't mean they make the day-to-day management/development/marketing decisions.

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr, as compelling as your e-credentials are, I'm not of the opinion that a largely text-based game is somehow too unwieldy to translate to a largely text-based medium.

Look, we've had the pure text(with things such as online char sheets, automated dice rolling, etc) for forever. That's not new. It is insufficient.

However, things like combining the ability of the DM to houserule/approve/disapprove whatever rules and options he likes with automatic calculation of the effects of rules is...interesting at best.

It means, among other things, that testing all the possible interactions is basically impossible. Yes, automated test suites exist, even for flash, but they can't possibly cover everything.

The fact that you're apparently under the impression that Flash is a text-based medium indicates a deep unfamiliarity with the topic. Flash is basically video based. It's doing video rendering. It doesn't matter if you're rendering text, it's still very resource intensive. And it doesn't work like normal text. Say you want to copy and paste stuff back and forth...have fun with that.

[Psyren]

Look, we've had the pure text(with things such as online char sheets, automated dice rolling, etc) for forever. That's not new. It is insufficient.

However, things like combining the ability of the DM to houserule/approve/disapprove whatever rules and options he likes with automatic calculation of the effects of rules is...interesting at best.

It means, among other things, that testing all the possible interactions is basically impossible. Yes, automated test suites exist, even for flash, but they can't possibly cover everything.

I'm thinking simpler than that. Using 4e: DM picks {monster}, and checks off boxes like "Minion" or "Lurker" or "Brute." The system then goes into the (digital) MM and spits out total HP, bloodied value, powers etc.

Or player picks {class} and rolls for {ability scores} - system spits out "you have {X} healing surges}, {Y} at-wills" etc. As he uses each one, the system just counts them down.

Hell, I could write up something for that in VB or Excel in my spare time (but not deploy it onto a social network.)

And you say it's insufficient because it hasn't been successful, which is putting the cart before the horse. It wasn't unsuccessful because the system somehow fails to capture the mechanics - it's unsuccessful because historically, they've been targeting diehard grognards that oppose any notion of de-paperizing D&D. Nothing they came up with would please a market like that.


The fact that you're apparently under the impression that Flash is a text-based medium indicates a deep unfamiliarity with the topic. Flash is basically video based. It's doing video rendering. It doesn't matter if you're rendering text, it's still very resource intensive. And it doesn't work like normal text. Say you want to copy and paste stuff back and forth...have fun with that.

Is it any more resource-intensive than, say, Order and Chaos or Vikings of Thule? Because I'm not even going for that level of fidelity.

[Karoht]

Moving away from tabletop as the primary mode of play would be engineering their own obsolescence.I think WoTC has been obsolete for quite some time, they've just made a very good show of being functional.



The fact that you're apparently under the impression that Flash is a text-based medium indicates a deep unfamiliarity with the topic. Flash is basically video based. It's doing video rendering. It doesn't matter if you're rendering text, it's still very resource intensive. And it doesn't work like normal text. Say you want to copy and paste stuff back and forth...have fun with that.
D20SRD is Flash based now?

Actually, I've got a serious programming question for you Tynd. How much of Facebook's actual programming (not the facebook games) is flash based? I won't pretend to know what flash can and can't actually do, so I ask the question.



And you say it's insufficient because it hasn't been successful, which is putting the cart before the horse. It wasn't unsuccessful because the system somehow fails to capture the mechanics - it's unsuccessful because historically, they've been targeting diehard grognards that oppose any notion of de-paperizing D&D. Nothing they came up with would please a market like that.What's that? Orienting a WoTC product to someone other than the Grognards? Perhaps to a *gasp* NEW demographic to entice some NEW business and granting an ADDITIONAL revenue/advertising stream?

Naw, thats just too much man. Pie in the sky.
/sarcasm.

[stainboy]

Why does the parent company matter? Hasbro owns D&D the same way that Vivendi owns Starcraft and Viacom owns Tosh.0. That doesn't mean they make the day-to-day management/development/marketing decisions.

Because there's no reason to believe WotC would continue to exist after the move you're proposing. WotC's sole function would be brand management which over the last three years they have been demonstrably bad at. If they're not writing games themselves then there is no reason for Hasbro to sign their checks.

E: The D&D branch, at least. The point is, whoever at WotC makes this decision would be out on the street.

[Psyren]

I think WoTC has been obsolete for quite some time, they've just made a very good show of being functional.

Their D&D segment at the very least. The M:TG guys seem to know what they're doing - trying out new platforms, experimenting with real money marketplaces etc. The D&D guys... don't.


Because there's no reason to believe WotC would continue to exist after the move you're proposing. WotC's sole function would be brand management which over the last three years they have been demonstrably bad at. If they're not writing games themselves then there is no reason for Hasbro to sign their checks.

They are still writing the mechanics, they'd just be contracting out the digitization aspect. Again, just like they're doing with Neverwinter and have done with Tiny Adventures.

[stainboy]

The average video game developer is leaps and bounds better at math than the average TTRPG designer. They also have an easier job of it because they can just write math that works, rather than worrying about math that humans can do in their heads. Software people don't need TTRPG mechanics writers for anything.

The only reason to use TTRPG mechanics in a video game is to appeal to TTRPG players, and you've already decided to actively piss off all the current D&D players.

[Psyren]

The average video game developer is leaps and bounds better at math than the average TTRPG designer. They also have an easier job of it because they can just write math that works, rather than worrying about math that humans can do in their heads. Software people don't need TTRPG mechanics writers for anything.

The beauty of subcontracting is that you don't have to specialize in the thing you're hiring the other party to do. It's just like hiring programmers to join your company, except you don't have to worry about getting them the kind of facilities and software they'd need, fully integrating them into your office culture (not that the nerd cultures of programming and the nerd cultures of tabletop gaming are massively different anyway) and so on.


The only reason to use TTRPG mechanics in a video game is to appeal to TTRPG players, and you've already decided to actively piss off all the current D&D players.

This is silly; Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape and NWN all used extensive TTRPG mechanics (particularly the core d20 mechanic in the case of the latter, and mechanics like save DCs, opposed checks, point buy, multiclassing, spell slots etc.) Not only were they all smash hits, they introduced an entire generation of gamers to D&D that would have otherwise probably never even tried it. (This includes myself.)

And those games didn't piss off all the tabletop gamers when they came out either. Well, maybe they did for all I know, but if so then they got over it.

So I didn't start out as a "TTRPG player," but NWN made the mechanics appeal to me. And the reason for that is that these mechanics always appealed to me - I just didn't realize it until I played a game that used them. The same is true for anyone on this forum who learned about D&D through NWN, and decided to give the underlying game a try as a result.

[Karoht]

This is silly; Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape and NWN all used extensive TTRPG mechanics (particularly the core d20 mechanic in the case of the latter, and mechanics like save DCs, opposed checks, point buy, multiclassing, spell slots etc.) Not only were they all smash hits, they introduced an entire generation of gamers to D&D that would have otherwise probably never even tried it. (This includes myself.)

And those games didn't piss off all the tabletop gamers when they came out either. Well, maybe they did for all I know, but if so then they got over it.

So I didn't start out as a "TTRPG player," but NWN made the mechanics appeal to me. And the reason for that is that these mechanics always appealed to me - I just didn't realize it until I played a game that used them. The same is true for anyone on this forum who learned about D&D through NWN, and decided to give the underlying game a try as a result.And in regards to the cross competition arguement, I doubt that many of the TTRPG players stopped buying books. And I'd be willing to wager, as per Psyren's post, that there were those who played the PC games and then learned about the TTRPG's. There had to be players who deeply enjoyed both the TT and PC versions as well.

Heck, I remember when I stumbled onto Neverwinter. I didn't bother looking at online guides, I looked at a friends 3.0 books for spell descriptions and feat descriptions and the like. Then I bought a 3.0 main book and some splats. Then 3.5 came out. Then I raged a bit. But then I found a 3.5 play group and the rest is history.


But I have to agree with Stainboy. The minute that WoTC DnD team outsources too much of this stuff to a programming team, is the minute that Hasbro is likely to get wise as to how behind the times the DnD team is. Hasbro will either fix this by helping them get in touch with modern gamers, or will do something drastic. Or, Hasbro will continue to ignore what they are doing, for better or worse.

[Psyren]

Then I bought a 3.0 main book and some splats. Then 3.5 came out. Then I raged a bit. But then I found a 3.5 play group and the rest is history.

I lol'd :smallbiggrin:



But I have to agree with Stainboy. The minute that WoTC DnD team outsources too much of this stuff to a programming team, is the minute that Hasbro is likely to get wise as to how behind the times the DnD team is. Hasbro will either fix this by helping them get in touch with modern gamers, or will do something drastic. Or, Hasbro will continue to ignore what they are doing, for better or worse.

I'm not sure the outsourcing itself would be much of a clarion call for Hasbro either way. WotC outsourced everything to Bioware for NWN 1, content merely to slap their logo on the finished product and license the proper names from the FR setting. The game did very well and they barely had to lift a finger with Gaider's team doing all the heavy lifting. So the formula can work. (That it didn't work with Black Isle just means they have to be more selective, or at least encourage Atari to be more selective.)

[stainboy]

This is silly; Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape and NWN all used extensive TTRPG mechanics (particularly the core d20 mechanic in the case of the latter, and mechanics like save DCs, opposed checks, point buy, multiclassing, spell slots etc.) Not only were they all smash hits, they introduced an entire generation of gamers to D&D that would have otherwise probably never even tried it. (This includes myself.)


Right. Because the TTRPG was still the primary product. Your thesis is that the TTRPG market is irrevocably split, so screw it, make a Facebook game instead. You've been arguing this whole time for abandoning the existing tabletop market, remember?

Assume you are right, that no new tabletop D&D could be successful. Current 4e players will stick with 4e, current 3e players will stick with 3.5 or PF or 3.P. (I don't see any reason to believe that, but whatever.) When your Facebook app "introduces" these new players to D&D5e there's nowhere for them to go. There's no tabletop 5e worth playing, there are no established social structures for finding players, there are no more experienced players running games they can join. If the Facebook players do make the jump to tabletop they find 3e and 4e players. They're being introduced to, from WotC's perspective, the wrong products.

You can't say that the Facebook game would be good because it would introduce players to tabletop, while simultaneously saying the tabletop market isn't worth pursuing anymore. That doesn't work.



I'm not sure the outsourcing itself would be much of a clarion call for Hasbro either way. WotC outsourced everything to Bioware for NWN 1, content merely to slap their logo on the finished product and license the proper names from the FR setting. The game did very well and they barely had to lift a finger with Gaider's team doing all the heavy lifting. So the formula can work. (That it didn't work with Black Isle just means they have to be more selective, or at least encourage Atari to be more selective.)

Tangent, but this isn't true. NWN was in development for a couple years before 3.0 shipped. The rules had to be developed in parallel; WotC couldn't just hand them the SRD and tell them to go to town. Then once Hasbro bought WotC they meddled with the development to a pretty extreme degree. That's why Bioware stopped making D&D games after HotU.

[turkishproverb]

That's fairly pessimistic. Yes, 4e and 3.P folks like different things. That doesn't mean it's impossible to please the majority of both...merely difficult. Both sides will need a fair bit of attention paid to what they care about.

I don't even think it'd be that difficult. Just announce AD&D in a new eddition, as the more Pathfinder/3.5 esque one, and then a simplified version of 4E as Dungeons and Dragons.


Honestly, the Shadowrun game system needed changing even worse than the 3.5 game system did. The 4e system makes gameplay much smoother and easier to balance, without totally gutting the way the game is played. The only real loss is in the setting department, which is fluff that can be switched in and out except for the wireless matrix (which honestly was another change that really needed to happen. I don't care if you think it's more cyberpunk to have wires, we have ubiquitous wireless in the real world, why would our technology regress so far in that area over 100 years while advancing everywhere else?).

My group hesitated in changing systems, but since we did we haven't looked back at all. As opposed to with 4e D&D after playing, some of us still prefer 3.5, some prefer 4, and as a result we end up splitting game time between the two.

I see. So I'm having wrongbad double unfun. Right? I'm not actually enjoying myself, I just think I am. I don't really fail to enjoy 4E D&D/SR, I just think I do. :smallannoyed: :smallsigh:

Maybe I should dig out my Paranoia books and get myself re-educated. :smallamused:

The "it's better now, obviously. If you don't think so you're just resisting change" argument wasn't a sensible argument when Wizards made it, and you're just repeating it.

Tech has advanced in the last Hundred years. Yet, with the exception of minor details CHESS HASN'T.

Checkers hasn't.

Heck, GURPS hasn't had to redux itself, and it's more nuts and bolts-y than either system you treated like anathema. Yea, it's had four editions, but each one was more clarification than overhaul into a new and only loosely-related game.

I'm not even going to keep on about D&D 4E, since you're parroting a point of view that has been used for years and can only lead to fire. Instead, I'll discuss Shadowrun 4E.


Shadowrun 4E didn't "fix" the system, or make it more streamlined while very close to before. It did, really "Gut it", as you put it. It's one step away from playing WOD for all the precision the system has now. Nothing wrong with WOD, but don't act like it's anywhere near the same level of detail, control, percision, etc, as shadowrun 1-3. Yes, there were issues with Shadowrun, but those weren't large and were nothing some relatively minor eratta could have fixed, rather than overhaul and demolition.

The fact the game wasn't "easy" enough didn't mean it wasn't good. For that matter, it didn't even mean it was hard, just that people were approaching it without thinking.

Ironically, heavy removal is something 4E SR needs bucketloads of at this point due to insanity in some off-spec but official books.


P.S. About the wireless:
1. If you really think that change didn't effect the gameplay heavily you're not paying attention. Try playing anything like what a decker used to be. Or, for that matter, an old school rigger.
2. It's a world with Dragons, Elves, Trolls, goblins, and giant brain-in-a-jar magic cyborgs, lack of ubiquitous wireless matrix access wouldn't be odd. Not being "realistic" is the least of my concerns in a world where my caster is off communing with Coyote and the Best Brawler is tuning up his arm.
3. Not everything is accessible wirelessly in our world. For good reason. Especially not when anyone intends anything resembling security on it. Yet, if you try running 4E shadowrun, the game isn't at all well equipped to handle challenges that can't be wirelessly hacked.

[Malachei]

Perhaps WOTC and Paizo could work together to create a system that would be a step forward and reunite the divided D&D camp. I'm not overly optimistic, but I think, in the long run, it could save the game.

[turkishproverb]

In the long run, the inability to copyright game rules will be what saved the game. A rose by any other name, after all...

[Psyren]

Right. Because the TTRPG was still the primary product. Your thesis is that the TTRPG market is irrevocably split, so screw it, make a Facebook game instead. You've been arguing this whole time for abandoning the existing tabletop market, remember?

Why do you folks keep assuming "new medium" automatically translates to "abandon existing players?" Don't you think anybody who currently plays D&D uses social media? Or wants to play games online? Or has friends that do? :smallconfused:

What I've been saying was "hey, we're not doing so hot and we're going to lose a bunch of customers with this new edition no matter what; there's a whole bunch of people over there *points outside of run-down hobby store* that haven't been exposed to how fun D&D is, let's make something targeted at them." Similar to Karoht's "Hey hot dog vendor, get your cart on that busy street corner that has no carts on it."

You and Tyndmyr are the ones saying "but that means abandoning everyone!" not me.


Assume you are right, that no new tabletop D&D could be successful. Current 4e players will stick with 4e, current 3e players will stick with 3.5 or PF or 3.P. (I don't see any reason to believe that, but whatever.) When your Facebook app "introduces" these new players to D&D5e there's nowhere for them to go.

Why do they need to "go anywhere?"

That was necessary with NWN and the other CRPG tie-ins, because those games were never intended to replace the core game. Hell, NWN was the first one - ever - that even had a semblance DM functionality. All the rest were just standalone video games with a bunch of TTRPG mechanics underneath. You couldn't change the story of Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale or Planescape, merely play it. And you certainly couldn't make your own.

But even NWN's DM tools had a steep barrier to entry. You had to learn about tilesets, and triggers, and conversation trees... ugh. This is the one problem that every single electronic D&D attempt has had in common, and the biggest failing of all of them. They are standalone products, gateway drugs. Worse, the games progressively focused so much on graphics that they became even more difficult to actually play or create in. (Looking at you, NWN2.)

What I envision is something lightweight like Gametable, yet officially licensed and wholly-online, with lots of premade modules and direct links to WotC databases. A cohesive unit, rather than all these disparate 3rd-party products; and therefore one that can legally use WotC art assets to spice things up.

And then you create a world (whether a quick and dirty one-shot, or a sprawling sandbox) and ping your friends saying "come be an elf archer in this kickass adventure I created!"


You can't say that the Facebook game would be good because it would introduce players to tabletop, while simultaneously saying the tabletop market isn't worth pursuing anymore. That doesn't work.

1) I said it would introduce them to D&D, not have them hunting for a tabletop specifically.
2) The notion that RPGs need a wooden table and chairs to be engaging is precisely the kind of archaic thought process currently holding the game back. No, what makes D&D fun are the people playing it - namely, that a group of friends are the ones both creating the world, and adventuring in it. I don't have to be in the same room as my DM and party members to do that (PbP proves this.) What I do need are better tools to craft my world (and dismantle it); What I don't need are uber-fancy graphics and animations, because the regular game does just fine without those (as have many, many fun CRPGs of yore.)

If you really boil D&D down, both 3.x and 4e, you can play them purely via Excel spreadsheets. You want to tell me Excel is too heavyweight to work online cooperatively?

[stainboy]

Why do you folks keep assuming "new medium" automatically translates to "abandon existing players?"

Because you said that.



You are here (mistakenly) assuming "the future of D&D" has to include you, a self-confessed player of 3.5 (as am I) who willingly snubbed their last updated offering (as I did.) As I posted above, they will always face entropy as they fail to bring some of their existing customers along to new editions. Because of this, the only way for the hobby to remain commercially viable is to continually seek new blood.

There is this strangely widespread assumption that WotC will fail unless they come up with the "perfect system" that will "win back" all the grognards that stayed behind on 2e, 3.x, and even 4e (once Essentials came out.) To which I say - why go after those people at all? They already have what they want, and they're happy with it. You're trying to sell roast chicken to a man that has a turkey dinner, instead of targeting the people that are actually hungry.

[Psyren]

Because you said that.

Only those unwilling to change (which are not 100%, whatever you seem to believe) would be left behind. And these are a sunk cost because chances are they would be unwilling to change anyway (since they already have tabletop D&D to play.)

No response to my other points?

[Morithias]

Only those unwilling to change (which are not 100%, whatever you seem to believe) would be left behind. And these are a sunk cost because chances are they would be unwilling to change anyway (since they already have tabletop D&D to play.)

No response to my other points?

Personally I think it's a different kind of "sunk cost" where we don't want to have to blow another $1000 every 4 years.

That's the main reason we stayed behind with 3.5 my group, we simply felt we had blown too much on 3.5 to bother starting new. Especially when we didn't consider 4.0 that much of an upgrade (most of the stuff we liked about 4.0 was already houseruled into most of our games).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Personally I think it's a different kind of "sunk cost" where we don't want to have to blow another $1000 every 4 years.

That's the main reason we stayed behind with 3.5 my group, we simply felt we had blown too much on 3.5 to bother starting new. Especially when we didn't consider 4.0 that much of an upgrade (most of the stuff we liked about 4.0 was already houseruled into most of our games).
No, that is the very definition of the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_ fallacy).

Additionally, there is no evidence you would have had to spend $1000 on 4e (and indeed, you don't) nor that "needing" to spend it again in 4 years would affect you decision in purchasing today. Those are ancillary or irrelevant to the core justification here. Likewise "it wasn't much of an upgrade" is orthogonal to the state justification -- it is simply another factor to consider.

Honestly, there's no shame in using a logical fallacy as long as you recognize that it is a fallacy. Edition switching is a matter of taste, after all, and as long as you aren't using fallacious logic to make your decisions then you're not missing out on something you might enjoy.

[stainboy]

Only those unwilling to change (which are not 100%, whatever you seem to believe) would be left behind. And these are a sunk cost because chances are they would be unwilling to change anyway (since they already have tabletop D&D to play.)

No response to my other points?

It's quite a leap to go from "unwilling to switch to Dungeon Wars" to "unwilling to switch to anything."

At it's core, you're proposing software for playing D&D through the internet. That's a fine idea. WotC likes it even though they've historically failed to deliver. The problem is that you also insist that it:

(1) must come at the expense of also supporting in-person/PbP/IRC/Skype play
(2) must come at the expense of trying to offer a better game to current 3e/PF/4e players (who are a lost cause and won't switch to a new better or at least fresher game for some reason)
(3) must be a Facebook app.

Those are the ideas you're getting raked over the coals for. Without those three things there's nothing wrong with making a virtual tabletop.

[Zeta Kai]

It would revolutionize buying splats the same way mp3s revolutionized buying music.

I'm sorry, but this was so humorously foolish that I had to comment. MP3s have pretty much destroyed the concept of buying music for most of the former buying public. Sales figures are in the toilet, are not expected to ever recover. Many record labels have collapsed, shrunk, or lost all relevance. Artists have been forced to abandon the concept of profiting from album sales, & now almost every musician is what used to be considered independent. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (or more) of all music consumers are pirates in some capacity, just like consumers of computer games.

Digital distribution has proven time & again to be the death knell of the industry involved, & that is unlikely to somehow be different in this case, as we've already seen from PDF book distribution. No credible, knowledgeable source could possibly defend this business strategy by citing the MP3 as a positive example, because that viewpoint is logically indefensible. Black =/ White.

MP3s revolutionized buying music like Jack the Ripper revolutionized prostitutes.

[Morithias]

No, that is the very definition of the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_ fallacy).

Additionally, there is no evidence you would have had to spend $1000 on 4e (and indeed, you don't) nor that "needing" to spend it again in 4 years would affect you decision in purchasing today. Those are ancillary or irrelevant to the core justification here. Likewise "it wasn't much of an upgrade" is orthogonal to the state justification -- it is simply another factor to consider.

Honestly, there's no shame in using a logical fallacy as long as you recognize that it is a fallacy. Edition switching is a matter of taste, after all, and as long as you aren't using fallacious logic to make your decisions then you're not missing out on something you might enjoy.

That's exactly what I was saying. I don't think the other person was using "sunk cost" in the same term though which is why I said different.

I dunno, if you price all the player's handbooks, DMGs, and other books you would probably get close to $1000. My 3.5 collection is probably around $400 right now and that's without any MM besides the first, and NONE of the complete books besides divine.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's exactly what I was saying. I don't think the other person was using "sunk cost" in the same term though which is why I said different.

I dunno, if you price all the player's handbooks, DMGs, and other books you would probably get close to $1000. My 3.5 collection is probably around $400 right now and that's without any MM besides the first, and NONE of the complete books besides divine.
Nah, you just do DDI which costs you -- at most -- $285.60 if you bought a year's worth every year since 4th Edition came out. And if you did the sensible thing and split it with your DM & Party (say, four ways) then each of you got all of 4e for $71.40 apiece. That's all you needed to play with every book and magazine that ever came out for 4e.

It's one of the nice things about 4e: they actually used Price Discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination) so that the book-buying crowd could subsidize new entrants. I'm disappointed by the shift to pure Cloud DDI but, after talking with people around here, it turns out that people were pirating the crap out of DDI stuff even though it was extremely reasonably priced. And that's terrible :smallfrown:

[Morithias]

Nah, you just do DDI which costs you -- at most -- $285.60 if you bought a year's worth every year since 4th Edition came out. And if you did the sensible thing and split it with your DM & Party (say, four ways) then each of you got all of 4e for $71.40 apiece. That's all you needed to play with every book and magazine that ever came out for 4e.

It's one of the nice things about 4e: they actually used Price Discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination) so that the book-buying crowd could subsidize new entrants. I'm disappointed by the shift to pure Cloud DDI but, after talking with people around here, it turns out that people were pirating the crap out of DDI stuff even though it was extremely reasonably priced. And that's terrible :smallfrown:

Every year? So it's subscription based. Ok here's my next question.

3.5 books basically vanished from the face of the earth after 4th edition came out.

What happens when 5th edition comes out and they stop supporting it? That's $300 down the drain and unless you've basically memorized the rulebooks to the point where you could run a game without them you've just lost EVERYTHING. No books, no program, nothing.

and guess what. 5th will vanish 5 years later when 6th comes out. It's the same reason I don't play magic online, once they stop supporting the program you lose everything.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What happens when 5th edition comes out and they stop supporting it? That's $300 down the drain and unless you've basically memorized the rulebooks to the point where you could run a game without them you've just lost EVERYTHING. No books, no program, nothing.
Sunk Cost Fallacy :smallsmile:

If WotC decided to blow up 4e, erase all of DDI and burn all their books in stores, I could still buy books in the aftermarket if I really wanted to run the game. Or, as has been known to happen, some evil pirate may produce a wholly illegal copy of the rules and store it in electronic form for my later purchase or acquisition. In the meantime, I'm paying roughly $20 a year when I want to play the game.

It's not hundreds of dollars gone for nothing; it's the end of a time when I spend $20 per year to play a game. If you unsubscribe from WoW, all the money you spent in subscriptions doesn't suddenly become worth nothing -- it is worth the experiences you had while you were playing the game.

[stainboy]

Morithias raises a good point. If they decide to rip out the DDI 4e content when 5e comes out, that doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the DDI tools for 5e. Hopefully they've learned from past mistakes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Morithias raises a good point. If they decide to rip out the DDI 4e content when 5e comes out, that doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the DDI tools for 5e. Hopefully they've learned from past mistakes.
Eh, I'm almost certain they'll have a DDI-style program for 5e. I have no numbers (WotC being a privately traded company, even if it is a Hasbro subsidiary) but my instincts say that using good tools like Price Discrimination had to produce dividends for them.

And if they decide not to, then we're back to a book-based system like every other major RPG out there today. Yeah, it'll make me less likely to pick it up, but that's hardly surprising to anyone.

As far as "tools" go -- the bar is still set really low for digital tools for P&P RPGs. However if WotC totally drops the ball they're going to see a wave of seasoned developers out there making the tools whether they like it or not. If we're lucky, WotC will pull a Google and buy up someone who makes a superior digital tool; more likely they'll just try to shut them down and release an inferior interface that is late and over-budget. But hey, thems the breaks :smalltongue:

[Treblain]

I just had a thought: is it possible they could promote and sell 5e's DDI without dismantling 4e's? They could leave the 4e Compendium, CharBuilder, etc., accessible to subscribers while launching 5e through an upgraded version of the platform. WotC doesn't care that players are using it to continue playing 4e, because they're supporting the new edition. Meanwhile, subscribers get access to 5e stuff, and think "hey, we might as well try the new edition since we're paying for it." If it's a success, maybe they go further and make past edition material available.

It might be overly optimistic, but I think WotC is going to be hesitant about the backlash that could be caused if they cut off their 4th edition customers in an attempt to avoid self-competition. They'll realize there's no way they can stop people playing previous editions, and decide it's better than alienating potential customers.

[Karoht]

I'm sorry, but this was so humorously foolish that I had to comment. MP3s have pretty much destroyed the concept of buying music for most of the former buying public. Sales figures are in the toilet, are not expected to ever recover. Many record labels have collapsed, shrunk, or lost all relevance. Artists have been forced to abandon the concept of profiting from album sales, & now almost every musician is what used to be considered independent.
Interesting, because the MP3 has been largely beneficial to the artist rather than the distributor. Some would call that a success in and of itself in that a middleman has been and continues to be eliminated.
Also, MP3's didn't hurt the asian music industry, but that could just be because they pioneered the tech, and didn't accuse anyone who had an MP3 of being pirates. In fact quite a few Japanese bands were giving away MP3's of their songs, both on their websites and directly on their albums. A friend of mine used to collect Jrock, we were astonished to find the normal .wav files as well as mp3 files on the discs.
Sure, it hurt the American record industry, but since Asia adapted it really wasn't even noticeable.



Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (or more) of all music consumers are pirates in some capacity, just like consumers of computer games.This I find repugnant, but I have no numbers to refute it, just like Sony of America likely has no numbers to prove it, and this is a claim they have made many times.



Digital distribution has proven time & again to be the death knell of the industry involved.Not really. It's proven to be the death knell of the middlemen between creator and marketplace, but typically not harmful to the creator, and typically rather beneficial to the market place because more creators can enter the market in the first place. Yes, this creates signal to noise ratio, but you still get some quality as well.

I mean really, does anyone really miss the American model of 'band makes music plays gigs does the work, big record label takes majority of profit' for music? I don't. I don't know any musicians who do. I doubt Lady Gaga cares (no relevance, just throwing it out there).


TTRPG's going to electronic and social media in addition to physical media isn't as likely to 'kill' TTRPG's because of that loyal group of so called grognards who will never touch electronic/social media with a 10 foot pole, as far as their game is concerned.
(Yes, I'm aware I made a contradictory claim some 10 pages back in the thread, it's since been refuted many times over, so I'll acknowledge that point)

And again, I see zero reason why TTRPG's can't exist in multiple medium. Physical, electronic, and social. Which I have stated several times as well, so has Psyren.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I just had a thought: is it possible they could promote and sell 5e's DDI without dismantling 4e's? They could leave the 4e Compendium, CharBuilder, etc., accessible to subscribers while launching 5e through an upgraded version of the platform. WotC doesn't care that players are using it to continue playing 4e, because they're supporting the new edition. Meanwhile, subscribers get access to 5e stuff, and think "hey, we might as well try the new edition since we're paying for it." If it's a success, maybe they go further and make past edition material available.

It might be overly optimistic, but I think WotC is going to be hesitant about the backlash that could be caused if they cut off their 4th edition customers in an attempt to avoid self-competition. They'll realize there's no way they can stop people playing previous editions, and decide it's better than alienating potential customers.
I'm thinking they'll have a phase-in process over a couple of months if not a year. The main reason they won't keep 4e active is that WotC hates to compete against itself (see e.g. 3rd Edition's "Slash & Burn" order) and it is very easy for them to shut down 4e.

Of course, there are enough illegal digital copies of pretty much everything WotC has produced for 4e already on the internet and I'm sure WotC is having a headache about how to handle the inevitable surge of 4e piracy once they shut down support.

Hey, maybe that will get them to keep 4e's DDI stuff alive. It could happen! :smalltongue:

[LibraryOgre]

Perhaps WOTC and Paizo could work together to create a system that would be a step forward and reunite the divided D&D camp. I'm not overly optimistic, but I think, in the long run, it could save the game.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, but this was so humorously foolish that I had to comment. MP3s have pretty much destroyed the concept of buying music for most of the former buying public. Sales figures are in the toilet, are not expected to ever recover.
...
MP3s revolutionized buying music like Jack the Ripper revolutionized prostitutes.

This is exactly the kind of backwards rhetoric I've grown accustomed to seeing accompany discussions like these. And it does nothing more than display your own staggering lack of actual research into the topic. (http://blog.tunecore.com/2010/10/music-purchases-and-net-revenue-for-artists-are-up-gross-revenue-for-labels-is-down.html)

You want to know who's really being hurt by mp3s? Not artists, and not the industry. Labels are - the middlemen. Because now, they can't package one or two hit songs in with 10 janky tracks, call it an album and sell it for the price of 12. Now, independent artists have a means of mass distribution that sidesteps their lengthy and exploitative contracts. The horror!

Greed is the problem here, (http://thequietus.com/articles/06318-how-the-music-industry-is-killing-music-and-blaming-the-fans) not a filetype. Oh, it's humorous, all right.
Back on topic.



(1) must come at the expense of also supporting in-person/PbP/IRC/Skype play
(2) must come at the expense of trying to offer a better game to current 3e/PF/4e players (who are a lost cause and won't switch to a new better or at least fresher game for some reason)
(3) must be a Facebook app.

Those are the ideas you're getting raked over the coals for. Without those three things there's nothing wrong with making a virtual tabletop.

"Raked over the coals?" Is that what you call this? :smallamused:
To me, it's more like standing on a sandy beach - the waves surge forward, break as they reach me, tickle my feet, and recede before trying again.

1) As I said before:
a) The in-person players have their "apps" already. The chances of WotC innovating on this frontier are extremely slim. What great leap forward could another tabletop D&D possibly have, new dice shapes?
b) PbP, IRC and Skype have numerous issues (which I discussed earlier) that prevent them from being dedicated D&D platforms. None of them - not one - was designed for D&D. IRC is actually the worst, because pretty much everyone who uses that platform already knows what D&D is and has a favorite edition. At least the others have a shot at growth.

2) Some will switch. But many others won't. No edition, not even OD&D, has been accompanied by a mass exodus, and the fractures have grown more with each one. There is a hole in WotC's bucket, and with no way to patch it the only solution they have is to pour more water into the top. Targeting the same dwindling pool with edition after edition is a recipe for failure.

3) Social Media is key to this, yes. If they simply made "Gametable 2.0" they would be no more successful than Gametable is now, because they're still going after the same folks who currently play D&D. The fastest way to reach new customers is on the streetcorner with no hotdog stands.

My notion for 5e is to go whole hog and use social media not just for marketing it, but actually playing it - a truly integrated solution. Don't just show people some shiny art and say "you know that run-down hobby store several miles from your house? That's where you'll find our stuff, and hopefully some strangers that are starting a campaign. And only after you buy our books will we tell you the rules of this game. Or maybe you can ask around and find one in your area, though we're not really going to help you with that, google it." And you don't have to try and convince your non-D&D playing friends to go with you either, because they're right there!

[stainboy]

{{Scrubbed}}

[MukkTB]

Having trouble buying new books does not automatically equal a sunk cost fallacy.

Lets say I spend 1000$ on books for edition X.
I can now use the books, sell them or stick them in the attic to accrue value as antiques.

If I have read the books I accumulate Y competency with them. If I abandon the books I lose Y. This argument isn't actually about the books at all. Its about the system and has already been covered. It doesn't negate the sunk cost fallacy.

If I have 1000$ worth of books, and a new edition comes out as X+1.
If I would gain A pleasure from X+1 by purchasing, nothing about how much I spent on X could change A. Believing A is diminished because of the 1000$ is misleading. It is the sunk cost fallacy.

But think about this. If I have 1000$ of books they add B value of utility to every new book I accumulate within edition X because they interact. For example the Players Handbook with Complete Divine is more valuable than the combined values of the Players Handbook alone and Complete Divine alone.
Therefore I expect edition X books that I purchase to have A+B value to me where B is a function of what I already have.

Assuming B is never negative then if I have to decide between purchasing X and gaining a value of A+B and purchasing X+1 and gaining the value of A I will generally choose X if all else is equal.

NOT SUNK COST FALLACY
A+B > A

In the real world of course its not that simple. Sometimes B is negative. Sometimes A(X) >>> A(X+1). Sometimes everyone else is playing X+1.



But forget all that. Lets assume that you buy all the books in blocks of 1000$ every time a new set comes out because you like having all the books for benefit B as previously discussed. You value for every set is A*Number_of_Books+B(MAX) and your cost is 1000$. You cannot play 2 editions of D&D at the same time so having multiple editions available is a negligible benefit. You can only gain the value of A*Number_of_Books+B(MAX) for one edition at any time. You own the current edition's set of books and Wizards are considering making a new edition. Now lets imagine that instead of creating a new edition they create 3 new books that cost 100$ for the current edition. Lets look at our costs and benefits for this scenario and if they had created a new edition.

+3 Book Scenario
Cost =1100$
Value=A*(Number_of_Books+3)+B(MAX+3)

New Edition Scenario
Cost =2000$
A*Number_of_Books(x)+B(MAX(x)) OR A*Number_of_Books(X+1)+B(MAX(X+1))

The first scenario provides the customer with more value at a lower cost. It is not a logical fallacy when you desire an outcome that has a higher payoff for you.

Even if we ignore B we still get the same result.
+3 Book Scenario
Cost =1100$
Value=A*(Number_of_Books+3)

New Edition Scenario
Cost =2000$
A*Number_of_Books(x) OR A*Number_of_Books(X+1)


Furthermore supporting a business model designed to shake large chunks of money out of you every so many years isn't in your best interest compared to one where you pay lower steady costs. That might motivate you to not purchase a new edition in hopes of coercing Wizards to make a more friendly business model.

For customers to perceive value in the new edition the quality of the new edition material must be much higher than the previous edition.

[Psyren]

{{Scrubbed}}

I'm not trying to be... unpalatable?... at all.

I know that my suggestion isn't popular - few radical departures are. (Though I do take issue with your self-nomination as spokesperson for the board. If you dislike my ideas, you don't need to attempt an appeal to the masses to voice it.)

About the only counterargument I've seen from you boils down to "I personally dislike facebook, therefore social media is a terrible direction for the game." Tyndmyr at least approached the discussion from the technical limitations of their API, though he hasn't convinced me that something like this is unfeasible - merely challenging. But the growth potential of the wider audience accessible through social media makes such an effort worthwhile.

And as Heroes of Neverwinter (https://apps.facebook.com/neverwinterheroes/) shows, WotC agrees with my thinking - but they're not doing enough. These little apps they're releasing are diversions at best, and fail to capture the true essence of D&D (cooperative storytelling.) HoN isn't even multiplayer, and the graphics/animations - while nice - don't add much to the experience, while simultaneously pumping up the load times. And there is still no opportunity for players to become DMs.


If you consider that "shot to pieces"... then I suppose your absence won't really hold the discussion back in any material way anyway.

[Morithias]

Having trouble buying new books does not automatically equal a sunk cost fallacy. *Snip*

Love the math there. Also I believe it's a special case for tabletop games versus say videogames.

Unless you're a modding master you're not going to be able to say, take Caesar 2, and mod it so it runs the caesar IV engine. At least not without pumping a ton of time and effort into it.

With tabletop games it's brutally easy to do so.

"Hey did you hear in the new edition that Asmodeus became a god and ended the blood war"

"Ok, so in our campaigns that's canon now."

There, ONE sentence of fluff and it changes what happened into your game, you get to keep up with canon, and you get to keep the engine.

You want the blooded effect? Or the at-will powers?

Ok, from now on when a melee class drops below 50% hp they gain +4 to all physical stats, and wizards can select one spell every 5 levels 2 levels than their highest level to have at will."

Simple. Patching a tabletop game is BRUTALLY easy, patching a videogame is not.

I'm not going to blow $400 on changes I could put in my games for free!

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm not going to blow $400 on changes I could put in my games for free!
Good for you!

Still, it does raise the question as to why you purchase any game in the first place. If you're good enough to mod any system with such ease, shouldn't y'all be playing your personal system for $0 instead of spending $1000 on 3.X? :smalltongue:

[Silva Stormrage]

Good for you!

Still, it does raise the question as to why you purchase any game in the first place. If you're good enough to mod any system with such ease, shouldn't y'all be playing your personal system for $0 instead of spending $1000 on 3.X? :smalltongue:

Thats being a tad bit rude don't you think :smallamused:. I mean the amount of time to devote to making an entire system is on a different level from patching a couple things and adding a few houserules.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Thats being a tad bit rude don't you think :smallamused:. I mean the amount of time to devote to making an entire system is on a different level from patching a couple things and adding a few houserules.
Oh, but he's not doing that. He's incorporating every feature of 4e into 3.5. Do you realize how hard that is to do? Hell, I'd rather develop 4e from scratch than try to figure out how to incorporate such a different game structure into a system which includes hundreds of pages of rules. It's a nightmare :smalleek:

Seriously, if I had those chops I'd just make my own system and never spend a dollar on corporate stuff :smalltongue:

[erikun]

I just thought I'd hop in to note that claiming a personal desire not to play 4e due to having spent money on 3.5e books is not a Sunk Cost fallacy. In fact, it is entirely reasonable; you already have the books for 3.5e, and the cost for purchasing new books may not be worth the new system you get as a result. This can apply both towards buying a new system or buying a splatbook for an existing system.

However, claiming 3.5e to be better because (some) people own the books is the fallacy. The quality of the system is irrelevant to who possesses what parts of it. Again, you could argue the value of the system vs. the cost to acquire the books, but you would need to apply the same value vs. cost to 3.5e as well.

And yes, I realize you could pirate 3.5e for free, but you can do the same for 4e - that isn't an argument in 3.5e's favor.

--

Slightly more on topic, what Wizards of the Coast really needs to do regarding 5e is to keep the 4e material available and online after they release it. Ideally, they should also put 3e and earlier books in PDF format and sell them from the sight for, say, 90¢ or so each.

D&D has suffered a big lack of confidence from the 3e-4e break, with large numbers leaving with a perception that WotC was trying to "kill" 3e.

Deleting all the 4e material from D&DI with the release of the new system would probably be the absolute worst thing they could do; 4e fans would be slighted from losing access to everything they had despite remaining loyal to the brand, and potential 5e fans would be wary that the same thing would happen to them if they decided to adopt the new edition.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I just thought I'd hop in to note that claiming a personal desire not to play 4e due to having spent money on 3.5e books is not a Sunk Cost fallacy. In fact, it is entirely reasonable; you already have the books for 3.5e, and the cost for purchasing new books may not be worth the new system you get as a result. This can apply both towards buying a new system or buying a splatbook for an existing system.
No no, it really is the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

Whenever you consider money you have already spent before making a new purchasing decision, you are using the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
If you do not want to buy 4e because you are happy with a system you already own, this is a simple Cost-Benefit Analysis. You are comparing the benefit you would gain from a new system with the cost of acquiring it; as you already have a Good that fulfills your desires, the new system would need to be a great enough improvement to justify the cost of getting the new one. The cost of your current system is wholly irrelevant.

Of course, this requires you to examine the benefits of the new system on the merits, which is difficult to do without playing it. As such, many people default to an easily knowable and quantifiable value (i.e. the money they have already spent) and use it to rationalize their decision.

However, any logical analysis of purchasing behavior would show that there is no reason for money already spent to be a worthwhile consideration. If you decide to not spend more money, you don't get use of this spent-money for future purchases: you will get mighty hungry if you decide to not buy more food because you've already spent so much money on food in the past. On the other hand, considering the money you now have to spend is perfectly valid: if you only have $100 to spend on food, you have to decide whether it is worth spending it all on caviar or whether you would get more utility out of spending it on a more diverse basket of goods.
In the alternative, Wikipedia explains:

Economists argue that sunk costs are not taken into account when making rational decisions. In the case of a movie ticket that has already been purchased, the ticket-buyer can choose between the
following two end results if he realizes that he doesn't like the movie:

(1) Having paid the price of the ticket and having suffered watching a movie that he does not want to see, or;

(2) Having paid the price of the ticket and having used the time to do something more fun.

In either case, the ticket-buyer has paid the price of the ticket so that part of the decision no longer affects the future. If the ticket-buyer regrets buying the ticket, the current decision should be based on whether he wants to see the movie at all, regardless of the price, just as if he were to go to a free movie. The economist will suggest that, since the second option involves suffering in only one way (spent money), while the first involves suffering in two (spent money plus wasted time), option two is obviously preferable.
In terms of Edition Switching, this example is slightly inapposite as it discusses someone looking at a movie they realize they will not like. Applied to Edition Switching it is more like the traditional investment problem: having already spend money on one investment, people will continue spending money on only that investment until it is complete rather than try other investments that have a better prospective return on investment. Here, rather than trying a new system that they may like better, people stick to the one system they have already spent money on until they are done playing RPGs. IMHO, this sort of approach keeps gamers from experiencing all the various ways that RPGs can be constructed and possibly finding a new way to have fun.

For example, if I had used this logic I would have never played any game aside from AD&D. I had tons of their books and I was perfectly happy with it. Instead, I went on to 3.0 when it came out and -- finding I was not happy with it -- played it only sporadically since. When 4e came out, I went and tried that too and, being happy with it, have played it ever since. In the meantime I've tried dozens of other systems as, while 3.0 didn't quite sit right with me it did show me ways of doing things that AD&D did very poorly -- skills, for examples. By branching out I both learned more about RPGs and had the chance to try new systems which offered different kinds of fun.

[Tyndmyr]

Why do you folks keep assuming "new medium" automatically translates to "abandon existing players?" Don't you think anybody who currently plays D&D uses social media? Or wants to play games online? Or has friends that do? :smallconfused:

A substantial portion of the player base does not utilize social media for games. If you move to this format, you kind of do abandon them.


Only those unwilling to change (which are not 100%, whatever you seem to believe) would be left behind. And these are a sunk cost because chances are they would be unwilling to change anyway (since they already have tabletop D&D to play.)

No response to my other points?

Not at all. Many people can be induced to play another tabletop game much easier than they can be convinced to change media entirely. Essentially every gamer I know has played multiple pen and paper systems. A great many of them have never even tried play by post.

You're drawing a false equivalence.


That was necessary with NWN and the other CRPG tie-ins, because those games were never intended to replace the core game. Hell, NWN was the first one - ever - that even had a semblance DM functionality. All the rest were just standalone video games with a bunch of TTRPG mechanics underneath. You couldn't change the story of Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale or Planescape, merely play it. And you certainly couldn't make your own.

But even NWN's DM tools had a steep barrier to entry. You had to learn about tilesets, and triggers, and conversation trees... ugh. This is the one problem that every single electronic D&D attempt has had in common, and the biggest failing of all of them. They are standalone products, gateway drugs. Worse, the games progressively focused so much on graphics that they became even more difficult to actually play or create in. (Looking at you, NWN2.)

That's a pretty necessary thing, though. Anytime you automate something, you have to specify how you automate it. So, the more it offers a prospective DM in terms of features, the more features the DM has to learn.


2) The notion that RPGs need a wooden table and chairs to be engaging is precisely the kind of archaic thought process currently holding the game back. No, what makes D&D fun are the people playing it - namely, that a group of friends are the ones both creating the world, and adventuring in it. I don't have to be in the same room as my DM and party members to do that (PbP proves this.) What I do need are better tools to craft my world (and dismantle it); What I don't need are uber-fancy graphics and animations, because the regular game does just fine without those (as have many, many fun CRPGs of yore.)

The medium does define the game to a large degree. Pbp games have a different flavor from tabletop, and tend to suffer from different problems. I engage in both, but one is not really a replacement for the other.


If you really boil D&D down, both 3.x and 4e, you can play them purely via Excel spreadsheets. You want to tell me Excel is too heavyweight to work online cooperatively?

Not really. Ever tried scripting in Excel? It's horribly limiting. Also, there's a lot of excellent reasons why Excel is installed to your computer instead of used over the internet. Google Docs uses a much lighter weight approach to spreadsheets for good reason.

Furthermore, you already have defined graphics, animations, and grid layouts as desired features. Those are all things that do terrible things to performance. Your main kicker is you want this all to be a webapp and facebook tied. That limits you greatly.

Online gaming CAN work. It just won't work well if forced into that box. A stand-alone application would be vastly better, and there's no reason at all it should replace books. Hell, I'd probably include a limited version of it with the core 5e books. Sell both things to the same players.


Sunk Cost Fallacy :smallsmile:

If WotC decided to blow up 4e, erase all of DDI and burn all their books in stores, I could still buy books in the aftermarket if I really wanted to run the game. Or, as has been known to happen, some evil pirate may produce a wholly illegal copy of the rules and store it in electronic form for my later purchase or acquisition. In the meantime, I'm paying roughly $20 a year when I want to play the game.

It's not hundreds of dollars gone for nothing; it's the end of a time when I spend $20 per year to play a game. If you unsubscribe from WoW, all the money you spent in subscriptions doesn't suddenly become worth nothing -- it is worth the experiences you had while you were playing the game.

You're misusing sunk cost fallacy. Sunk costs are not a fallacy. Using past sunk costs to justify future actions by themselves is. An example would be "We can't cancel this project, we've already put $3 million into it!" when the project is slated to lose additional money.

Paying money for a subscription instead of books is not in any way a fallacy. The fact that when the subscription ends/is no longer offered, you have no books is...just part of the decision making process. Saying "you can buy books then" makes the total lifetime cost of ownership pretty high.

When your choices are "play what we have because it costs us nothing new" and "pay $x to play this other system", there is no sunk cost fallacy involved.

And also, if they entirely kill 4e online support when 5e comes out, I'll be unhappy. I don't play 4e in the slightest, but it WOULD affect my confidence in them doing the same for 5e, and thus, would affect my willingness to buy 5e online stuff.


About the only counterargument I've seen from you boils down to "I personally dislike facebook, therefore social media is a terrible direction for the game." Tyndmyr at least approached the discussion from the technical limitations of their API, though he hasn't convinced me that something like this is unfeasible - merely challenging. But the growth potential of the wider audience accessible through social media makes such an effort worthwhile.

I personally use facebook. I've even played games on it a little. The thing is, you have yet to outline what exactly is gained by this move. Simply appending "social media" as a buzzword is not an explanation. We have outlined a number of notable costs to doing this, but you haven't pointed out what WoTC actually gains by doing so.

Oh, also, your earlier comparison of Steam to Facebook was...odd. You release games on Steam. You don't code games for Steam. So, if Steam goes down, you just sell the game elsewhere. Meh. If you code a game for facebook, and facebook goes down, you now have a game that needs to be mostly rewritten if you want to release it elsewhere. The difference is immense.


I don't even think it'd be that difficult. Just announce AD&D in a new eddition, as the more Pathfinder/3.5 esque one, and then a simplified version of 4E as Dungeons and Dragons.

I've actually suggested this before. I don't care which one gets which name, but separate them out into two different product lines. They're very different games, and you could easily justify selling both. I think WoTC is killing themselves with their fear of competing with themselves. Remember when people criticized Apple for doing exactly that with the ipod/iphone thing? They made out just fine.


The beauty of subcontracting is that you don't have to specialize in the thing you're hiring the other party to do. It's just like hiring programmers to join your company, except you don't have to worry about getting them the kind of facilities and software they'd need, fully integrating them into your office culture (not that the nerd cultures of programming and the nerd cultures of tabletop gaming are massively different anyway) and so on.

It also tends to be notably expensive. A single coder will probably cost a few hundred thousand per year if subcontracted. Book authors are not paid anywhere near that. But, in any case, we've rather conclusively disproved your claim that WoTC is good at/has experienced people at making gaming software.


Actually, I've got a serious programming question for you Tynd. How much of Facebook's actual programming (not the facebook games) is flash based? I won't pretend to know what flash can and can't actually do, so I ask the question.

Honestly don't know. Most of that stuff isn't public, but I would assume that they minimize the hell out of it, and use Ajax, etc for most stuff. Certainly, it doesn't feel like Flash is dominant in their coding. A good way to test is to grab a computer with flash disabled, and see what works. It's a safe bet that absolutely none of the back end code is done in flash, because that's just not the kind of thing you'd ever want to use flash for.

[Morithias]

Oh, but he's not doing that. He's incorporating every feature of 4e into 3.5. Do you realize how hard that is to do? Hell, I'd rather develop 4e from scratch than try to figure out how to incorporate such a different game structure into a system which includes hundreds of pages of rules. It's a nightmare :smalleek:

Seriously, if I had those chops I'd just make my own system and never spend a dollar on corporate stuff :smalltongue:

EVERY feature? Why might I ask would I include the things I oh I dunno.. Don't like? I hated that they got rid of CG and LE for instance, not to start an alignment flame war.

There's a fine line between making some small rule changes, and fusing two whole game systems.

"Mod" people, not "Reprogram". When I look for a change to my videogame that makes civilization run a fantasy realm, I am looking for a MOD. When I am looking to completely overwrite how the game is played from the ground up I am looking for a SEQUEL. After all if I liked EVERYTHING in 4th edition and therefore would include it all, I would play 4th edition. Hell that would technically make it a better game than 3rd edition since there is a TON of stuff in 3rd edition I don't like.

[holywhippet]

I'm sorry, but this was so humorously foolish that I had to comment. MP3s have pretty much destroyed the concept of buying music for most of the former buying public. Sales figures are in the toilet, are not expected to ever recover. Many record labels have collapsed, shrunk, or lost all relevance. Artists have been forced to abandon the concept of profiting from album sales, & now almost every musician is what used to be considered independent. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (or more) of all music consumers are pirates in some capacity, just like consumers of computer games.

Digital distribution has proven time & again to be the death knell of the industry involved, & that is unlikely to somehow be different in this case, as we've already seen from PDF book distribution. No credible, knowledgeable source could possibly defend this business strategy by citing the MP3 as a positive example, because that viewpoint is logically indefensible. Black =/ White.

MP3s revolutionized buying music like Jack the Ripper revolutionized prostitutes.

The music industry is very geared towards making money for the companies involved moreso than the artists. The way most musicians make decent money is through concerts - they get most of the profits from concerts tours themself rather compared to CD sales where their company takes a large chunk of it.

Many artists don't care about MP3s because they are cutting into money they were barely going to get much of anyway. Rather the spread of MP3s makes it more likely people will come to watch one of their concerts.

[stainboy]

I've actually suggested this before. I don't care which one gets which name, but separate them out into two different product lines. They're very different games, and you could easily justify selling both. I think WoTC is killing themselves with their fear of competing with themselves. Remember when people criticized Apple for doing exactly that with the ipod/iphone thing? They made out just fine.


Have you seen anything to indicate WotC is still afraid of self-competition? There was a lot of talk about it at 3e launch but Eberron came out I think 6 years ago and nothing bad happened. Monte's last L&L column was all about optional rules modules and optional complexity, basically rehashing the same things Mearls said three months ago. They're pushing this point pretty hard. It seems to me like they don't hold the same views Ryan Dancey did.

[Acanous]

WoTC has lost a LOT of confidance.
Most of their strategy is, in fact, to seek out new blood and leave us grognards trolling in the murk. It applies a faucet to their leaky bucket.

The problem is, that is ceasing to be a viable business plan as their brand name has picked up a reputation for abandoning supported product lines.

Remember what happened to SEGA?
It took them what, 3 iterations of abandoned support before they were no longer competatively marketable. WoTC has now pulled 2.

If WoTC abandons 4E for 5E, they'll see a marked drop in new blood willing to fill the void left by their disgruntled playerbase.

Consider that we do not live in a vacuum. While there IS a good portion of people who have never heard of "Wizards of the Coast", a substantial portion of that subset have little or no desire to spend money engaging in this style of play.

Let's seperate this into 4 groups for ease of example:

Group 1 already knows about WoTC, has bought a few products, played at least one edition of DnD.
Group 2 has never heard of DnD, but would find such play appealing if they were marketed to.
Group 3 has never heard of DnD, and would require convincing to try the product.
Group 4 has never heard of DnD, and would never try the product unless it was vastly changed and then marketed to them.

WoTC's business model right now is to completely disregard group 1, marketing to group 2, and hoping to snag some group 3 people in the process.

Now, this DOES work for a time, because social saturation of the brand name is not high the first time it happens.
The second time it happens, there are now more people in group 1, the same number as last time in group 2, and group 3, who are likely to do some research before buying, are less likely to pick it up.

The current situation, there are now substantially more people in group 1, who, due mostly to simple numbers, have achieved some social saturation with groups 2 and 3. WoTC's profits are down. They mostly blame the recession.

If they pull this again with 5E, Group 1, who has already lost faith in WoTC, is unlikely to even consider buying. Group 2, who is the prime target for marketing, is being cautioned against buying the brand. Group 3 is offered lower cost alternatives.

Strategy wise, WoTC needs to either reclaim group 1 or go after group 4.

[RebelRogue]

The music industry is very geared towards making money for the companies involved moreso than the artists. The way most musicians make decent money is through concerts - they get most of the profits from concerts tours themself rather compared to CD sales where their company takes a large chunk of it.
A common myth. A lot of bands/acts do in fact pay to tour. In anything, merchandise is the place where the most money is made nowadays for artists.

[Karoht]

A substantial portion of the player base does not utilize social media for games. If you move to this format, you kind of do abandon them.Is there a specific reason you continue to assert that it would be one format or the other, and not both?
The fun thing about media is, it typically ends up on multiple medium over time.

[MukkTB]

Iteratively abandoning product lines is awful. It ruins peoples desire to follow your product lines. However an engine update is not abandonment. Civ 5 is a continuation of the product line that contains Civ 2. They didn't abandon the line when they made Civ 5. If they make Civ 6 a real time game with twitch based elements and/or with indirect control of the units and cities then people could legitimately claim that the Civ product line was abandoned.

I personally feel that 3.x did not abandon 2e. For the most part it carried the spirit of 2e and play was similar. Some people feel that it did abandon 2e as a product line. But my reasoning goes that as a 3.x player I could easily use adapt a 2e setting for play. Maybe I'm wrong. However I did feel that 4e abandoned the product line. 4e disconnected in game actions from their world. Its a miniature board battle game. How does a mark actually work apart from the game engine? Does it float over an enemies head or something? Some people don't feel that 4e abandoned the product line and I cant prove them wrong. Its all about feel and personal perspective. Which are individual.

If 5e is different enough from 4e and 4e material is dropped in the abyss it will contribute to the perception that Wizards abandon their product lines. It will weaken 5e even if 5e turns out to be a superior system. Overall I really don't like the idea of multiplying editions. Who is looking forward to 6e? 7e anyone? How will you feel when 11e comes out? Given my 4e experience I'm not looking forward to it at all.

[Acanous]

This, in a nutshell.

The big problem is that Wizards' product isn't a video game system. Those can be changed up every couple years as hardware advances. We expect this because we want to see better games run on the systems.

DnD is a system which contains no graphics, no audio, and which only consists of three elements; Fluff, which is easilly mutable, Crunch, which is much more difficult to "Patch", and the interface we use to retrieve and store this information. (Usually books, but 4e gives us the interweb, too)

From a "Gamer" perspective, 3.5 was the system, any campaigns played were the discs. The games did not and still do not use more resources than the system can handle, so swapping to 4th, especially when 4th was simplified and streamlined, is kind of like hearing that the next God of War is only seeing release on handhelds.

Then, a little while later, we find out that it's going direct to PC with 5E, and not to handheld or console market, and the franchise takes a serious hit.

[stainboy]

Is there a specific reason you continue to assert that it would be one format or the other, and not both?
The fun thing about media is, it typically ends up on multiple medium over time.

That was Psyren's thing. You're arguing with the wrong person.

[Tyndmyr]

Have you seen anything to indicate WotC is still afraid of self-competition? There was a lot of talk about it at 3e launch but Eberron came out I think 6 years ago and nothing bad happened. Monte's last L&L column was all about optional rules modules and optional complexity, basically rehashing the same things Mearls said three months ago. They're pushing this point pretty hard. It seems to me like they don't hold the same views Ryan Dancey did.

I hope not...and I feel like the 4e launch was a lot less spectacular than they anticipated. It was the worst of all things...a product that's mildly successful. Had it been a complete bomb, they could have taken the new coke option. "Sorry guys, let's go back to how it used to be, k?" Everyone's still with them. Or, a spectacular success where everyone's adapting to 4e. The roughly 50/50 split(stats point toward roughly this, given pathfinder sales, but accurate numbers are hard to come by) is the worst scenario. Can't keep splitting your customer base in half every few years.


Is there a specific reason you continue to assert that it would be one format or the other, and not both?
The fun thing about media is, it typically ends up on multiple medium over time.

It was the scenario posited by Psyren. I do not feel such a scenario is likely or desirable for a number of reasons.

[Psyren]

A substantial portion of the player base does not utilize social media for games. If you move to this format, you kind of do abandon them.

And yet, you could make that argument about any of the significant direction changes in the franchise.

"A substantial portion of the player base...
...Won't use DDI."
...Doesn't play with minis."
...Won't buy more than three core books."

4e had a number of converts from 3.x, in addition to bringing in new blood. But by targeting the same audience - i.e. {tabletop roleplaying gamers} - they failed to bring over a large chunk and broke the base. I just don't see how doing that again won't cause another break.


Not at all. Many people can be induced to play another tabletop game much easier than they can be convinced to change media entirely. Essentially every gamer I know has played multiple pen and paper systems. A great many of them have never even tried play by post.

You're drawing a false equivalence.

If we were going from 3.5->4e again I would absolutely agree with you. But I honestly can't think of anything they could do in 5e that would induce more than half of 3.P or 4e players to switch.


That's a pretty necessary thing, though. Anytime you automate something, you have to specify how you automate it. So, the more it offers a prospective DM in terms of features, the more features the DM has to learn.

Automation - especially to the degree NWN tried it - is not what I'm trying to champion here though. There are other ways to provide convenience to a DM that don't require AI and scripting knowledge.

For instance, let the DM continue to pilot and act through the NPCs manually, especially in conversation/roleplay segments. Let him, rather than the engine, decide what happens when the players rest for the night. Let him adjudicate nonstandard skill usages or complex maneuvers. (Player says "I try X", DM comes up with a DC or series of DCs and lets him have at it.

So what can you help him with? Drop-down menus to select and place monsters, like having your minis obsessively organized IRL. 2D instead of 3D environments and creatures, just like IRL. Monster, power and item stats at a glance, instead of having to flip through pages of material or wait for an SRD to load, just like IRL. Constant access to each player's sheet instead of having to manually request each one, just like IRL.

Do you see a pattern? I'm not trying to change the way the game is fundamentally played, merely give the DM an assistant. An invisible, intangible assistant that knows what page number to find everything on.


Not really. Ever tried scripting in Excel? It's horribly limiting. Also, there's a lot of excellent reasons why Excel is installed to your computer instead of used over the internet. Google Docs uses a much lighter weight approach to spreadsheets for good reason.

Furthermore, you already have defined graphics, animations, and grid layouts as desired features. Those are all things that do terrible things to performance. Your main kicker is you want this all to be a webapp and facebook tied. That limits you greatly.

Online gaming CAN work. It just won't work well if forced into that box. A stand-alone application would be vastly better, and there's no reason at all it should replace books. Hell, I'd probably include a limited version of it with the core 5e books. Sell both things to the same players.

1) Yes, I've made VB scripts in Excel quite a bit. (Macros, mostly.) But you don't need scripts to run a D&D game in Excel, just some simple formulas (which Google Spreadsheets can do.) Simple stuff like "IF {target's DR} > 0, {incoming damage - target's DR}, {incoming damage.}," etc.

2) The kind of layouts/graphics I'm envisioning were possible decades ago - again I point to old, old games like the Exile series from Spiderweb. You really wouldn't need a ton more functionality than that. I'm definitely not advocating levels of graphical fidelity they've already achieved on the platform, such as those from HoN.

3) I could see a hybrid approach working as well. Though then you aren't getting away from the problem of moving physical product and getting away from comparisons with older editions. That's the primary reason I'm not advocating this approach, but neither am I directly opposed to it.


I personally use facebook. I've even played games on it a little. The thing is, you have yet to outline what exactly is gained by this move. Simply appending "social media" as a buzzword is not an explanation. We have outlined a number of notable costs to doing this, but you haven't pointed out what WoTC actually gains by doing so.

I have, actually, numerous times. Here, I'll do it again:
1) A much wider potential audience, which furthermore are not entrenched in this or that previous edition.
2) Much fewer logistical/inventory concerns - no physical books or minis to ship, and no need to estimate product demand to match, if everything is digital.
3) None of the penetration, standardization or piracy concerns that would accompany a standalone client.
4) Fills a need for deeper games on the platform. Since so much of the content in D&D comes from the users themselves, the games are guaranteed to



Oh, also, your earlier comparison of Steam to Facebook was...odd. You release games on Steam. You don't code games for Steam. So, if Steam goes down, you just sell the game elsewhere. Meh. If you code a game for facebook, and facebook goes down, you now have a game that needs to be mostly rewritten if you want to release it elsewhere. The difference is immense.

By the time Facebook "goes down" (barring one-off service outages) they'll be ready to upgrade again anyway.


It also tends to be notably expensive. A single coder will probably cost a few hundred thousand per year if subcontracted. Book authors are not paid anywhere near that. But, in any case, we've rather conclusively disproved your claim that WoTC is good at/has experienced people at making gaming software.

1) I highly doubt they paid $100,000 for Tiny Adventures and Heroes of Neverwinter.
2) Whether they did or not, I've conclusively proved that they have the resources to publish facebook games, whether in-house or subcontracted. It falls to you to prove that they don't.
3) The knowledge/experience they accumulated in translating the game rules into facebook format for those two products can easily be re-leveraged into a deeper product. It's not like they'll need to figure out all over again how to calculate when a monster is bloodied or when a daily power has been expended. They've come up with the code for that stuff already.


I hope not...and I feel like the 4e launch was a lot less spectacular than they anticipated. It was the worst of all things...a product that's mildly successful. Had it been a complete bomb, they could have taken the new coke option. "Sorry guys, let's go back to how it used to be, k?" Everyone's still with them. Or, a spectacular success where everyone's adapting to 4e. The roughly 50/50 split(stats point toward roughly this, given pathfinder sales, but accurate numbers are hard to come by) is the worst scenario. Can't keep splitting your customer base in half every few years.

What I truly don't understand is how you and I can agree so much on this point (that 3.5 -> 4e had the worst possible result for them) but not on what to do. How can you possibly tell me that releasing another tabletop edition wouldn't do the exact same thing?

[turkishproverb]

What I truly don't understand is how you and I can agree so much on this point (that 3.5 -> 4e had the worst possible result for them) but not on what to do. How can you possibly tell me that releasing another tabletop edition wouldn't do the exact same thing?

Because, quite frankly, normally the divide isn't so glaringly obvious, or so objectively harmful.. you're going to lose SOME to any new edition, Either paper or online. That's expected, and assumed offset by new buyers. But 4e downright SPLIT THE MARKET. Different ballgame. And it hurt them bad. Yet, your argument, is that they should actively split it again, knowingly this time? How does that make sense?

And either way, D&D won't stay out of print as a Pen and paper style RPG for long reguardless. They don't want to risk losing the Trademark in that area.

[Psyren]

Because, quite frankly, normally the divide isn't so glaringly obvious, or so objectively harmful.. you're going to lose SOME to any new edition, Either paper or online. That's expected, and assumed offset by new buyers. But 4e downright SPLIT THE MARKET. Different ballgame. And it hurt them bad. Yet, your argument, is that they should actively split it again, knowingly this time? How does that make sense?

I've been over this before; their chances of peeling away either the 4e adherents or the 3.P adherents to 5e are practically nil. I just don't see it happening.

The only way they could do it is by making it substantially similar to either edition. (4e if they're smart; they can't beat paizo at 3.5 now, especially not when everything paizo has made is OGL.) And even if they go this route, their best-case scenario, absent a new mode of distribution like the one I'm proposing, is that they get all the 4e people to cross over. Even assuming they somehow accomplish such a lofty miracle, it won't affect the 3.P players in the slightest - if they had wanted 4e they'd be playing it.


And either way, D&D won't stay out of print as a Pen and paper style RPG for long reguardless. They don't want to risk losing the Trademark in that area.

As far as I know, merely releasing new product with the brand is enough to keep their IP "fresh." I didn't think the specific medium mattered, though I could be wrong. But releasing product for its own sake, especially product that needs to be physically stored and shipped, has strong potential to do more harm than good.

[turkishproverb]

I've been over this before; their chances of peeling away either the 4e adherents or the 3.P adherents to 5e are practically nil. I just don't see it happening.

The only way they could do it is by making it substantially similar to either edition. (4e if they're smart; they can't beat paizo at 3.5 now, especially not when everything paizo has made is OGL.) And even if they go this route, their best-case scenario, absent a new mode of distribution like the one I'm proposing, is that they get all the 4e people to cross over. Even assuming they somehow accomplish such a lofty miracle, it won't affect the 3.P players in the slightest - if they had wanted 4e they'd be playing it.

The chances are high, as long as it's a logical progression. There's a reason most editions of games don't cause base breaking. They're usually the same game as before, just rejiggled slightly.

What you are proposing can ONLY make things worse, break the base further. Heck, at this point simply revising and perfecting 4e's style for 5e would make more sense than your "Facebook app" plan. And there are a number of ways they could recapture the 3.X audience with a new edition. Even capturing both with a double pronged approach a la AD&D/D&D.



As far as I know, merely releasing new product with the brand is enough to keep their IP "fresh." I didn't think the specific medium mattered, though I could be wrong. But releasing product for its own sake, especially product that needs to be physically stored and shipped, has strong potential to do more harm than good.


You've got it wrong.

You see, trademarks have to be USED to be kept, and they have to be used in different areas to count for different areas. For example, one of the reasons for the old Dungeons and Dragons comics was to capture the trademark in the area before someone else did. That's also the reason you have DC Skateboards and DC comics. Two different areas with different trademarks.

So, if They fail to publish Pen and paper RPG's under Dungeons and Dragons, someone else could pick up the name.

Just look at Captain Marvel.

[Karoht]

Just look at Captain Marvel.Shazam (DC) or Captain Marvel (Marvel)

@Psyren
Apparently the medium matters, but it depends on which parts of the existing audience we are talking about, or if we are talking about the new audience that a new medium would likely market to. In a general sense, the old audience really cares about which specific medium it uses (books), a new audience is willing to branch out to whatever medium fits their needs best (social/electronic media, smartphone apps, facebook app, PDF's/ebooks on a laptop), though the medium with the smoothest usage tends to win out.

IE-Physical encyclopedias VS wikipedia.

[Tyndmyr]

And yet, you could make that argument about any of the significant direction changes in the franchise.

"A substantial portion of the player base...
...Won't use DDI."
...Doesn't play with minis."
...Won't buy more than three core books."

4e had a number of converts from 3.x, in addition to bringing in new blood. But by targeting the same audience - i.e. {tabletop roleplaying gamers} - they failed to bring over a large chunk and broke the base. I just don't see how doing that again won't cause another break.

If we were going from 3.5->4e again I would absolutely agree with you. But I honestly can't think of anything they could do in 5e that would induce more than half of 3.P or 4e players to switch.

No such drastic change is needed. 3.0->3.5 had no discernible audience fracture, for example.

So, clearly not every change has the same results. You're MUCH better off minimizing the audience displeasure than you are switching markets every time you release a new system.


Automation - especially to the degree NWN tried it - is not what I'm trying to champion here though. There are other ways to provide convenience to a DM that don't require AI and scripting knowledge.

For instance, let the DM continue to pilot and act through the NPCs manually, especially in conversation/roleplay segments. Let him, rather than the engine, decide what happens when the players rest for the night. Let him adjudicate nonstandard skill usages or complex maneuvers. (Player says "I try X", DM comes up with a DC or series of DCs and lets him have at it.

You can do all that now. It's called chat. You don't need a game for that, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone would pay for that.

What exactly do you want this hypothetical game to do? What will make people pay for it? If you can't solve that one, WoTC is not going to bother.


So what can you help him with? Drop-down menus to select and place monsters, like having your minis obsessively organized IRL. 2D instead of 3D environments and creatures, just like IRL. Monster, power and item stats at a glance, instead of having to flip through pages of material or wait for an SRD to load, just like IRL. Constant access to each player's sheet instead of having to manually request each one, just like IRL.

So, basically gametable. I don't see people valuing this at the same level they value books or DDI. In short, you can't replace the current model with this.


I have, actually, numerous times. Here, I'll do it again:
1) A much wider potential audience, which furthermore are not entrenched in this or that previous edition.

The potential audience for books is "people who can read". You are comparin a potential audience to an actual audience, which is something you can't reasonably do.


2) Much fewer logistical/inventory concerns - no physical books or minis to ship, and no need to estimate product demand to match, if everything is digital.

Replaced by bandwidth and server architecture concerns.


3) None of the penetration, standardization or piracy concerns that would accompany a standalone client.

What? Seriously? Standardization concerns are huge. You're coding in flash, and apple decides it hates flash, and now a bunch of devices can't use your code. This is, by the way, not a hypothetical example.

And you can pirate anything if sufficiently motivated. Assume that someone, somewhere will be. The only 100% certain way not to be pirated is to produce something nobody wants.


4) Fills a need for deeper games on the platform. Since so much of the content in D&D comes from the users themselves, the games are guaranteed to

That's not really a plus for WoTC at all.


By the time Facebook "goes down" (barring one-off service outages) they'll be ready to upgrade again anyway.

There is no guarantee that these business cycles will coincide. This remains a risk.


1) I highly doubt they paid $100,000 for Tiny Adventures and Heroes of Neverwinter.

It was absolutely not created for under $100k. That claim is laughable (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213556/heres-how-much-it-cost-to-make-a-video-game-in-2009/). Making games is not at all cheap. This game had multiple subcontracted developers and notable custom graphics assets. This was not a particularly cheap game.


2) Whether they did or not, I've conclusively proved that they have the resources to publish facebook games, whether in-house or subcontracted. It falls to you to prove that they don't.

Why? I never claimed it would be impossible for them to pay someone to develop a facebook game. You're attempting to claim that their in-house expertise in this area gives them an edge. I've shown that they have none, and shown that all your examples are not, in fact, made by them.

So, they have absolutely no edge in this area.


3) The knowledge/experience they accumulated in translating the game rules into facebook format for those two products can easily be re-leveraged into a deeper product. It's not like they'll need to figure out all over again how to calculate when a monster is bloodied or when a daily power has been expended. They've come up with the code for that stuff already.

That knowledge resides with two different subcontracted teams. Those coders are almost certainly working on entirely different projects now. So yes, they sort of will.


What I truly don't understand is how you and I can agree so much on this point (that 3.5 -> 4e had the worst possible result for them) but not on what to do. How can you possibly tell me that releasing another tabletop edition wouldn't do the exact same thing?

Because not all tabletop releases do the exact same thing...

[turkishproverb]

Shazam (DC) or Captain Marvel (Marvel)

My point exactly.

[Karoht]

No such drastic change is needed. 3.0->3.5 had no discernible audience fracture, for example.Totally just my experience, but if I hadn't found a playgroup for 3.5 that had already gone to the expense of getting the books, I wouldn't have bothered spending the money myself. And no one in my area wanted to touch 3.0 with a 10 foot pole. In my area, there was a pretty sharp divide, and I've heard similar tales from others. I've never actually met anyone who still plays 3.0, but I hear they exist.



So, clearly not every change has the same results. You're MUCH better off minimizing the audience displeasure than you are switching markets every time you release a new system.Hence my arguement that one should be gaining new markets (through new content and new media if need be) if they release a new system, but I think that's a side arguement right now.


What exactly do you want this hypothetical game to do? What will make people pay for it? If you can't solve that one, WoTC is not going to bother.




So, basically gametable. I don't see people valuing this at the same level they value books or DDI. In short, you can't replace the current model with this. Hence why one wouldn't price it the same way as the books. Or potentially price it at all. I'll explain.
Say for a second WoTC was going to release 5e. They pump out the core books at $50 a pop. They sell the ebook versions at $5 a pop. Splatbooks and other suppliments are $20, ebook versions at $3.
If one has paid for either or, they get access to the facebook app for free. Every feature.
If one has not paid for either or, then the question comes up of how to price that. Same as the ebook? Half that? Free but only with certain features available and not all? Core only available, no splatbooks or other such suppliments?
There are a variety of 'freemium' models that would work well, which I'm sure we could imagine until the cows come home. Some of which would support the sales of the ebook or the hardcopy. Get the license from the book and get a bunch of bonus tools on (insert social media/smart phone apps here) as essentially bonus/optional content?




The potential audience for books is "people who can read". You are comparing a potential audience to an actual audience, which is something you can't reasonably do.The potential audience for game books is "people who can/will play the game."



Replaced by bandwidth and server architecture concerns. If it's on Facebook as example, that is Facebook's problem. I'm sure they'll collect some fees for licensing and serverside management, but on the other hand, their traffic/membership going up tends to benefit them anyway.



What? Seriously? Standardization concerns are huge. You're coding in flash, and apple decides it hates flash, and now a bunch of devices can't use your code. This is, by the way, not a hypothetical example. yeah WTH apple?



And you can pirate anything if sufficiently motivated. Assume that someone, somewhere will be. The only 100% certain way not to be pirated is to produce something nobody wants.Indeed, but you can be X% less likely to be pirated if you make a product that people want and price it accordingly, and make it widely available accordingly. If it's convenient to access as well as cheap (or even with some free content) the desire to pirate is lessened.



There is no guarantee that these business cycles will coincide. This remains a risk. The lifetime expectancy of Facebook is not the lifetime expectancy of all social media, though I acknowledge that Facebook's API is unique in some/most respects and therefore not necessarily portable to another platform. On the other hand, any tech savy individual making apps for Facebook right now should (note that I'm not saying they do) be coding their applications with the consideration in mind, especially now with Google+ on the scene. Maybe not the whole program but as much as reasonably possible.



It was absolutely not created for under $100k. That claim is laughable (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213556/heres-how-much-it-cost-to-make-a-video-game-in-2009/). Making games is not at all cheap. This game had multiple subcontracted developers and notable custom graphics assets. This was not a particularly cheap game.Art assets alone probably cost more than 100K. Artists, especially game artists, aren't cheap at all. A friend of mine is going to be working for CCP (I think? The company that does EvE online and will be doing World of Darkness) and she's just doing concept art, never mind game art. She's going to get paid some crazy sum of money. She currently makes $50k a year working in advertising, she talked about this new salary (but didn't state a figure) like she'd won the lottery. And she's just one artist.



Because not all tabletop releases do the exact same thing...We aren't really talking about "all tabletop releases" we are talking (largely) about some very specific examples (mostly 3.0->3.5->3.P and 4.e, but some smatterings of 2nd have cropped up), and so far as I can tell, all of which have quite a bit in common. Unless I've missed someone mentioning another game company in there.

[Tyndmyr]

Totally just my experience, but if I hadn't found a playgroup for 3.5 that had already gone to the expense of getting the books, I wouldn't have bothered spending the money myself. And no one in my area wanted to touch 3.0 with a 10 foot pole. In my area, there was a pretty sharp divide, and I've heard similar tales from others. I've never actually met anyone who still plays 3.0, but I hear they exist.

I had 3.0 books for a while. I didn't bother updating to 3.5 books for a substantial length of time(buying a completely new book always seemed like more fun), but I still played with people that had 3.5 books. Sure, it was a new version, but it didn't cause the playerbase to actually split.

I have seen...a grand total of one 3.0 only thread/game on this forum. I don't deny that they exist, but the number is sufficiently trivial as to be irrelevant, and not at all comparable to 3.5 -> 4e.


Hence why one wouldn't price it the same way as the books. Or potentially price it at all. I'll explain.
Say for a second WoTC was going to release 5e. They pump out the core books at $50 a pop. They sell the ebook versions at $5 a pop. Splatbooks and other suppliments are $20, ebook versions at $3.
If one has paid for either or, they get access to the facebook app for free. Every feature.
If one has not paid for either or, then the question comes up of how to price that. Same as the ebook? Half that? Free but only with certain features available and not all? Core only available, no splatbooks or other such suppliments?
There are a variety of 'freemium' models that would work well, which I'm sure we could imagine until the cows come home. Some of which would support the sales of the ebook or the hardcopy. Get the license from the book and get a bunch of bonus tools on (insert social media/smart phone apps here) as essentially bonus/optional content?

Look, I'm all for WoTC providing us with lots of freebies, but I think this is unlikely. What motivation do they have to integrate with facebook for such a thing when a stand alone system is much less technologically restricted, and they can easily charge for it? DDI seems to have worked out at least decently well for them, expanding that model seems far more likely than introducing an entirely new one.


If it's on Facebook as example, that is Facebook's problem. I'm sure they'll collect some fees for licensing and serverside management, but on the other hand, their traffic/membership going up tends to benefit them anyway.

Nothing about publishing a game on facebook is facebooks problem. That's not how the system works. If the change the API, and your code stops working...they are not gonna fix it for you. If facebook becomes irrelevant...that is also your problem, as now you need to entirely recode for whatever has replaced it.


Indeed, but you can be X% less likely to be pirated if you make a product that people want and price it accordingly, and make it widely available accordingly. If it's convenient to access as well as cheap (or even with some free content) the desire to pirate is lessened.

Honestly, it really tends not to matter. See, once one person takes the time/effort to pirate it...it's out there.

Widely available is a plus, though, I agree. Region locking and stuff tends to encourage people without any access at all to crack it. That said, some point will pirate things simply because they can.


The lifetime expectancy of Facebook is not the lifetime expectancy of all social media, though I acknowledge that Facebook's API is unique in some/most respects and therefore not necessarily portable to another platform. On the other hand, any tech savy individual making apps for Facebook right now should (note that I'm not saying they do) be coding their applications with the consideration in mind, especially now with Google+ on the scene. Maybe not the whole program but as much as reasonably possible.

Certainly. But they don't all support the same things. For instance, Google has, by default, a separate channel for all the game-related spam. From a usability standpoint, this is awesome for users...but it means that a lot of what is relied upon by facebook games for propagating the game to new players no longer matters. So, even with the best of design foresight, switching is costly. And it'll be very unlikely that players on one network can play with those on another.


Art assets alone probably cost more than 100K. Artists, especially game artists, aren't cheap at all. A friend of mine is going to be working for CCP (I think? The company that does EvE online and will be doing World of Darkness) and she's just doing concept art, never mind game art. She's going to get paid some crazy sum of money. She currently makes $50k a year working in advertising, she talked about this new salary (but didn't state a figure) like she'd won the lottery. And she's just one artist.

Exactly. Plus, there's all the overhead for the company above the salary. Honestly, hiring me as a subcontractor for six months would probably crush that budget. A full dev team? Not at all cheap.

Also, yeah, that's CCP. Good company.


We aren't really talking about "all tabletop releases" we are talking (largely) about some very specific examples (mostly 3.0->3.5->3.P and 4.e, but some smatterings of 2nd have cropped up), and so far as I can tell, all of which have quite a bit in common. Unless I've missed someone mentioning another game company in there.

Psyren is assuming that a new release means an inevitable player base split. Showing that certain version upgrades do not split the player base negates the foundation of his argument. Avoiding/minimizing the split is a far wiser strategy than assuming it'll happen anyway and going for an entirely new market while abandoning the old.

[Psyren]

It was absolutely not created for under $100k. That claim is laughable (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213556/heres-how-much-it-cost-to-make-a-video-game-in-2009/). Making games is not at all cheap. This game had multiple subcontracted developers and notable custom graphics assets. This was not a particularly cheap game.

Really? You're comparing Uncharted, a triple-A console release, to a Facebook game? Really?

Or any console game, for that matter?

Karoht is saying most of what I would have said so I'll be back later.

[Tyndmyr]

Really? You're comparing Uncharted, a triple-A console release, to a Facebook game? Really?

Or any console game, for that matter?

Karoht is saying most of what I would have said so I'll be back later.

Continue to read. It discusses game development for social media as well. They are cheaper than Triple A console titles, of course, but they are still not at all cheap.

[Psyren]

Continue to read. It discusses game development for social media as well. They are cheaper than Triple A console titles, of course, but they are still not at all cheap.

1. $30-300 is a pretty wide range.
2. They have existing rules code for both TA and HoN they can leverage.
3. However much HoN cost them, clearly they considered it worthwhile.

[Tyndmyr]

1. $30-300 is a pretty wide range.
2. They have existing rules code for both TA and HoN they can leverage.
3. However much HoN cost them, clearly they considered it worthwhile.

$30k-$300k. On average. Note that HoN actually has some production values. Note that you also entirely ignored all the caveats I posted that skew the average lower.


Existing rules code? Throw this out. It is of no importance for what you are talking about, which is a multiplayer app. HoN doesn't even HAVE multiplayer.

Tiny Adventures was a promotional thing. That is it. It is not a game as such. It also no longer exists.

Even if they CAN somehow reuse some code(unlikely, given their penchant for contracting development out to different companies), this is fairly unlikely to impact development time/cost positively in any way. In the unlikely even it does, it certainly won't be significant. Code does not work like that. Having to use legacy code developed for an entirely different game is a minus, not a plus.

HoN is also not very popular. DARPU tends to run around 10 to 12 cents on the very, very high end of games. An average is more like 2 to 3. Note that this is revenue, not profit. Therefore, even if HoN is on the high end of profitability for facebook games and did cost a mere $100k to create, it's break even point is roughly "the end of time".

Normal casual game revenue is somewhere sub 1 cent a day. After you get done subtracting out server expenses, payment expenses, etc...good luck making much of anything.

This is not a model that can possibly replace the existing system. It would bankrupt WoTC if they tried.

[GungHo]

Every edition change (save perhaps "1e" -> 2e) has divided many more players than "one or two grognards." But even if we agree to disagree on that point, you can't deny that 3.x -> 4e was a base fracture. And we're staring into another one; WotC's chances of winning back the Pathfinder converts are minimal at best, and even if they do, they'll only succeed in alienating the 4e fans that didn't want what Pathfinder had to offer. Pleasing both sets of fans with the same game is an impossibility.
Not real sure what they could do at this point to not anger the customers except to "chill out" and cool the presses for a couple of years to rethink, retool, and reposition themselves in the market with new talent and new ideas. And, Hasbro won't let them do that, because Hasbro has every right to say "we want a return on our investment THIS QUARTER."


Um, how did they convince Hasbro of this in the last 10 years? If Hasbro execs ever read their books or websites like this and saw how little a publishing company proof-read their work, I don't think WoTC would have jobs.
I am not sure Hasbro cares about the quality of the work as much as how much money they see on the balance sheet. They're not in the proof-reading business. They're in the entertainment-selling business. WotC is one of their subsidiaries for selling entertainment. They get involved when the money isn't flowing. Which is arguably the way it should be.


People were playing D&D through MUDs at the dawn of the internet. But those tended to be the same people that knew of and played it offline. Now we have the chance to open it up to a brand new audience, and add a smattering of art to make it more visually appealing while running it on some of the most robust servers on the planet. This is a step forward.
But, we were programming those MUDs on our own time for free. We found some Unix admin who could hide the additional cost (or who had so much scale that no one would notice a piddly MU* client). It was a loss-based business model that was so basic that I even balk at myself for calling it a business model... it was really just a hobby. Turning that idea around getting people to pay you for it requires more than just a basic knowledge of VMS Pascal or C. It's got to have actual quality and actual customers if actual money is going to be changing hands and it's going to have to actually be competitive with any number of other games.

However, I also don't see why anyone would think that it'd hurt/affect tabletop beyond maybe it becoming the last high-profile failure that leads to a divestment of the company and associated intellectual property.


Oh, but he's not doing that. He's incorporating every feature of 4e into 3.5.
Why would you do that? That'd be like putting airbags and fat, modern fiberglass bumpers on a '68 Mustang. You end up with some monsterous Frankencar... a thing that should not be that appeals to someone that does not exist.

[Morithias]

Why would you do that? That'd be like putting airbags and fat, modern fiberglass bumpers on a '68 Mustang. You end up with some monsterous Frankencar... a thing that should not be that appeals to someone that does not exist.

Answer: I'm not. I just put the stuff I like into it. Plus it has to be easy stuff to put in. Stuff that wasn't already done better in pathfinder or 3.5. Plus it has to be stuff my players actually want.

[GungHo]

That works.

[Psyren]

Existing rules code? Throw this out.

Why?


Tiny Adventures was a promotional thing. That is it. It is not a game as such. It also no longer exists.

Unless you're secretly at WotC board meetings, you have no inside information to the reasons behind this decision.

One thing we do know for sure: pulling TA can't have been because they thought "Facebook just isn't working out for us" given the decision to release HoN shortly after.


Even if they CAN somehow reuse some code(unlikely, given their penchant for contracting development out to different companies), this is fairly unlikely to impact development time/cost positively in any way. In the unlikely even it does, it certainly won't be significant. Code does not work like that.

I'm sorry, but your e-declarations that this or that can't be used or reused simply aren't compelling evidence for me. I'm sure you're a decent programmer and all but I doubt you're Larry Paige, Linus Torvaldz etc.

(And even if you were, I would still only believe the actual team tasked with doing something like this.)


HoN is also not very popular. DARPU tends to run around 10 to 12 cents on the very, very high end of games. An average is more like 2 to 3. Note that this is revenue, not profit. Therefore, even if HoN is on the high end of profitability for facebook games and did cost a mere $100k to create, it's break even point is roughly "the end of time".

Normal casual game revenue is somewhere sub 1 cent a day. After you get done subtracting out server expenses, payment expenses, etc...good luck making much of anything.

This is not a model that can possibly replace the existing system. It would bankrupt WoTC if they tried.

You're thinking too small. HoN and Facebook are not an end - they're a beginning. They plan to expand to other platforms (http://dungeonsmaster.com/2011/10/interview-with-heroes-of-neverwinter-developer-ed-del-castillo/) - thing is, that move is dependent on their success via social media.

And I reiterate that I'm not against a hybrid approach (tables and online) I just think the online side has greater growth potential right now.

As far as the revenue and cost data all you or any of us can really do is guess unless you found a press release somewhere.

[MukkTB]

I wonder how well you could play a D&D game using only Teamspeak 3 and a group google document. You'd probably want to use an excel spreadsheet. I think I need to try to do this now.

[Karoht]

I wonder how well you could play a D&D game using only Teamspeak 3 and a group google document. You'd probably want to use an excel spreadsheet. I think I need to try to do this now.I have a friend who does a teamfortress RP using D20.
They use ventrillo/teamspeak to communicate all the behind the scenes stuff, mIRC is where the actual in-game actions occur, they have a dice roller that links to mIRC, and they have the pdf's open (legally obtained or no, I am unaware)

[Tyndmyr]

Why?

Answered later in the thread. A. They don't have most of it, most likely, since they subcontract everything out.

B. Munging in code designed for an entirely different game, by entirely different people, is unlikely to speed up development at all. Usually the reverse happens.


Unless you're secretly at WotC board meetings, you have no inside information to the reasons behind this decision.

I was going off the announced reasons. It was described by them as a promotion. You and I do not, of course, know any secret reasons they may have, but taking the announced reason at face value is not unreasonable.


One thing we do know for sure: pulling TA can't have been because they thought "Facebook just isn't working out for us" given the decision to release HoN shortly after.

Just because something is a successful promotion for their old business model does not mean it can REPLACE that business model.


I'm sorry, but your e-declarations that this or that can't be used or reused simply aren't compelling evidence for me. I'm sure you're a decent programmer and all but I doubt you're Larry Paige, Linus Torvaldz etc.

Never claimed to be. Most coders are not. However, you'll note that those coders aren't working in flash. The idea that certain languages and certain technologies are superior for certain things is not a very controversial one, though. You don't need to be on the absolute top end to understand that.


(And even if you were, I would still only believe the actual team tasked with doing something like this.)

Do facebook games like you're asking for exist? A *lot* of facebook games have been made thus far. The fact that they follow very specific forms of design indicates pretty clearly that this is what's practical and cost-effective for them to do.


You're thinking too small. HoN and Facebook are not an end - they're a beginning. They plan to expand to other platforms (http://dungeonsmaster.com/2011/10/interview-with-heroes-of-neverwinter-developer-ed-del-castillo/) - thing is, that move is dependent on their success via social media.

It was a generic question about if D&D-type games should move to other platforms. Of course they'll say yes! In fact, almost all popular platforms already have access to at least one D&D-type game.

This does not imply a dependance on social media.

Note also that this is immediately post-release, before they have any feedback on it's success.


And I reiterate that I'm not against a hybrid approach (tables and online) I just think the online side has greater growth potential right now.

As far as the revenue and cost data all you or any of us can really do is guess unless you found a press release somewhere.

They hired a subcontractor. They have decent graphics, and thus, have a graphics team. They have multiple developers, as per the link you posted. Given the industry rates for those people, it cannot possibly weigh in at less than 100k. It's probably quite a lot more than that.


I wonder how well you could play a D&D game using only Teamspeak 3 and a group google document. You'd probably want to use an excel spreadsheet. I think I need to try to do this now.

You probably could. I don't know that google docs has any secure way to handle die rolls, so that might have to go on the honor system. So long as you're good with that, and aren't too fussed about 3d battlefields, it's possible. I've played over Skype before, myself.

I see it as pretty unlikely to displace any currently popular forms of gaming, though.

[Psyren]

- Concerning the code: (A) subcontract or not, it still belongs to them, and (B) this is another e-pronouncement that I won't accept at face value. If your logic was truly correct, code libraries wouldn't exist.

- Concerning Tiny Adventures: I haven't seen that announcement, but even if it was merely a promotion, it still directly led to HoN. Based on that and the interview I linked in my previous post, it's clear they consider social media to play a key role in D&D's future. (Where they're failing, in my estimation, is that they don't have people actually playing D&D yet.)

I'm willing to cede that going purely facebook could potentially be too radical a departure, but I still don't think it's impossible. My problem is that I think splitting their focus will do more harm than good. Introducing new players to the world

- Concerning cost: The 100k cost figure is meaningless even if true. Without any hard data on how much it's taking in or even how much additional sales it drives to other product lines (like Daggerdale), it means nothing on its own.

- Concerning Facebook games: As far as Facebook games following typical design paths, you'll note from the interview that one of their goals is to get away from that, and make a deeper game than the current offerings. So they're targeting the same market I said they should - those who are willing to play facebook games but unsatisfied with the current casual fare.

HoN is a step in the right direction (particularly the build-your-own dungeon feature) but it doesn't do enough, especially on the multiplayer front. I think we can both agree on this. But your conclusion that it's not deep because it can't be deep has no empirical evidence behind it. Pointing out that other facebook games are casual/shallow simply tells me that other designers can make money just fine with a casual game, so they have no incentive to make anything deeper.

WotC on the other hand does, because deep gamers (core gamers?) are the heart of D&D. No casual gamer is going to put in the hours/prep required to be a DM, or pore over volumes of rules, or even continue picking up supplements long after they have enough material to actually play.

[Tyndmyr]

- Concerning the code: (A) subcontract or not, it still belongs to them, and (B) this is another e-pronouncement that I won't accept at face value. If your logic was truly correct, code libraries wouldn't exist.

Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the nature of the precise agreement, which neither of us is likely to have access to.

And there is a world of different between a finished code library and a bunch of random code out of an old game.


- Concerning Facebook games: As far as Facebook games following typical design paths, you'll note from the interview that one of their goals is to get away from that, and make a deeper game than the current offerings. So they're targeting the same market I said they should - those who are willing to play facebook games but unsatisfied with the current casual fare.

Those were interviews with the developers. The subcontracted developers.

Their statement was "Yes, we'd love to do more work". This is not at all surprising. Most people enjoy being employed.


HoN is a step in the right direction (particularly the build-your-own dungeon feature) but it doesn't do enough, especially on the multiplayer front. I think we can both agree on this. But your conclusion that it's not deep because it can't be deep has no empirical evidence behind it. Pointing out that other facebook games are casual/shallow simply tells me that other designers can make money just fine with a casual game, so they have no incentive to make anything deeper.

If deeper games were financially worthwhile, facebook would have deeper games on it. Not financially worthwhile = WoTC is unlikely to pursue it. Especially at the expense of ditching existing successful lines.

[Psyren]

Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the nature of the precise agreement, which neither of us is likely to have access to.

WotC's myriad other failings aside, keeping tight control of their IP isn't one of them.


And there is a world of different between a finished code library and a bunch of random code out of an old game.

Sure, sure, if you say so.


Those were interviews with the developers. The subcontracted developers.

Their statement was "Yes, we'd love to do more work". This is not at all surprising. Most people enjoy being employed.

So they're getting paid to work on something they enjoy. Is that a crime now? It doesn't make their aims to expand untrue.
The guy said he's been playing D&D since the Red Box days, is he lying?


If deeper games were financially worthwhile, facebook would have deeper games on it.

Without evidence of this sort of thing having already been tried and failing, you have no support for this conclusion.

Until then, it hasn't been tried, so why not? You could have made that same argument about cellphones only a few years ago (i.e. there are no deeper games because it's not possible), yet here we are with Order & Chaos, Heavenly Sword etc.

And there are other games to draw inspiration from. Check out Gunshine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbn0XFUnnfY) - which has way more graphical capability than I'm envisioning. Not a single download is required to play this, and it's even real-time instead of turn-based. You can't see any way to fit D&D into a mold like that?

To which I have to ask - is it truly lack of capability, or is it just lack of vision?


Not financially worthwhile = WoTC is unlikely to pursue it. Especially at the expense of ditching existing successful lines.

So you agree that Facebook must have been demonstrated to be financially worthwhile then? Since WotC is pursuing it, that is.

[PetterTomBos]

Could the entire "will it be a facebook-app" thingie be a sidetread? I'm really interested in the future of D&D, but I don't care much for that route. No offence, but I:

1. Don't see why they would make that leap.
2. Find the entire debate so special that it could deserve its own thread.

[Psyren]

Ways 5e could differentiate itself from past editions is definitely on topic. Use of social media isn't the only route, just the most controversial one (apparently.)

I'm definitely interested in other paths they could take, so post away if you've thought of any.


Don't see why they would make that leap.

*points wordlessly at the last three pages*

[Tyndmyr]

WotC's myriad other failings aside, keeping tight control of their IP isn't one of them.

Nonsense. Pathfinder exists, utilizing their SRD. Plenty of D&D based things have been made that they do not have sole rights to republish. They are not especially draconian in this regard. A great many companies value IP highly, and the details of the ownership of the source code is something that could reasonably be limited to this project only with regards to payment. We have no way of knowing for sure.


So they're getting paid to work on something they enjoy. Is that a crime now? It doesn't make their aims to expand untrue.
The guy said he's been playing D&D since the Red Box days, is he lying?

I don't much care. You're citing this article as if it was validation of WoTC's aims, when in fact this individual does not work for WoTC.

So, it provides no evidence for your claims.


Without evidence of this sort of thing having already been tried and failing, you have no support for this conclusion.

Until then, it hasn't been tried, so why not? You could have made that same argument about cellphones only a few years ago (i.e. there are no deeper games because it's not possible), yet here we are with Order & Chaos, Heavenly Sword etc.

The environment has changed dramatically for cellphones over the last few years. The platforms are very different. What games were profitable several years ago, and which games are profitable now has changed somewhat...though there is still a notable skew toward casual gaming. Neither of those games is going to displace Angry Birds, though.


And there are other games to draw inspiration from. Check out Gunshine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbn0XFUnnfY) - which has way more graphical capability than I'm envisioning. Not a single download is required to play this, and it's even real-time instead of turn-based. You can't see any way to fit D&D into a mold like that?

To which I have to ask - is it truly lack of capability, or is it just lack of vision?

Supercell required $12 mil from just ONE of their founding investors to start that up. The company is notoriously cagy about profits(and may apparently not have any at all), and does not describe them at all, but is seeking additional investors.

Note that gameplay is also basically a grind.

I don't know the exact details of WoTC financials, but I do know that MTG dominates D&D in terms of profit. So, embarking on this scale of venture would be....extremely costly and risky to them.


So you agree that Facebook must have been demonstrated to be financially worthwhile then? Since WotC is pursuing it, that is.

No, no. Pursuit doesn't mean profit. Success does.

What is OUT THERE that is successful? If the answer is "nothing", then it is a very risky strategy at best. And one that you should assuredly not discard your existing one for if it's working at all.


Could the entire "will it be a facebook-app" thingie be a sidetread? I'm really interested in the future of D&D, but I don't care much for that route. No offence, but I:

1. Don't see why they would make that leap.
2. Find the entire debate so special that it could deserve its own thread.

Except for Psyren, I don't think anyone has considered it a likely possibility. I would definitely like to discuss more probable moves.

[bloodtide]

Ways 5e could differentiate itself from past editions is definitely on topic. Use of social media isn't the only route, just the most controversial one (apparently.)

I'm definitely interested in other paths they could take, so post away if you've thought of any.


This would be nice. Like D&D5E with say Facebook. They don't need to go all out and make some massive multimedia mess, just some simple things: A forum, chat room, dice roller, character sheets and such. All for free mind you. Make it all nice and Facebook compatible so you can just post things to your friends/players pages.

Most DM's use social media, so they should take advantage of it. But don't go too far. Don't listen the the crazy little executive who has the whole plan for World Domination and Endless Money Creation. Just make something simple to get things rolling.

And most important is Feedback! Here in 2011 we can have instant feed back. Someone can log onto D&D.com and tell you want the think of it in five minutes. The important thing for a company to do is to have someone there to read the stuff and talk too. Would it be so hard to hire some folks to write and respond? No. And further more would it be so hard to change things? No. just think of things like an official errata updated twice a week!

[Tyndmyr]

Official errata updates twice a week is a lot to keep up with. I'd prefer more infrequent updates, but with a lot more care put into each one.

Stuff like the ToB errata makes me a sad panda.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder exists

Golarion does not, and perhaps will never, enjoy the same kind of brand awareness and penetration as Faerun, Eberron or Athas.

And all three of those are tightly controlled, which lends credence to my point. The odds are much more in favor of them retaining ownership over anything with the D&D brand on it, than not. It's simple business sense.


I don't much care. You're citing this article as if it was validation of WoTC's aims, when in fact this individual does not work for WoTC.

So, it provides no evidence for your claims.

Then you didn't read it properly. He didn't say "we believe social media is the way for D&D to go." He said "WotC believes social media is the way for D&D to go, and we and Atari agreed."

So yes, it is evidence.


Supercell required $12 mil from just ONE of their founding investors to start that up.

And? I'm not saying WotC should make a Gunshine clone, so I don't see how Gunshine's price tag is relevant. Your argument was "Flash can't handle a complex game," and yet right here we see other companies not only doing just that, but basing it around Facebook integration as well. Browser games are clearly capable of more than you seem to think they are.


Note that gameplay is also basically a grind.

"Grinding" is only a problem for games without DMs - where you have to build in the challenges ahead of time for a broad audience, instead of letting the players tailor them to individual groups.


No, no. Pursuit doesn't mean profit. Success does.

You have yet to prove lack of success; even if you had an example, this is a brand new idea with nothing truly similar to go off of save the technology.

[MukkTB]

Hmm. For rolls you could copy paste a cell that said =round(rand()*x+.5,0) while everyone was watching. It should give you a whole number from 1 to x.

I don't see any reason why it this wouldn't work. My thinking on it was that we already have decent enough tools for free to play over the interwebz. Paying moneys to do it on facebook may be a bit redundant. Anybody interested in playing a teamspeak3/google docs session? I'm not that good a DM but I could probably demonstrate that the concept works.

[Karoht]

Official errata updates twice a week is a lot to keep up with. I'd prefer more infrequent updates, but with a lot more care put into each one.

Stuff like the ToB errata makes me a sad panda.Once a month, once every two months would be nice.
Of course, if Wizards would spellcheck/playtest the frequency and even necessity of such updates would be greatly lowered, I'm sure.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes. Spellcheck, grammar check, Have someone flip through your example chars and check for validity, then playtest a lil.

Win.

[Psyren]

Better yet, let the community playtest (both your proposed mechanics and your sample chars.)

WotC won't ever do that, sadly...

[The Glyphstone]

Better yet, let the community playtest (both your proposed mechanics and your sample chars.)

WotC won't ever do that, sadly...

And, more importantly, listen to their feedback.

Paizo did the first, but failed to do the second.

[Psyren]

And, more importantly, listen to their feedback.

Paizo did the first, but failed to do the second.

DSP did both, proving that the system does work when properly implemented. :smallcool:

[PetterTomBos]

One thing I would love to see in 5th would be spell listed more WoD-ish. Instead of a spell entry of one single spell it would be:

Cure:

Cure spells heal damage upon you and your allies

Cure lv. 0/1/2 etc. as far as they keep going.

Not all spells need to be represented at all lvl.s ;)

[Psyren]

More proof-of-concept: Facebook Final Fantasy. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114520-Final-Fantasy-Goes-Social) The classic stuff too - 16-bit graphics, job systems, airships, you name it. The article theorizes that Bioware's success with Dragon Age Legends enticed Square to give this a try.


We can all keep our heads in the sand and claim that Farmville is the extent of what the platform can do, or we can actually embrace the future and flesh out how could this could be pulled off. (And by "we" I acually mean "WotC," hopefully.)

[Ziegander]

To talk about a completely different direction for 5e, here's something I replied to on another D&D forum, which I find to be especially compelling:


I see a lot of comments about how they tried to make D&D into a card game(here and other forums). In my opinion, they didn't even borrow the most important part of Magic. The part where the new cards can be used with an old deck.

Magic alienates players all the time, for me it was the Kamigawa block. I didn't like it, so I just didn't buy cards for a while; then, when Ravnica came out, my old cards were still relevant with the new(at least casually). I can't imagine why they don't apply this concept to D&D. The old core books(whatever edition they decide to keep) value would skyrocket over time, validating new purchases for collectors.

Worried about design space? Why can't they just make a new setting once a year? Each setting would define it's own base classes and PrC's. This is another concept they could have borrowed from magic. You will never see a Magic card titled "Angel", it would have a descriptor, "Serra's Angel".
If applied to base classes, you would never have a bland "rogue"(except maybe core), it would be "Theif Prodigy" or "Silent Assassin" or "Thane Archer", "Knight Turncoat", "Subversive Mage", "Royal Executioner".

This is all very interesting. While I wouldn't want them to straight up convert Magic into a D20 product, using this design philosophy makes sense in just about every way, especially when you apply the concept of "the core set." For example, D&D could release three books under the "D&D 2012" banner, the D&D 2012 PHB, the D&D 2012 DMG, and the D&D 2012 MM. This "core set" would firmly establish the rules of the game and provide a generic feel for the game that could theoretically be plugged into as many homebrew settings as possible. After that, instead of the various splatbooks, we get campaign settings, always with their own set of PHB, DMG, and MM. Each setting has unique mechanics to add to and enrich the overall D&D experience. When players complain about mechanical issues WotC should TAKE NOTE, and when it comes a time that the players and the D&D design/developers feel that rules need to be changed to facilitate better gameplay a "new core set," "D&D 2016," is released with revised and/or tightened rules that cater to the concerns and desires of the players.

Not only do you never splinter the player base, you give them exactly what they want, and you have all the splat material you want hidden in all those new campaign settings. There's no reason WotC couldn't return to popular campaign settings in the future, just like Magic does occasionally, as long as, just like Magic does, D&D came up with exciting new material for the setting. It produces a model just like what WotC and Hasbro seems to enjoy, that is selling a lot of books, and it keeps the game fresh and new all the while keeping it familiar. The game is constantly being updated and revised, but in essence it's always the same game.

[Yora]

Problem 1: The rules of an RPG are a thousand times more complex than that of a card game you can teach someone in 2 minutes. The game system matters a lot and if people will buy your game or the game of another company depends to a great deal on the rules and how they are different from the rules of other games.
Though it could be said that with the success of d20, Wizards had already hit a gold mine and coming up with new rules to distinguish themselves from other RPG companies really was not required to win market shares.

Problem 2: That is pretty much what TSR did with AD&D and what, according to the legend that has since been established, was the reason the company went bancrupt. In theory having a base game and lots of material for many settings sounds really good, but creating, printing, and distributing 10+ books with 200 pages and more is a lot more complicated than just putting new pretty pictures on cardboard. To make that work as a business, you have to sell a lot of units. And that's where the big problem lies: People will usually buy only books for one, maybe two settings. If you print 10 books for 1 setting or 10 books for 10 settings each will still result in the same amount of books sold. With 10 times the amount of resources required to create them. Also, in many cases, setting books sell mostly with people who do a lot of GM work, people who only play the game rarely buy them.
So the Complete series was in some ways a genius idea. A series of books for players that would work with any setting. Very little effort in creating them (and on top of them very little effort in making them good) makes the costs small, but you still get much more sales than with any setting specific book.

[Maxios]

There are only two things I want different in the next edition of D&D:


To take out the horrible at-will, daily, encounter system. Why make a basic attack? Instead you can do an at-will attack which is basically the same thing but with bonus damage! Plus, it's immersion breaking to only being able to swing your sword only once a certain way in a day.

To get rid of the whole "Points of Light" thing. I'd be fine with it if it was in a campaign book or something, but it's a direct part of the rules! It's mentioned constantly, in the description of currency, in the history of Tiefling, in the history of those dragon guys! And those are just the examples from the top of my head!

[Ziegander]

Problem 1: The rules of an RPG are a thousand times more complex than that of a card game you can teach someone in 2 minutes. The game system matters a lot and if people will buy your game or the game of another company depends to a great deal on the rules and how they are different from the rules of other games.

Certainly, the rules of an RPG are more complex than a card game (though you are stretching things a bit here, MtG is very complex for one, and for another it takes only marginally longer to teach someone the basics of playing 3.5 than it does to teach someone the basics of playing MtG).


Though it could be said that with the success of d20, Wizards had already hit a gold mine and coming up with new rules to distinguish themselves from other RPG companies really was not required to win market shares.

Exactly. I understand that WotC is trying to design a better game with each new edition release, but with each new edition release they shatter their customer base. It's highly damaging to their product identity and to their profit margin.


Problem 2: That is pretty much what TSR did with AD&D and what, according to the legend that has since been established, was the reason the company went bancrupt. In theory having a base game and lots of material for many settings sounds really good, but creating, printing, and distributing 10+ books with 200 pages and more is a lot more complicated than just putting new pretty pictures on cardboard.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or how you're discounting the "MtG design/marketing" strategy. D&D 3.5 was about much more than putting new pretty pictures on cardboard. Every month there was multiple releases of real, new mechanical content alongside tons of pages of fluff material. The idea of new campaign settings every so often and new "core sets" of D&D every few years isn't so different. It produces a lot of books to sell and it produces a lot of new mechanical content for customers to enjoy.


To make that work as a business, you have to sell a lot of units.

Like WotC did with D&D 3.5?


People will usually buy only books for one, maybe two settings.

This is a potential problem, but I think it depends on the material presented in the books. If the Greyhawk PHB, for example, has a handful of new base classes, tons of new feats, new powers, etc, then I think a lot more people would be buying it. It functions both as an interesting piece of fluff and as an awesome D&D splatbook.


If you print 10 books for 1 setting or 10 books for 10 settings each will still result in the same amount of books sold. With 10 times the amount of resources required to create them.

You're talking about printing 10 books vs printing 10 books but you're saying the latter requires 10 times the amount of resources. Does not compute. Yes, it requires more creativity from the design/development departments (probably not 10 times as much) and possibly a bit more time, but if it provides both WotC and its customer base with a more stable profit model and more enjoyable game, then it's clearly worth it.


Also, in many cases, setting books sell mostly with people who do a lot of GM work, people who only play the game rarely buy them.

Which, again, is why the setting PHBs I'm suggesting would provides lots of exciting new options for the players of the game. D&D 2012 PHB has the Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and Wizard classes; it has generic races, tons of generic feats, and tons of generic powers. Eberron PHB on the other hand has the Artificer, the Dragonmarked, the Erudite, the Explorer, and the Silverflame Inquisitor; and it also has new races, new feats and new powers inspired by the fluff of Eberron.

In the same way that the Complete series and the PHB2 were successes for WotC in D&D 3.5, that sort of business model could be very successful, I think, for WotC with a new game, especially if marketed correctly.

[Yora]

Well, 3rd Edition was constantly making references about Greyhawk as well.

The point with the economy of scale is as follows:

You write one book for setting A. You have to write 200 pages of text, get 40 illustrations, have it all proofread and edited, and possible even playtested. Then you put in on the market with your customer base of say 1000 people and 80% buy it, for a total of 800 sales.

Or you write one book for setting A, one for setting B, one for setting C, and one for setting D. Now you have to write 800 pages of text, get 160 illustrations, and still have to do 4 times the proofreading and editing.
But then you put them on the market for the same 1000 customers and 80% will buy someting. Lets's say 1 in 4 even buys the books for two settings. That gets you a total of 1000 sales. +25% sales for +300% the cost for creating the books. This doesn't work out for a company.

[Eldan]

Ech.

Honestly, I would prefer if they kept the fluff and crunch books more or less separate. Not that the classes shouldn't have more fluff, they certainly should. But I don't want thirty new prestige classes every time I buy a fluff book. They just don't interest me that much.

[Ziegander]

Ech.

Honestly, I would prefer if they kept the fluff and crunch books more or less separate. Not that the classes shouldn't have more fluff, they certainly should. But I don't want thirty new prestige classes every time I buy a fluff book. They just don't interest me that much.

If I were in charge of the implementation, something like an Eberron PHB would have little in the way of fluff outside of the fluff for the classes themselves. There would be a brief introduction to what exactly Eberron is, and then it would just be a bunch of Eberron-inspired game material aimed at the players. The Eberron DMG would be where the majority of the fluff related to the campaign setting is found.

[Eldan]

I just think that one setting book is rarely more than the barest introduction to the fluff. I'd love if they did more books in the style of some AD&D ones I found. Atlantes and history books of fictional worlds. Travelogues. Ecology of monsters. Van Richten's Guides. That kind of thing is what gets me excited about games, not yet another prestige class for a sneaky guy that prefers to stab people into their vulnerables.

[Tyndmyr]

Certainly, the rules of an RPG are more complex than a card game (though you are stretching things a bit here, MtG is very complex for one, and for another it takes only marginally longer to teach someone the basics of playing 3.5 than it does to teach someone the basics of playing MtG).

I have done both. MtG is notably simpler than 3.5, and has a lot less rules that are undefined, and that rely on DM adjudication.

Note additionally that MtG sort of crushes D&D on the money front. So, it's not like they have equal resources available. A lot more money to make an easier system translates to a huge gap in practicality. CCGs are *much* easier to make work* than RPGs, and much easier to constantly update as a result.

*with profit, at any rate.


You're talking about printing 10 books vs printing 10 books but you're saying the latter requires 10 times the amount of resources. Does not compute. Yes, it requires more creativity from the design/development departments (probably not 10 times as much) and possibly a bit more time, but if it provides both WotC and its customer base with a more stable profit model and more enjoyable game, then it's clearly worth it.

Except you've not provided proof that it does provide a more stable profit model.

Im assuming the 10x resources is hyperbole, but it *is* notably easier to expand on something existing that to create something entirely new. In many, many industries, it's considered a fairly safe, profitable bet to do that wherever practical.

[Ziegander]

Except you've not provided proof that it does provide a more stable profit model.

This is a thread based on speculation about the direction(s) which may be taken by a game that doesn't even exist. Of course I haven't provided any proof.

Here's what I'm saying, though: following a "MtG style" design and marketing plan constantly refreshes and revises the "same" edition of D&D all the while creating and selling lots and lots of books. No splintered player base required and similar if not the same profits to be expected from producing a barrage of splatbooks.

Maybe making up a new campaign setting every year isn't the best idea, but I do think that the "core set" design plan with periodic, player-driven revisions, and supplemented by a steady stream of additional material (however that additional material is presented) is a better way of presenting D&D for many years to come.

The plan offers the advantages of maintaining a clear and static product identity ensuring that any break in the player base is as minimal as possible, all while allowing the game to evolve and improve over time to remain fresh and marketable to new players over the years.

[Tyndmyr]

This is a thread based on speculation about the direction(s) which may be taken by a game that doesn't even exist. Of course I haven't provided any proof.

Then, without any evidence, how can you justify this claim?


Here's what I'm saying, though: following a "MtG style" design and marketing plan constantly refreshes and revises the "same" edition of D&D all the while creating and selling lots and lots of books. No splintered player base required and similar if not the same profits to be expected from producing a barrage of splatbooks.

There's a problem here. The rules of 3.5 are a great deal more complicated than the rules of magic. They can errata the core magic rules and distribute them entirely in a pamphlet. Even so, there will be YEARS of confusion over rules changes like stacking.

So, imagine if we'd gone from 3.0 to 3.5, but not bothered to change the numbers, and simply sold new books with slightly different rules? How many headaches would this cause?


Maybe making up a new campaign setting every year isn't the best idea, but I do think that the "core set" design plan with periodic, player-driven revisions, and supplemented by a steady stream of additional material (however that additional material is presented) is a better way of presenting D&D for many years to come.

See, whenever you make a new core set with notable changes, that's a new edition. Oh, sure, WoTC could improve their existing customer feedback and such, but you still have to deal with multiple editions.


The plan offers the advantages of maintaining a clear and static product identity ensuring that any break in the player base is as minimal as possible, all while allowing the game to evolve and improve over time to remain fresh and marketable to new players over the years.

I don't know that it would be clear or static. A new player trying to get in would face a dizzying array of books that are not clearly differentiated. Determining, say, how useful a used book from a given year is would be...difficult for anyone who is not extremely heavily into the system. Online advice would become dated rapidly.

[Ziegander]

So, imagine if we'd gone from 3.0 to 3.5, but not bothered to change the numbers, and simply sold new books with slightly different rules? How many headaches would this cause?

See, whenever you make a new core set with notable changes, that's a new edition. Oh, sure, WoTC could improve their existing customer feedback and such, but you still have to deal with multiple editions.

I'm not talking about filing all the serial numbers off, making changes to the rules without telling anyone, and then publishing new PHBs, DMGs, and MMs with altered/revised/new rules and pretending it's exactly the same game.

To cue off of you're mention of 3.0 to 3.5, my suggestion is akin to WotC having produced D&D 2000 (or 3rd Edition), in the year 2000. Then, in response to feedback from customer and playtest review, they followed that with revised D&D 2003 (or 3.5 Edition) rulebooks, in the year 2003. Then, in response to feedback from customer and playtest review, they followed that with revised D&D 2008 rule books, but instead of 4E we get a product that is clearly and identifiably a continued refinement of the D&D 2000/3E product we've been playing for years.

3rd Edition to 3.5 wasn't an edition change. It WAS handled fairly poorly, but as has been pointed out, by I believe you Tyndmyr, most 3.0 players converted to 3.5 without any fanfare. Many of them even bought the new "core set." And that's exactly what I'm talking about doing, only with a refinement of the processes of customer feedback and product marketing.

With the plan I'm discussing, WotC would engage the customer base regularly, so that revision of the rules would be openly discussed and eagerly anticipated. Release of the new "core set" of D&D would be a well-documented, well-advertised event with the aim of selling to new players and keeping all of the old players caught up on the action.


I don't know that it would be clear or static. A new player trying to get in would face a dizzying array of books that are not clearly differentiated. Determining, say, how useful a used book from a given year is would be...difficult for anyone who is not extremely heavily into the system. Online advice would become dated rapidly.

Except that a new player getting in would likely not even worry about a used book from 4+ years ago, because there are all those shiny new books sitting on the shelf that are perfectly compatible with the newest set of D&D rules. Likewise, online advice from 4+ years ago would be appropriately found in the archives, not on the front page of the D&D website, as that sort of thing is currently handled.

[Tyndmyr]

Right. 3e to 3.5 WAS fairly smooth. But it took years, and lingering misconceptions from 3 to 3.5 still come up occasionally.

If you attempted such a thing yearly, it would be utter chaos.

Not to mention, if used books are mostly worthless, that rather affects my perception of the game as a whole. This would mean that campaigns that span editions are...pretty normal, instead of unusual. I personally own every single 3.0 and 3.5 book...so I'm pretty well on the "I'll buy it" side of things. But I really don't want to rebuy books every year.

[Kurald Galain]

Right. 3e to 3.5 WAS fairly smooth. But it took years, and lingering misconceptions from 3 to 3.5 still come up occasionally.

I think it was fairly smooth. But tellingly, many people don't remember it as such. Look up any "THIS IS NOT 4.5" thread regarding the newer 4E books, and you'll see lots of people who seem to remember 3.0 => 3.5 as a huge sweeping change that shocked the world.

[Ziegander]

Right. 3e to 3.5 WAS fairly smooth. But it took years, and lingering misconceptions from 3 to 3.5 still come up occasionally.

If you attempted such a thing yearly, it would be utter chaos.

Please, please, please understand that I'm not talking about doing such a thing yearly. Not even close. I'm talking about doing it whenever the player base and game designers agree that's it's time to do it. That might be 3 years between revisions, that might be 8 or 10.


Not to mention, if used books are mostly worthless, that rather affects my perception of the game as a whole.

Used books would be as "worthless" as 3.0 books are to 3.5 games. Less so, actually, with better customer feedback/support, because rules "patches" could, and should, be easily available online to list changes. Whenever possible, old mechanical material should be revised and tucked into new books (this has been done countless times with 3.0 crunch and 3.5 books). The older player base may not be absolutely thrilled about it at first, but handled correctly WotC should be able to appease them in the same way they did with 3.0 to 3.5.

[Ziegander]

Right. 3e to 3.5 WAS fairly smooth. But it took years, and lingering misconceptions from 3 to 3.5 still come up occasionally.

If you attempted such a thing yearly, it would be utter chaos.

Please, please, please understand that I'm not talking about doing such a thing yearly. Not even close. I'm talking about doing it whenever the player base and game designers agree that's it's time to do it. That might be 3 years between revisions, that might be 8 or 10.


Not to mention, if used books are mostly worthless, that rather affects my perception of the game as a whole.

Used books would be as "worthless" as 3.0 books are to 3.5 games. Less so, actually, with better customer feedback/support, because rules "patches" could, and should, be easily available online to list changes. Whenever possible, old mechanical material should be revised and tucked into new books (this has been done countless times with 3.0 crunch and 3.5 books). The older player base may not be absolutely thrilled about it at first, but handled correctly WotC should be able to appease them in the same way they did with 3.0 to 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

I think it was fairly smooth. But tellingly, many people don't remember it as such. Look up any "THIS IS NOT 4.5" thread regarding the newer 4E books, and you'll see lots of people who seem to remember 3.0 => 3.5 as a huge sweeping change that shocked the world.

Well, it was smooth compared to 2->3 or 3->4...but yeah, any change is going to upset people somewhat. Tolerance for change varies wildly.

IMO, you want to drag out each edition as long as reasonable possible. Players should be begging you for the next edition, not fearing it.

[Ziegander]

IMO, you want to drag out each edition as long as reasonable possible. Players should be begging you for the next edition, not fearing it.

I agree. It's a much more profitable option. Basically, don't change anything unless a huge portion of the player base is crying out for a change, and then, if the changes requested by that percentage of the players isn't so major as to require a full-on edition change, then don't write a new edition of the game. It's pretty simple. You won't please everyone. The game designers may not even please themselves this way. But it will preserve the player base and it will be more profitable in the long run.

[GungHo]

So the Complete series was in some ways a genius idea. A series of books for players that would work with any setting. Very little effort in creating them (and on top of them very little effort in making them good) makes the costs small, but you still get much more sales than with any setting specific book.
I'm not sure what you mean with this... are you talking about the 3/3.5E books or the 2nd AD&D books? Because if you just mean the 3/3.5E books, TSR was doing the original Complete series with kits in 1989, and then again with Players Option in 1995. Or are you saying that the problem was that while they were doing this they were also publishing a bunch of setting books for Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms and that was the problem?

While setting books did slow down during 3E for anything from the old days that wasn't Forgotten Realms, they kept chugging out book after book after book for and didn't slow down until Grand History in 2007. Additionally, the push behind Eberron was pretty massive and expensive and generated plenty of materials on the schedule. And many of these books were hardbacks. It wasn't until 4E came out that WotC really chilled on all the setting books.

[Yora]

Yes, but I think it's important to note that they pretty much kept it down to only two settings.

Ghostwalk and Oriental Adventures both got a single book, and that's it.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, but I think it's important to note that they pretty much kept it down to only two settings.

Ghostwalk and Oriental Adventures both got a single book, and that's it.

Well, there was Dragonlance as well, technically, which got a few books. Third party, but official, so I'd wager it counts.

[Eldan]

Didn't they also hire out Ravenloft to a third party?

[Yora]

No, does not count. Since it was outsourced, WotC probably got a bit of royalties, but did not have any of the financial risk. They probably did not hire the writers and pay for the artists and editors, as well as the printing and distribution. If it bombs and the books don't sell enough to break even, it's not Wizards problem.

[Tyndmyr]

No, does not count. Since it was outsourced, WotC probably got a bit of royalties, but did not have any of the financial risk. They probably did not hire the writers and pay for the artists and editors, as well as the printing and distribution. If it bombs and the books don't sell enough to break even, it's not Wizards problem.

It still matters, since it's sold with their stuff, and it divides out sales much like if they had printed it themselves. So, there is a certain degree of risk.

So, we have a total of six official 3.x settings. However, half of them are only a single book.

[Essence_of_War]

Well, it was smooth compared to 2->3 or 3->4...but yeah, any change is going to upset people somewhat. Tolerance for change varies wildly.

IMO, you want to drag out each edition as long as reasonable possible. Players should be begging you for the next edition, not fearing it.

Broadly speaking, I agree with you. I think I'd like edition change, in a perfect world, to be a grassroots, bottom->up sort of thing. I think from WotC's perspective though, they're probably scared that a dissatisfied player, rather than complain and ask for a new edition, will just walk away and won't care to walk back when the new edition arrives.

Does that make sense? That they don't feel like they have the option to drag out edition changes?

[Tyndmyr]

Broadly speaking, I agree with you. I think I'd like edition change, in a perfect world, to be a grassroots, bottom->up sort of thing. I think from WotC's perspective though, they're probably scared that a dissatisfied player, rather than complain and ask for a new edition, will just walk away and won't care to walk back when the new edition arrives.

Does that make sense? That they don't feel like they have the option to drag out edition changes?

Probably...and I feel that for smaller RPGs, this is actually a legitimate concern. For D&D...they have sufficient name recognition and shelf space that it's probably not to big of a deal. The guy who got bored of 3.5 will at least notice the release of the next edition, and it will probably be played sufficiently pervasively that he'll be tempted to at least try it.

The small games though...if a few people start walking away, those people might never see the system enough to know it's been updated. So, WoTC kind of has an advantage in this niche.

[Cybren]

An edition change that's anything beyond "let's compile all the errata over the last decade, and fix the rules that are broken and everyone has to houserule, and update more dated elements of design" is cynical moneygrubbing.

[Yora]

I think very few people would claim that 4th Edition was created for any other reason than to be able to sell dwarves and halflings as new races, and fighters and wizards as new classes again, as well as making new versions of the FRCS and the EberronCS.

[Ziegander]

An edition change that's anything beyond "let's compile all the errata over the last decade, and fix the rules that are broken and everyone has to houserule, and update more dated elements of design" is cynical moneygrubbing.


I think very few people would claim that 4th Edition was created for any other reason than to be able to sell dwarves and halflings as new races, and fighters and wizards as new classes again, as well as making new versions of the FRCS and the EberronCS.

Wow. I'm pretty sure, both of these statements are incredibly cynical and almost intentionally ridiculous. 4E couldn't have possibly been the result of a slew of new game designers, hired on to work on D&D after the original design/development team of 3.5 had been mostly (if not entirely) shuffled off, attempting to make what they hoped would be a better game. That would be impossible.

[Yora]

Does anyone believe they actually thought "Damn, the players really don't like the game as it is and instead of seing the problems of the system fixed, they want us to dump everything created in the past 8 years and start all over again with something entirely new"?

No, I am completely sure that plans for a new edition began with "How can we increase the sales of the D&D brand?"

[Eldan]

Of course, the answer to that question could have been "How about we revise the system, and bring out a new edition that builds on and improves the old one?"

So, that couldn't have been the only reason.

[Tyndmyr]

Wow. I'm pretty sure, both of these statements are incredibly cynical and almost intentionally ridiculous. 4E couldn't have possibly been the result of a slew of new game designers, hired on to work on D&D after the original design/development team of 3.5 had been mostly (if not entirely) shuffled off, attempting to make what they hoped would be a better game. That would be impossible.

A bit of cynicism on the part of WoTC is not ridiculous. Profit IS a major motivator for what they do, of course. I have no problem believing that the decision to make a new edition was made above the game designer level, on the basis of profit.

It likely wasn't the guys writing books who decided to do it.

[GungHo]

Well, not to sound contrary, but look at what made WotC a lot of money and look at what was popular in gaming at the time they decided to re-do the system. They took D&D and tried to make it palatable to people who played CCGs and MMOs. They gave you powers that could be printed on cards, exhausted, and came back into the deck on recharge timers. They made sure everyone had something to do every round. They gave it a slicker and more visual presentation and emphasized minis so you could see where everyone was and everyone knew what a gazebo looked like. They made the instructions more direct and the language more plain. I get where they were going. The problem was that it wasn't where I was going.

[TheArsenal]

I don't think "Bring in new players" ever works on a mass scale.

Sure you bring in some new players but a large base of your fan base leaves because you alienate them by making thing ssimpler.

[Yora]

People get seriously pissed off by just making things different.

[Psyren]

Just wanted to point out that Dragonlance - at least, the campaign setting book - was in fact 1st-party, not 3rd.


I don't think "Bring in new players" ever works on a mass scale.

Sure you bring in some new players but a large base of your fan base leaves because you alienate them by making thing ssimpler.

But have they ever really committed to bringing in new players? Same medium, same business model, same marketing, same same same. You can repaint your hovel all you like, people will still see its a hovel.

[Yora]

However, if I would introduce new Players to RPGs, D&D would not be my first choice. I only do so because it's the only system I know inside out and so can do things on the fly without problems.

[MukkTB]

I am sure that Wizards made 4e with the belief that they were fixing a broken system. The logic may have been:
(1) How can we make money?
(2) We can fix the problems in 3.5 by making a new edition for people to buy.
(A) A large subset of the players know 3.5 is horribly unbalanced.
(i) Just look at the tier system.
(B) People would rather play a fair and balanced game.
(i) An unfair board game wouldn't sell. Say if the monopoly shoe was 2x as fast.
(ii) MTG is hugely dependent on balance.
(iii) Lack of balance will make people unhappy and angry
(I) Remember 2cd edition. We had to go to 3rd edition because of player discontent.
(iv) We need to deliver people a balanced game to keep them happy.
(3) Hey we can use what the computer guys have learned from MMOs and RPGs to make the game better.
(A) Computer gaming is basically simulationist like D&D.
(B) They've learned a lot about RPGs.
(4) And we can throw models in to make the game better AND make us more money.
(A) People like models.
(B) Models make the game more realistic cause you know whats happening where.
(C) People will buy our models for $$$

That's my assessment of Wizards thought process. A hybrid we want to make a better game/we want to make money. However I also feel that though chart also shows where wizards made substantive mistakes.

First (2)(A) is wrong. Most of the customers didn't understand the balance issues or care.
But a large set of those who did preferred imbalance to drastic change. (2)(B)(iii) was the wrong assessment of the situation. Wizards thought there was a crisis when there wasn't.

(3)(A) is wrong. Computer gaming is not like D&D. One is processed by a maching with infinite eye for detail and no imagination. The other is processed by a guy with a fallible memory and active imagination. Each system should be built to take advantage of the strong points of its medium.

(4)(B) is wrong. Models do help but when you start designing game elements around having a grid you end up with a reality that is inexplicably broken up into 5 foot cubes. You get things like marks that have no relationship to the reality of the game.

[Tyndmyr]

That list does sound surprisingly like a lot of meetings I've been in before. I could totally see that happening.

I do agree that balance likely was part of their goals. It certainly looks like they pursued it heavily. Don't get me wrong...I like balance, and it is good...I just think that perhaps they were a little too focused on that one goal.

Hopefully 5e will see a more holistic design strategy.

[Yora]

The latest Legend and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111206) talks about the question whether or not the game should have default rules for all kinds of minor things (like what kind of action it takes to open an average generic dooe), or if such things should be left entirely to the GM.
I have to say that this is one thing in which I really don't like how 3rd Edition handled it and where I much prefer what I assume by my limited understanding of the AD&D rules.

I don't think this means won't see hit points for stone walls or rules for opening doors in combat anymore, but that the issue is considered sounds quite interesting to me. Getting away from the world simulation and instead limiting rules to the really important things is quite appealing to me.

[Tyndmyr]

The latest Legend and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111206) talks about the question whether or not the game should have default rules for all kinds of minor things (like what kind of action it takes to open an average generic dooe), or if such things should be left entirely to the GM.
I have to say that this is one thing in which I really don't like how 3rd Edition handled it and where I much prefer what I assume by my limited understanding of the AD&D rules.

I don't think this means won't see hit points for stone walls or rules for opening doors in combat anymore, but that the issue is considered sounds quite interesting to me. Getting away from the world simulation and instead limiting rules to the really important things is quite appealing to me.

I play one game which does not(7th Sea) and it's occasionally irritating. For one thing, there is absolutely no rule covering how far you can move in a single action. There ARE skills like sprinting, but it's sometimes very opaque what things you can expect your char to do.

I don't demand that every single thing be statted out, but it's important that enough be statted out that you have a pretty solid idea of capabilities. Is that a short sprint that you can run and stab the opponent in a single action, or will it take me three rounds of sprinting just to get there? How do I know this? How does having skills in this area affect this?

Without this knowledge, a *lot* of difficulties arise.

Note that this game also has four separate GMs due to size. So "GM picks a number arbitrarily" tends not to work especially well.

It's a good system in many ways, but like everything else...it has it's flaws. I would say that at minimum, actions and what you can do with them need to be a very clear thing.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The latest Legend and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111206) talks about the question whether or not the game should have default rules for all kinds of minor things (like what kind of action it takes to open an average generic dooe), or if such things should be left entirely to the GM.
I have to say that this is one thing in which I really don't like how 3rd Edition handled it and where I much prefer what I assume by my limited understanding of the AD&D rules.

I don't think this means won't see hit points for stone walls or rules for opening doors in combat anymore, but that the issue is considered sounds quite interesting to me. Getting away from the world simulation and instead limiting rules to the really important things is quite appealing to me.

I'm a fan of having default rules for things like that, even if only general guidelines. If the default rule is that it takes a move action to open a door, you have several options as a DM: you can use it as is, you can say "That's stupid, it shouldn't take that long, I'm making it a swift action/free action as part of a move/whatever else" or similar, you can say "What do you guys think, players, leave it as a move or change it?" or something else. If you don't even have a default, every DM has to make things up and they likely won't satisfy everyone.

One of the main issues I had with 1e, as much as I enjoyed it when playing, was that it wasn't the same from table to table; I played with two main groups and played some one-shots with other people DMing, and keeping track of houserules/rulings among groups and remembering how different DMs would rule things when coming up with crazy plans and such was irritating at times. 3e may have some rules considered to be clunky or unnecessary, but I'd rather have something there and ignore it than have nothing there and have that inconsistency, particularly if they're talking about doing that for so many different parts of the rules.

[Tyndmyr]

One of my pet peeves is rulebooks who, instead of giving you a nice, terse rule for something, go to great length to tell you, the GM, to make something up for it.

Of course I can make something up. I can ALWAYS make something up. I don't need permission for this. I buy the books so I don't have to.

[Eldan]

I think telling people, at least once, that they can make things up is actually a good idea.

A few people I introduced to D&D came to it expecting a kind of board game before I explained it to them. Something with a detailed rulebook that gave them precise rules for every possible action they could do, and they had the idea that if there wasn't a rule, it was impossible.

Like, say, how in Chess there is no rule for mounting your pawns on the horses, or recruiting new pawns.

[Cybren]

There should be sufficient rules for noncombat scenarios, or interesting nonstandard combat maneuvers. The overly finnicky powers system of 4th made it feel a lot like a CCG. With that much concrete, finite rules, it tends to discourage winging it. You can't trip the enemy fighter while you're prone by grabbing his foot because you should have taken the power to do that!" is an extreme example.

[Yora]

I think the Stunts in Iron Heroes were meant for such things. Come up with a good idea and the GM picks a skill and sets a DC on the fly. If successful, the target gets a penalty to AC or attack and such things.
Something similar for 5th Edition would be quite nice.

I also want the term "5th Edition" to be used. Not 5e. :smallannoyed:

[WitchSlayer]

I think the Stunts in Iron Heroes were meant for such things. Come up with a good idea and the GM picks a skill and sets a DC on the fly. If successful, the target gets a penalty to AC or attack and such things.
Something similar for 5th Edition would be quite nice.

I also want the term "5th Edition" to be used. Not 5e. :smallannoyed:

Yeah, they have that in 4th edition as well. It's not used that often, though.

[stainboy]

Yeah, they have that in 4th edition as well. It's not used that often, though.

To see use the 4e version would need to hand out status effects or extra movement instead of hitpoint damage.

[Eldan]

I think the Stunts in Iron Heroes were meant for such things. Come up with a good idea and the GM picks a skill and sets a DC on the fly. If successful, the target gets a penalty to AC or attack and such things.
Something similar for 5th Edition would be quite nice.


That's one of the reasons I like Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel so much, actually. Before the book came out, those were things I would just enable people to do with a High DC skill check. At least most of them. Taking a penalty to intimidate to do it against several people. Getting a hand free to attack while climbing. And so on. All very possible before. Now they made up a new system where people actually had to "buy" those abilities with skill points, indicating that others couldn't do them.

[Tal_Akaan]

This thread is really long so I apologize if this has been brought up and either shot down or embraced, but has anyone thought of the idea that WotC could take a step backwards in this semi-hypothetical development of 5e?

What do I mean by this?

SAGA. I think this was a great system, and can be refined to please quite a large fan base. I’m not sure what all I’d like to see in this or what they might do, but I think the talent system can lend itself very well to finding that middle ground people seem to be wanting. Towards the end of its run Star Wars SAGA Edition seemed to be influenced quite a bit by how 4e handled things and I think it worked quite well.

There is one thing that I would like to see in the event this is what happens. I think you can use the talent system to get rid of the role restriction on classes. Different talent trees focus on different roles, so you can either focus on being a leader by taking all your talents from the “healing, buffing, and debuffing” fighter talent tree or you can mix and match so you can have some abilities from all the roles.

Just my thought on the matter.

-Tal out

[Morithias]

This thread is really long so I apologize if this has been brought up and either shot down or embraced, but has anyone thought of the idea that WotC could take a step backwards in this semi-hypothetical development of 5e?

What do I mean by this?

SAGA. I think this was a great system, and can be refined to please quite a large fan base. I’m not sure what all I’d like to see in this or what they might do, but I think the talent system can lend itself very well to finding that middle ground people seem to be wanting. Towards the end of its run Star Wars SAGA Edition seemed to be influenced quite a bit by how 4e handled things and I think it worked quite well.

There is one thing that I would like to see in the event this is what happens. I think you can use the talent system to get rid of the role restriction on classes. Different talent trees focus on different roles, so you can either focus on being a leader by taking all your talents from the “healing, buffing, and debuffing” fighter talent tree or you can mix and match so you can have some abilities from all the roles.

Just my thought on the matter.

-Tal out

Didn't pathfinder already do all that kind of stuff? I recall the rogue at least having something similar to that. That's not really a step backwards more as it's going "Yeah, we admit it, we screwed up, Pathfinder beat us to the better system."

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Didn't pathfinder already do all that kind of stuff? I recall the rogue at least having something similar to that. That's not really a step backwards more as it's going "Yeah, we admit it, we screwed up, Pathfinder beat us to the better system."

PF didn't beat WotC to either selectable abilty sets or the talent tree model at all. SWSE and d20 Modern are different from 3e and PF in that, while 3e and PF had a few classes with selectable abilities (mostly rogue talents and monk bonus feats in 3e, more in PF), in SWSE you only have talents and feats (talents at odd levels, feats at evens), and all class abilities, Force powers, starship maneuvers, etc. are gained via one or the other. Also, you have a limited selection of base classes (Soldier, Scout, Scoundrel, Noble, and Jedi, which sort of map to the classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard if you combine Scout and Scoundrel) that are easily combined via multiclassing. So in a hypothetical D&D Saga Edition, Barbarian would just be a Fighter talent tree, Paladin might be a talent tree accessible to both Fighters and Clerics (or perhaps one tree for each, so "Paladin" means a Fighter/Cleric who took talents from the Smiting Evil Things tree as a Fighter and from the Healing Good Things tree as a Cleric), Wizards would take the Arcane Training feat to learn 1+Int spells each time they took it, and so forth.

While it works well for SWSE, I don't think this sort of system would necessarily work well for 5e. D&D is much more focused on archetypes and "siloing" powers, for lack of a better term, so even though multiclassing has gotten easier and more modular as the editions have progressed (up to 3rd, 4e regressed slightly there), there's always been the assumption that there are certain things that Bards do and certain things that Monks do and if you want to do more than one class's schtick you have to sacrifice in other areas; specialization is the name of the game. By contrast, SWSE is made to emulate a universe where everyone's fairly well-rounded and anyone can, with a bit of money and a bit of Force sensitivity, pick any spot they want on the gadgetry vs. Force vs. skill vs. whatever else slider and do well there; having general competence with a few good tricks on the side is a lot better here.

Talent trees and the "everything is modular" paradigm are good for a game where multiclassing is expected, but not so much for a game where you want to be able to say "I want to play a paladin!" and have that actually mean something. Sure, in 3e saying "I'm a sorcerer" doesn't tell you much, but over the course of 3e the design process tended in the direction of downplaying the do-everything caster in favor of the Beguilers and Dread Necromancers and Duskblades and the like, and most players seem to have agreed with this decision, so opening everything back up so every class is as unfocused as the wizard or sorcerer is a step backwards in another way. A good compromise which would combine the modularity of SWSE with the focus of 3e would be something along the lines of, say, giving every class 2 abilities at each level, one of which was set and one of which was selectable, to open up the set-in-stone Monk and Samurai and Healer types and restrict the Wizard and Cleric and Sorcerer types in one stroke.

[Tal_Akaan]

I would like to thank PairO’Dice Lost for responding to Morithias’ post much better than I could have, but still saying what I wanted to say.

As for the rest of you post PairO’Dice, while you are right in your statements on the preconceived notions involving D&D and being able to state “I’m a Paladin” on your character sheet and to your gaming group, this is purely my wish for a speculative 5e. Personally I think it could work. Maybe that is just my preference and play style speaking, but I like the idea. I do tend to favor ideas presented by me (<--sarcasm).

There is one other aspect of SWSE that I would love to see bought back in a new edition…
…the condition track. I thought this was a beautifully simple way to handle a host of different conditions.

Pair’ODice I tip my hat to you for squashing my dreams of having a D&D based SWSE game system (<-- Again sarcasm…
…lots, and lots of sarcasm).

-Tal out

[Yora]

The condition track works very well for Saga and games where you are supposed to be limping around badly injured after a while.
However, I don't think it fits all games. In many fantasy games, you just want the characters to have some scratches and bruises, but otherwise be at full strength and able to throw themselves into melee.

Being seriously injured gets a lot more exciting in modern and sci-fi games, since you can still fire a pistol from behind a corner, remote control machines, or hack doors, and stuff like this. It makes the game exciting and creates a more dire atmosphere.
But in most fantrasy games, it's about meeting the enemy in the brawl. You can translate more gritty action into fantasy worlds, but I think usually it becomes more of a burden when you have to back into a corner and go full defense, because you're simply to weak to charge at the ogre.

Condition tracks are great, but I wouldn't want them in a D&D type game.

[WitchSlayer]

To see use the 4e version would need to hand out status effects or extra movement instead of hitpoint damage.

The example they use does, explicitly, use movement.

[Tal_Akaan]

Well then...

...I'm just gonna take all my ideas and go hide in the corner while the grown ups talk. (more sarcasm. Sorry it's like breathing for me.)

[Rainbownaga]

Personally I think the condition track would work well in fantasy roleplay; remember it's only a full round action (less with the right feat/talent) to go up a step.

The barbarian continuing to swing his sword while his strength visibly fades or a rogue, nearly beaten to a pulp, retreating only to leap back into the fray once he got his breath back.

It gives an extra tactical option (keep fighting despite becoming less effective or try to recover) and would likely make in-combat healing more useful that 3.x

[PairO'Dice Lost]

As for the rest of you post PairO’Dice, while you are right in your statements on the preconceived notions involving D&D and being able to state “I’m a Paladin” on your character sheet and to your gaming group, this is purely my wish for a speculative 5e. Personally I think it could work. Maybe that is just my preference and play style speaking, but I like the idea. I do tend to favor ideas presented by me (<--sarcasm).


Pair’ODice I tip my hat to you for squashing my dreams of having a D&D based SWSE game system (<-- Again sarcasm…
…lots, and lots of sarcasm).

SWSE certainly has a lot to offer in terms of improvements to D&D, from the tightened math to the standardized modifiers to the simplified combat maneuvers...but it also has quite a few sticking areas and 3e-isms that could be improved (like the plethora of "boring" +X talents and the fact that you need feats to make use of most combat maneuvers) and a few issues that don't translate well over to a fantasy milieu (such as the inability to make good use of armor without wasting 2 talents on it--good for a game of nimble scoundrels, bad for a game of knights in shining armor).

I wasn't saying a D&D Saga Edition wouldn't be a good one, just that porting over the talent system wholesale wouldn't be a good idea. Adding in more selectable class abilities, certainly, and standardizing some resource pools to interact with feats and talents, but not a direct transplant or a fully-modular class system.


There is one other aspect of SWSE that I would love to see bought back in a new edition…
…the condition track. I thought this was a beautifully simple way to handle a host of different conditions.


The condition track works very well for Saga and games where you are supposed to be limping around badly injured after a while.
However, I don't think it fits all games. In many fantasy games, you just want the characters to have some scratches and bruises, but otherwise be at full strength and able to throw themselves into melee.

Being seriously injured gets a lot more exciting in modern and sci-fi games, since you can still fire a pistol from behind a corner, remote control machines, or hack doors, and stuff like this. It makes the game exciting and creates a more dire atmosphere.
But in most fantrasy games, it's about meeting the enemy in the brawl. You can translate more gritty action into fantasy worlds, but I think usually it becomes more of a burden when you have to back into a corner and go full defense, because you're simply to weak to charge at the ogre.

Condition tracks are great, but I wouldn't want them in a D&D type game.

While I agree with Yora that a SWSE-style condition track wouldn't be good for the game, for the cited style issues as well as the mechanical issue that a death spiral mechanic that hinders the wounded is less well-suited to the usual party-versus-big-bad model of D&D than the small-party-versus-lots-of-mooks model of SWSE. And of course the number of abilities that interact with the track make it far too abusable if a GM isn't careful.

But again, the fact that a direct port wouldn't work doesn't mean the concept is bad. In fact, fear and fatigue are already "condition tracks" of a sort, and standardizing conditions more is a great idea. In fact, I've been working on a subsystem in my own time to incorporate three "condition tracks" into D&D to handle some disparate aspects of the game with unified mechanics: a Morale track (for fear and similar debuffs, bard song and similar buffs, army morale, and such), a Stamina track (to handle fatigue, endurance, environmental hazards, encumbrance, and such), and a Mobility track (to handle entanglement, difficult terrain, grappling, hindering spells like black tentacles/solid fog/etc., and such). The important part about the SWSE condition track is that is unifies disparate mechanics for ease of play and simplicity, not that it imposes a death spiral or that it lets you bypass HP, and it's that concept that can be translated over to good effect.


Personally I think the condition track would work well in fantasy roleplay; remember it's only a full round action (less with the right feat/talent) to go up a step.

The barbarian continuing to swing his sword while his strength visibly fades or a rogue, nearly beaten to a pulp, retreating only to leap back into the fray once he got his breath back.

It gives an extra tactical option (keep fighting despite becoming less effective or try to recover) and would likely make in-combat healing more useful that 3.x

This is certainly one area where D&D can accommodate a condition track better than SWSE. The amount of easily-available healing and the prevalence of superhuman characters and creatures means that a condition track doesn't have to become a death spiral, as characters can more easily prevent and recover damage. Such a track would make in-combat healing more useful than healing wands, for once, and martial characters such as paladins and barbarians being able to ignore or mitigate the track's effects through divine protection or sheer badassery would help those classes stand out and compare favorably to casters. I still don't think porting it over wholesale would be a good idea, but it could definitely fit with some tweaking.

[stainboy]

The example they use does, explicitly, use movement.

The character does move, but her skill check doesn't appear to grant her more or better movement. That example is really poorly written. Here's what happens:


Sheira makes a DC 20 Acrobatics check.
Move action: Sheira moves a short distance to an ogre. It's fluffed as swinging on a chandelier, but it's never established that she's moving further than normal or ignoring difficult terrain or occupied spaces. So really, everything she does she could have done with a regular old move.
Standard action: Sheira bull rushes the ogre. The author doesn't call it a bull rush, but he takes pains to tell you it's Strength vs Fort and pushes exactly one square.
The ogre moves into the space of the brazier and takes the "High" normal damage expression, 2d8+5.


So we don't actually know what Sheira "bought" with her Acrobatics check. It could be that braziers are only hot when you make Acrobatics checks to make them hot, except that (1) that's stupid, and (2) the last paragraph says


once the characters see this trick work they’ll try anything they can to keep pushing the ogres into the brazier.

It sounds like any kind of pushing works. The fire damage would have happened anyway, the move would have happened anyway, and the bull rush would have happened anyway. It looks like Sheira made the Acrobatics check for no reason.

[Kurald Galain]

The character does move, but her skill check doesn't appear to grant her more or better movement. That example is really poorly written. Here's what happens:
The problem with Page 42 is that it ensures that special moves never have a stronger effect than your standard powers (and commonly have a weaker effect and/or a greater chance of failure). This is why it doesn't get used a lot.

[Tal_Akaan]

I'm not suggesting that they can wrap just the SWSE CRB in a new cover and have it work with a different setting, but with some refining and retooling it has some concepts that make for a really good system.

-Tal out

[stainboy]

The problem with Page 42 is that it ensures that special moves never have a stronger effect than your standard powers (and commonly have a weaker effect and/or a greater chance of failure). This is why it doesn't get used a lot.

Yeah, that was what I was getting with offering something other than damage. PCs already have better ways to deal damage.

If you wanted to do something like p42 in 5e, you'd have to pick damage values above the point of uselessness and below the point where everyone wants to stunt every round. Those numbers are probably close together and different for different characters. It would be much easier to offer something situational that PCs might not access to otherwise, like extra movement or crowd control debuffs.

[Grytorm]

Didn't someone mention earlier in the thread something about making a system where each class gets an assortment of abilities to choose from some available to many classless some a an option for only a few. I think that is a great idea. Here are some ideas.

I think that it would be a good idea to use that system and fold feats into it. Probably their would be 9 ranks of abilities in this system to bring back the spell system legacy. Each class would be balanced based on what ranks they could get to. For example maybe Paladins would have 9nth rank Martial abilities and 4th rank divine plus a special tree for them.

So 5 or 6 types of abilities something like this:
Martial (Fighter)
Prowess (Rogue)
Arcane (Wizard)
Divine (Cleric)
Primal (Druid)
Ki (Monk)

The listed classes above would be the purely one source. Other classes could be:
Barbarian (Martial/Primal)
Ranger (Prowess Primal)
Paladin (Martial/Divine)
Thaumaturge (Arcane/Divine)
Ninja (Prowess/Ki)
Eldritch Knight (Arcane/Martial)
Bard (Prowess/Arcane, maybe add Divine?)

Multiclassing would be free in the system and similar classes would easily synergize. Prestige classes should probably continue advancing common abilities but allow new ones as well.

In 4th addition from what I understand it is very easy to make a balanced encounter and throw them at the players. But a plus of 3.5 is that players and their enemies worked by the same rules. So we make monster classes (ie a Goblin class with a small tree, a very large dragon class, large trees for Demons, Devils, Angels and other outsiders with special abilities to make specific types.) So choose a level, calculate the stats and choose from a short list of abilities to make a character.

Would this be a good system for a 5th edition? And does it capture at least some of the good traits of 4th and 3rd?

[Tyndmyr]

Didn't someone mention earlier in the thread something about making a system where each class gets an assortment of abilities to choose from some available to many classless some a an option for only a few. I think that is a great idea. Here are some ideas.

I think that it would be a good idea to use that system and fold feats into it. Probably their would be 9 ranks of abilities in this system to bring back the spell system legacy. Each class would be balanced based on what ranks they could get to. For example maybe Paladins would have 9nth rank Martial abilities and 4th rank divine plus a special tree for them.

So 5 or 6 types of abilities something like this:
Martial (Fighter)
Prowess (Rogue)
Arcane (Wizard)
Divine (Cleric)
Primal (Druid)
Ki (Monk)

The listed classes above would be the purely one source. Other classes could be:
Barbarian (Martial/Primal)
Ranger (Prowess Primal)
Paladin (Martial/Divine)
Thaumaturge (Arcane/Divine)
Ninja (Prowess/Ki)
Eldritch Knight (Arcane/Martial)
Bard (Prowess/Arcane, maybe add Divine?)

Multiclassing would be free in the system and similar classes would easily synergize. Prestige classes should probably continue advancing common abilities but allow new ones as well.

In 4th addition from what I understand it is very easy to make a balanced encounter and throw them at the players. But a plus of 3.5 is that players and their enemies worked by the same rules. So we make monster classes (ie a Goblin class with a small tree, a very large dragon class, large trees for Demons, Devils, Angels and other outsiders with special abilities to make specific types.) So choose a level, calculate the stats and choose from a short list of abilities to make a character.

Would this be a good system for a 5th edition? And does it capture at least some of the good traits of 4th and 3rd?

I think that system already exists, but is called Legend.

[Grytorm]

I have no idea what that is. I think I have heard the name, but I can't find it on Wikipedia. So what is it? And how similar is the idea?

[Tyndmyr]

Pop over and grab a copy (http://www.ruleofcool.com/).

[Yora]

It's just a new d20 game, though one that doesn't just switch classes and skills but actually does several things rather differently.
I think.

[GnomeWorks]

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that the d20 is a worthless die, and designing your task resolution systems around it is a terrible idea.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that classless is superior to classed, allowing for greater variety in character concepts.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that levels are a sacred cow that needs to go, replaced with abilities increasing through usage and training.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that a useful, viable "social combat" system would be awesome.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that spellcasters should be able to be on par with other members of the party, not outstrip all of them in power (oh wait, it's Monte, so much for that one).

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that magic items with bigger numbers aren't neat, but should instead do neat things that aren't even necessarily tied to combat.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that the initiative system could be reworked to flow a lot better, making you go again sooner or later depending upon the kind of action taken, rather than packaging an individual's actions at a set point in time.

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that hit points are silly and damaging to versimilitude.

...but probably not.

[horseboy]

But in most fantrasy games, it's about meeting the enemy in the brawl. You can translate more gritty action into fantasy worlds, but I think usually it becomes more of a burden when you have to back into a corner and go full defense, because you're simply to weak to charge at the ogre.

Condition tracks are great, but I wouldn't want them in a D&D type game.
It makes combat more exciting and more thought intensive. Not to just move tactically, but "is it worth it? Can I come up with a better idea?" When you're facing the potential of a broken limb, if your lucky, then winning a fight means a lot more.

[Yora]

...but probably not.
Maybe they decide to not continue to do D&D at all?

Yeah, probably not.

[Tyndmyr]

It's just a new d20 game, though one that doesn't just switch classes and skills but actually does several things rather differently.
I think.

It's track based. Some tracks are available to more classes, some classes have greater access to tracks...all depends on the thing. Seemed close to what he was interested in.

Gnomeworks...there's nothing inherently wrong with the d20. Or levels, or most of those things. And if you take all those away, it's basically not D&D anymore. Plenty of people already accused 4e of being too much of a jump from 3.5...ditching all those things runs an even higher risk for customer loss. I can't imagine that abandoning all that would be a good idea.

[Kurald Galain]

Gnomeworks...there's nothing inherently wrong with the d20.
Not with the d20 itself per se, but a problem in most iterations of the d20 system is that it's too easy for an unskilled character to randomly beat a skilled character at a skill check (because 1d20+1 happens to beat 1d20+7 quite often).

The obvious solutions are either to use a bell curve (e.g. 2d10) or to make attributes and skill ranks give a greater bonus to skill checks, but neither has apparently been tried by WOTC yet.

[Tyndmyr]

Not with the d20 itself per se, but a problem in most iterations of the d20 system is that it's too easy for an unskilled character to randomly beat a skilled character at a skill check (because 1d20+1 happens to beat 1d20+7 quite often).

The obvious solutions are either to use a bell curve (e.g. 2d10) or to make attributes and skill ranks give a greater bonus to skill checks, but neither has apparently been tried by WOTC yet.

Both have been tried. Bell curve optional rules exist in UA, and in 3.5, it's fairly easy for a trained person to have a large, often unbeatable bonus to skill checks.

4e moved away from these things. I suggest that the randomness is intentional, and that many people don't see an unskilled char getting lucky as a problem.

[Kerrin]

Maybe somebody over there will figure out that...

...but probably not.
GnomeWorks, it sounds like maybe you'd be interested in a game system along the lines of GURPS and others like it.

[Kerrin]

I suggest that the randomness is intentional, and that many people don't see an unskilled char getting lucky as a problem.
Good point. The volitility of probabilities is important for a game's designers to comprehend.

As a example:

Character with d20+1 = 2 thru 21
Character with d20+7 = 8 thru 27

The difference between the +7 and +1 characters is 6. 20 - 6 = 14, so there are 14 out of 20 results where the +1 character can tie or beat the +7 character.

The question is ... is this the desired probability variability range for the game as intended by the designers?