Continuation of the D&D brand (from a business perspective)

[Crow]

Not all classes are the same. I never said they were. But to many (as evidenced on these boards), they feel the same. A wizard is toolbox lite, a warden is toolbox lite, a fighter is toolbox lite.

Every class does not need to use the same mechanic to be balanced with one another. Basically, WotC balanced their classes the lazy way. There are plenty of systems out there that are balanced, but have separate and flavorful mechanics for different classes; 4e isn't one of them.

[Lord Raziere]

Not all classes are the same. I never said they were. But to many (as evidenced on these boards), they feel the same. A wizard is toolbox lite, a warden is toolbox lite, a fighter is toolbox lite.

Every class does not need to use the same mechanic to be balanced with one another. Basically, WotC balanced their classes the lazy way. There are plenty of systems out there that are balanced, but have separate and flavorful mechanics for different classes; 4e isn't one of them.

{{scrubbed}}

[kenjigoku]

{{scrubbed}}:

This is a textbook composition fallacy...

[Lord Raziere]

This is a textbook composition fallacy...

exactly the argument I'm parodying- the argument that all 4E classes are the same, good day, my job is done here.

[kenjigoku]

But that is not the argument being presented. You are attacking a point you can win.

The point that is being made is that in 4th edition DnD you feel like a Candy Apple. You can be topped with caramel and M&M's or chocolate and sprinkles, but your still an apple at the core.

[Tyndmyr]

so.... you deride them all as the same, because of one incredibly flexible mechanic?

by that logic, all Exalts are the same, they all use Charms after all.

and all 3.5 casters are the same, they all use the vancian spell system after all.

Technically, that's certainly not the case for 3.5. Even ignoring obvious alternatives such as spell points and refresh magic, you have casters like the artificer, which basically bend the vancian system out of recognition.

But there's no value in getting into an edition war. Surely we can agree that the more similar things are, the easier it is to balance them? Sure, a 3.5 wizard bears little similarity to the barbarian, but WOTC didn't do a terribly good job of balancing them, and it's not even particularly easy to balance world-shaping powers against the ability to rage and hit things hard.

[Dacia Brabant]

From a business standpoint, most of the ideas I'm seeing bandied about here are really bad, much as they may be favorites of individual fans. Not that I'm a publisher, but here's what I've heard from people in the business:

Hardbacks cost more to produce, but are more profitable.

Adventures and "fluff" books cost the same to produce, but sell much less than rules and mechanics based books. Therefore time spent in production is better spent on mechanics.

Adventures are pretty much the least profitable thing a company can put out, for all the goodwill it builds among vocal fans

Not to be too cynical, and there's obviously a few companies that have made a profit disregarding the above rules. But in general, it's decent busines sense for a company to listen carefully to the most vocal fans online, and then do something else.

Okay, so that being the case, what is the source of the problems WotC is having with the D&D brand? Why is the lead developer talking only 3 years into the new edition about reducing D&D down to its bare bones (presumably for a rebuild)?

[turkishproverb]

Technically, that's certainly not the case for 3.5. Even ignoring obvious alternatives such as spell points and refresh magic, you have casters like the artificer, which basically bend the vancian system out of recognition.

But there's no value in getting into an edition war. Surely we can agree that the more similar things are, the easier it is to balance them? Sure, a 3.5 wizard bears little similarity to the barbarian, but WOTC didn't do a terribly good job of balancing them, and it's not even particularly easy to balance world-shaping powers against the ability to rage and hit things hard.

Taking away all the penalties for casting didn't help.

[Kurald Galain]

not sure how great an idea that is, 4e classes are all equally powerful cuz they're all the same. I'm not saying that its impossible to be both balanced and varied, but WotC hasn't managed it yet.

Also, 4E classes are not all "equally powerful" either. There are clearly strong classes (e.g. ranger, wizard, warlord), weak classes (e.g. seeker, binder, vampire), and a middle group.

The variation is smaller than in 3E, but remember that the variation in 3E tends to be greatly overstated on message boards.

[stainboy]

exactly the argument I'm parodying- the argument that all 4E classes are the same, good day, my job is done here.

In a thread about the future direction of D&D from a business perspective, it's sufficient to know that a large number of people didn't like the 4e class homogenization. Whether you think they're wrong is immaterial.

And anyway, Essentials seemed to be deliberately moving away from this design, at least as much as they could while retaining compatibility.

E: Does anyone have a link to the blog mentioned in the OP? Googling "4th edition lead developer blog bare bones" gets me right back here.

[Tyndmyr]

Okay, so that being the case, what is the source of the problems WotC is having with the D&D brand? Why is the lead developer talking only 3 years into the new edition about reducing D&D down to its bare bones (presumably for a rebuild)?

Look, it's not that D&D 4e is a bad game...it's not a game I particularly enjoy, but it is well designed. It's that it's a very different sort of game from 3.5. And when you make a big leap in design philosophy, you're going to have a lot of customers that don't agree.

Kudos to Pazio for responding rapidly to the changes, and basically continuing 3.5 support. I don't agree with all their game design decisions, but from a business standpoint, good work.

The big problem for WoTC isn't that 4e was a flop...it wasn't. If it had been a terrible flop, they could have rolled back to 3.5, and everyone would have high fived. If it had been a smashing hit, well...also no problem. Instead, it was a moderate success, leaving the player base split. This is much more awkward. If you make 5th ed a 3.5 upgrade, you probably alienate the 4e players. If you go with a 4e design style, you probably don't win back the 3.5 players. It's a nasty situation.

[Shadow Lord]

Which is why I want WotC to mix the Balance of 4e with the Variability of 3e. But then again, that's simply not possible.

[Yora]

E: Does anyone have a link to the blog mentioned in the OP? Googling "4th edition lead developer blog bare bones" gets me right back here.

Here are the articles. I think those from last months are the most telling.

[hangedman1984]

and all 3.5 casters are the same, they all use the vancian spell system after all.

That is ABSOLUTELY not the case at all
-psionics
-binders
-warlocks
-incarnum users
all casters that do not use the vancian system

[Lord Raziere]

That is ABSOLUTELY not the case at all
-psionics
-binders
-warlocks
-incarnum users
all casters that do not use the vancian system

I agree, exactly what I'm talking about, I have no right to say that all the casters in 3.5 are the same, and neither do you have any right to say that 4e classes are all the same, cause they aren't.

on topic, lets get back to that:
we already know what they tried. Essentials, and look how thats turning out, its being even more divisive, guys like me who like 4e's powers don't like it because it seems like a step back, I've heard of some people who like 3.5 like Essentials because of the variation, but mostly Essentials seems like a flop cause we don't really know what its targeting here, some say old timers, some say newbies, some say its a 3.5 hybrid....Wizards made a bad situation worse by introducing something that we honestly don't know what its supposed to do, made worse by some people mildly liking it.

but this bare bones examination thing you are talking about, it can go either way. right now it can be interpreted anything from a light of hope to a sign of doom, and only the results of this will determine how things play out.

[Erloas]

Adventures and "fluff" books cost the same to produce, but sell much less than rules and mechanics based books. Therefore time spent in production is better spent on mechanics.

Adventures are pretty much the least profitable thing a company can put out, for all the goodwill it builds among vocal fans

The thing with this is "who can use this book?" If its stats and generic classes and other mechanical things then almost anyone can use the book, if you are running a campaign in predefined setting X, one-off games, custom campaigns, heavily houseruled games, etc. The more specific you get with your book the smaller the target audience. People running one-off games aren't going to be interesting in campaign settings fluff, people running their own campaign aren't either. A short adventure path only works well for people in the right level range and only if it fits into their game world, also no where near a given.

You also get a lot of people that refuse to read past fluff they don't like. Make a fairly generic class and give it some fluff and you'll get a lot of people that will take that fluff as unchangeable and just "how the class is." And if that doesn't fit with what they want from a fluff standpoint then they look for something else even if mechanically it fit just fine. Which is why in a lot of cases they take out the fluff from the mechanics.

But then for other people that doesn't work very well either. I started to play GURPs with someone (didn't actually happen but I got information for the system and started to make a character) but none of the classes had any appeal. They were too blank and just made the system seem dull and uninteresting. Its a fairly hard line to walk because people want vastly different things from the same thing at time.

[Toofey]

I just don't get why dropped soft cover books. You can't tell me it has to do with expenses. I'm sure that a single $40 hardcover costs much more then a dozen soft cover ones.

I used to work in printing and I can say that this is not necessarily the case. It all depends on what types of binding is used (the hard cover vs softcover is not actually decisive if you go with cheap hard cover stock vs nicer softcover cover stock)

edit: as far as all this goes, I am getting a strong subtext that they're trying to get back to the anyone can try anything spirit of the older eds. Hopefully that'll go ok. I personally would love to see something that married the good in all the editions, simplified the mechanics, and got back to some of the flexibility in how you could play it that the older systems had.

[nyarlathotep]

Which is why I want WotC to mix the Balance of 4e with the Variability of 3e. But then again, that's simply not possible.

Silly person you of course it's possible. The problem is simply that it takes far far more fine tuning that WotC is willing to do. Is that unreasonable of course not real balance requires months of prerelease testing under numerous circumstances and constant fine tuning after release, something that is financially unviable and completely understandable.

Then again considering how 4th ed is only sort of balanced I think that sort of balance could be achieved with variability, just not perfect balance.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't think perfect balance is necessary...or even realistic. 4e certainly doesn't have perfect balance, even though balance as made a priority. I've certainly enjoyed and played many games with notable balance issues.

I do LIKE it, of course, but from a business perspective, I see it as something that could easily be considered not worth the cost.

[stainboy]

It is possible to get a versatile game with better balance. 4e isn't "balanced" in the sense that if two players generate characters in separate rooms they will both contribute equally. That's just not possible, or a good goal, or even something 4e tried to do.

Once you accept that you're going to lean on the social contract for balance anyway, it's OK for some builds to be better than others. It's not OK that a barbarian can only contribute in melee combat, or that a rogue needs obscure build options and magic items just to use her iconic abilities, or that every cleric knows every spell ever printed, but D&D could fix those without going to the lengths 4e did.

[Gamer Girl]

I used to work in printing and I can say that this is not necessarily the case. It all depends on what types of binding is used (the hard cover vs softcover is not actually decisive if you go with cheap hard cover stock vs nicer softcover cover stock)

I'm not in printing, but common sense tells me that a softcover unlaminated pages and black and white art book cost less to make then a hardcover laminated pages filled with full pages of color artwork.

[nihil8r]

so one of the things i don't see people talk about very much is this: 4.0 isn't a role-playing game. it's a miniatures game. while 3.x has a large miniatures component, it's still supposed to be a rpg. 4.0 however, was designed first and only to replicate mmo-style combat on a battle grid, with tanks, healers, and damage-dealers given mechanical effects to recreate the same things characters in (hugely successful) games like world of warcraft do, such as taunting and self-heals.

the first problem with 4.0, then, is that it reduced the rpg element in an attempt to become world of warcraft the miniatures game, but it didn't go all the way. sure, you can buy the wotc power cards for your character, and you can buy wotc plastic miniatures. but those products weren't pushed that hard with the core book. you can play 4.0 with just scrap paper and dice and a grid you drew yourself on the back of a pizza box. but you shouldn't be able to! what wotc should have done, and what i predict they will do for 5.0, is sell special cards and miniatures that must be used in order to play the game. because 4.0 is a miniatures game, it needs to be sold like a miniatures game. selling it like a rpg (which allows characters much more freedom and creativity) was a mistake.

the second problem with 4.0 then, is that it attempted to become a miniatures game, but it just wasn't a very good miniatures game. sure it had some good ideas, but fighting on a grid using pre-selected powers is boring compared to a real wargame. and playing a watered-down version of world of warcraft with dice also is boring compared to just playing world of warcraft.

so as far as where the brand is headed . . . well, there are tons of great video game possibilities using the 4.0 rules. they are simple and based on video games, so making games with those rules should be easy. but as far as the next iteration of the game and the actual d&d brand . . . expect 5.0 to cost much, much more to play (and probably be even less fun).

[bloodtide]

I just don't think there is anywhere for D&D to go.....nothing will work.

They only have two options as far as they are concerned:
1.They can stick with 4E and add tweaks
2.They can come out with 5E and fix/change/balance things

But no matter the one they do, it won't work.

All of us 'classic' D&D gamers only want to play D&D 0-3E, the modern gamers want the wow of 4E, and all the others don't even want to play a role-playing game. So no classic gamer will pay money for wow D&D and no modern gamer will pay for hard and unfair D&D.

And then there is the balance and fairness. A good half of all gamers want everything to be in perfect balance, so that everyone is fair and equal and has the same amount of fun(or whatever the pure balance people want). Plenty of us classic gamers like imbalance and unfairness and making it more of an win or loose game. So the balance people are not going to buy a book where a wizard can cast a spell and a fighter can swing a sword. And us classic gamers won't buy a book where fighters get sort of magic abilities 'just like spells'.


It comes down to a simple fact: No matter what D&D product WotC puts out, roughly only half of the role-players will buy it, or less. And with that problem, it does not matter much what they put on the self, as it will just sit there.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not in printing, but common sense tells me that a softcover unlaminated pages and black and white art book cost less to make then a hardcover laminated pages filled with full pages of color artwork.

While true, the difference is nowhere near what you said/implied it would be. TBH, writing costs tend to stay the same regardless of printing option chosen. So, at least one major source of costs for the company doesn't scale. You're really only saving on marginal costs, and even then, the amount isn't excessive.

I've had the dubious fun of dealing with company mass print jobs before. A quality paperback can still be fairly costly. And I don't suspect anyone really wants D&D books to be terrible quality stuff.

nihil, I recognize that 4e is a very miniature centric game. I, personally, tend to use minis in combat anyway, so it's less of a deal for me than many...but I do appreciate games that allow me flexibility to use or not use minis.

I think if 5th ed was specifically designed to be MORE like a CCG/MMO, it might still make money, but it'd lose market share. CCGs and MMOs are all fine things, but they are not what defines D&D historically. The more you fold in into other niches, the more you leave the existing niche unsatisfied.

Now, perhaps you COULD have a successful MMO and CCG alongside a successful RPG, but they need not be the same thing. And frankly, MTG and DDO pretty much are as close to these things as WOTC is likely to get. The one big way in technology can boost them is if they get the promised online play fully functional. I heard a rumor that was coming out for 4th ed. Despite being a 3.5 fan, I'd probably check that out if it was notably complete.

[turkishproverb]

I just don't think there is anywhere for D&D to go.....nothing will work.

They only have two options as far as they are concerned:
1.They can stick with 4E and add tweaks
2.They can come out with 5E and fix/change/balance things

But no matter the one they do, it won't work.

All of us 'classic' D&D gamers only want to play D&D 0-3E, the modern gamers want the wow of 4E, and all the others don't even want to play a role-playing game. So no classic gamer will pay money for wow D&D and no modern gamer will pay for hard and unfair D&D.

And then there is the balance and fairness. A good half of all gamers want everything to be in perfect balance, so that everyone is fair and equal and has the same amount of fun(or whatever the pure balance people want). Plenty of us classic gamers like imbalance and unfairness and making it more of an win or loose game. So the balance people are not going to buy a book where a wizard can cast a spell and a fighter can swing a sword. And us classic gamers won't buy a book where fighters get sort of magic abilities 'just like spells'.


It comes down to a simple fact: No matter what D&D product WotC puts out, roughly only half of the role-players will buy it, or less. And with that problem, it does not matter much what they put on the self, as it will just sit there.

There is another solution. Go for both markets:

Press release/demonstration announcement/short trailer:

Dark Screen

Flashes of painted and drawn fantasy images, some iconic, some not,

Dungeons and dragons

A letter A Fades in in front and above, followed by the full word, leaving the new logo:

Advanced
Dungeons and Dragons.

Cuts to more action-oriented, hardcore, varied, and unusual combination that harken back to old eras and their complexity and style.


Final text:
Welcome back to the deep side of the dice-pool.
Coming in 2012

[Tyndmyr]

I also would approve of this idea. I have no trouble with the concept of two games labeled D&D at once.

[Reverent-One]

so one of the things i don't see people talk about very much is this: 4.0 isn't a role-playing game. it's a miniatures game. while 3.x has a large miniatures component, it's still supposed to be a rpg. 4.0 however, was designed first and only to replicate mmo-style combat on a battle grid, with tanks, healers, and damage-dealers given mechanical effects to recreate the same things characters in (hugely successful) games like world of warcraft do, such as taunting and self-heals.

You mean they have mechanical effects to recreate the same things characters in D&D 3.5 could do (and continue to be able to do in Pathfinder)?

[Talakeal]

{Scrubbed}

[Tyndmyr]

My particular favorite:

you can play 4.0 with just scrap paper and dice and a grid you drew yourself on the back of a pizza box. but you shouldn't be able to!

Honestly, a small part of me wishes they had made an MMO based on 3.5. Pure RAW. Yes, I realize it would be utterly, horribly broken. I just really wish to see such a monstrosity.

[Crow]

I think their best bet would be to go back to the Open Gaming License, regardless of what their next system looks like.

edit: I too would like a completely RAW 3.5 MMO, just to see the craziness.