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

[Tyndmyr]

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

Oh, god yes. It's a big part of why they remained dominant for so long. See, competing head to head with D&D is a poor choice so long as you can instead release a third party book FOR D&D and ride their coattails. But, if you make that last option harder...you push the other designers into competing with you on a system level.

The OGL was a wonderful, wonderful thing for designers and gamers alike. I note that pathfinder has taken this concept even further, with a rather surprising amount of material online. It certainly hasn't prevented them from being successful.

[Othniel Edden]

One thing I think Wizards should do is tap into the design creativity of their cash cow, magic the gathering. You have hundreds of unique settings there, new material coming out all the time, lots of design notes, and they already work for you. How hard would it be to release "Creatures of Ravnica" as softcover colored mini monster manual for whatever the current addition and attract fans for it? People would buy that for $14.($8 for the PDF, but it comes free if you buy the book)

I think its an absolute mistake not to put some of that material out there. Especially with the amount of cross over the MTG has with RPG players. The advertise for each other for goodness sake. And Honestly not everyone wants there to only be FR, Ebberon, Random setting, and Grayhawk. Most of use our own ideas anyways.

[bloodtide]

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

Wow....you know the crazy thing about this: This is exactly what it was like in the old days!


In the Ye Old Days you had D&D and you also had AD&D, both made by the same company and both supported at the exact same time!

[Tyndmyr]

Wow....you know the crazy thing about this: This is exactly what it was like in the old days!


In the Ye Old Days you had D&D and you also had AD&D, both made by the same company and both supported at the exact same time!

Oh, I'm aware. I suspect turk's choice of advanced was intentional.

[stainboy]

Two product lines goes against a game design philosophy that's become popular in both PnP and video games in the last ten years:

The customer is a mouthbreathing idiot with the attention span of a gnat. He cannot be trusted to learn anything. He cannot make informed choices. If you try to explain anything to him, he will zone out until you are done and then complain because he doesn't understand it. A game designer's job is not to write a game that he would enjoy; it's to think of someone more stupid than him and figure out what that person would enjoy.

It's misguided, it's insulting, it fails to realize that gamers are more informed than ever because of the internet, and I can't wait until the various game industries get over it. Unfortunately this philosophy is alive and well at WotC; half the point of Essentials was to keep our fragile brains from hemorrhaging if we had to pick two of four daily powers. As long as this philosophy persists, WotC will assume the customer is too stupid to realize that D&D basic and AD&D are two different product lines.

[nihil8r]

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)?

3.5 and pathfinder characters can taunt (force monsters to fight them instead of other characters)? no. 3.5 and pathfinder characters can always self-heal without using healing spells or potions? no.

[Tyndmyr]

3.5 and pathfinder characters can taunt (force monsters to fight them instead of other characters)? no. 3.5 and pathfinder characters can always self-heal without using healing spells or potions? no.

Aggro management is a sticky thing. Without it, certain things, like tanks, have a difficult time doing their jobs. But...it's very highly associated with MMOs. And is terribly easy to become unrealistic, especially with an intelligent enemy. It's a hard thing to get right, and most RPGs mostly skip by the question of NPC targetting.

[Reverent-One]

3.5 and pathfinder characters can taunt (force monsters to fight them instead of other characters)? no.

The knight says hi. As does Antagonize. Note that unlike in 4e, where marking merely gives enemies the incentive to attack the defender, both the Knight and Antagonize can actually force an opponent to do so.

3.5 and pathfinder characters can always self-heal without using healing spells or potions? no.

Who said anything about always? From the beginning, you had things like the barbarian gaining health simply by getting angry, and in Unearthed arcana, they introduced the idea of Reserve points. To my understanding, several ToB maneuvers allow non-magical self-healing as well. So the idea of non-magical healing isn't anything new to 4e, though 4e did do more with it.

[turkishproverb]

Oh, I'm aware. I suspect turk's choice of advanced was intentional.

Read my location.

[Tyndmyr]

The knight says hi. As does Antagonize. Note that unlike in 4e, where marking merely gives enemies the incentive to attack the defender, both the Knight and Antagonize can actually force an opponent to do so.



Who said anything about always? From the beginning, you had things like the barbarian gaining health simply by getting angry, and in Unearthed arcana, they introduced the idea of Reserve points. To my understanding, several ToB maneuvers allow non-magical self-healing as well. So the idea of non-magical healing isn't anything new to 4e, though 4e did do more with it.

I'm wary of getting drawn into an edition war here, but I believe the initial allegation was of uniformity of 4e design. Things like healing surges are quite widespread in 4e, and really have no direct correlation in 3.5. Yes, non magical healing options exist, but they're not really anything like a uniform, widespread system for all in the style that healing surges are.

[nyarlathotep]

I'm wary of getting drawn into an edition war here, but I believe the initial allegation was of uniformity of 4e design. Things like healing surges are quite widespread in 4e, and really have no direct correlation in 3.5. Yes, non magical healing options exist, but they're not really anything like a uniform, widespread system for all in the style that healing surges are.

To be honest I like the tank using more crowd control physical abilities rather than aggro. For instance chain trippers and shieldbashing for stuck, get around the whole "Why would an intelligent enemy go for the fighter'.

[Knaight]

To be honest I like the tank using more crowd control physical abilities rather than aggro. For instance chain trippers and shieldbashing for stuck, get around the whole "Why would an intelligent enemy go for the fighter'.

I rather prefer the abstract movement and turn systems where one can choose to move an engage an enemy when it "isn't their turn". In D&D 3.x and onward, one can simply be walked around, even if there is no way a character couldn't have intercepted them.

[Yora]

I'm wary of getting drawn into an edition war here, but I believe the initial allegation was of uniformity of 4e design.

From my MMO days, I think this is a bad idea. Many of my friends were exited for Addons because they invcluded new classes that work differently than the old ones they already played. People want their classes to work differently.

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.

Back in the day, there were lots of Neverwinter Nights servers that worked just like MMOs with player numbers in the high dozens. It was great, but no game allowed for that ammount of relatively fast custom content creation since.

[Reverent-One]

I'm wary of getting drawn into an edition war here, but I believe the initial allegation was of uniformity of 4e design. Things like healing surges are quite widespread in 4e, and really have no direct correlation in 3.5. Yes, non magical healing options exist, but they're not really anything like a uniform, widespread system for all in the style that healing surges are.

He made many allegations to begin with, but to stay away from the subjective aspects that lead to an unending edition war, I dealt with the one that is objectively false, that things like taunts and self-heals are new to D&D with 4e or come solely from trying to mimic a MMO combat style. As I've shown, both sorts of things existed in 3.5, and Pathfinder continues to use them. Were they mechanically identical to their uses 4e? Certainly not, but 4e doesn't identically replicate any MMO taunts or self-heals I'm aware of either, so drawing the connection to the 3.5 material is at least as valid, if not moreso.

Also, the Reserve Points rule means there was an option for uniform, widespread non-magical healing system for all in 3.5. Whether or not people used it, it existed as a viable option that was created by the developers.

[stainboy]

To be honest I like the tank using more crowd control physical abilities rather than aggro. For instance chain trippers and shieldbashing for stuck, get around the whole "Why would an intelligent enemy go for the fighter'.

I like this too, but the catch is that wizards are better at it. Not just because wizards are better at everything, wizards have always been better at action denial. It's tradition, and anyway try to come up with a martial Sleet Storm that won't break suspension of disbelief.

4e marking is conceptually pretty inoffensive, it just demands too much of the players' attention. You can have an ability that gives -2 to hit your allies without it being billed as the whole reason for the fighter's existence, or without the group needing poker chips to keep track of it.

Actual taunt abilities (Test of Mettle, Goad, Come and Get It) need to go die in a fire.

He made many allegations to begin with, but to stay away from the subjective aspects that lead to an unending edition war, I dealt with the one that is objectively false, that things like taunts and self-heals are new to D&D with 4e or come solely from trying to mimic a MMO combat style.

There's a big difference between a couple splat options no one cares about having aggro mechanics, and one member of every party having aggro mechanics. Aggro mechanics feature in almost no games in 3e and in every game in 4e. You know this, you know it's what nihil8r meant, stop pretending you don't.

[Reverent-One]

There's a big difference between a couple splat options no one cares about having aggro mechanics, and one member of every party having aggro mechanics. Aggro mechanics feature in almost no games in 3e and in every game in 4e. You know this, you know it's what nihil8r meant, stop pretending you don't.

A) This post makes it obvious that you're misreading him and he thinks such options didn't exist at all in 3.P.

3.5 and pathfinder characters can taunt (force monsters to fight them instead of other characters)? no. 3.5 and pathfinder characters can always self-heal without using healing spells or potions? no.

And B) You're missing the point, nihil8r is linking the existence of marking to MMOs, when it can just as easily be them making more use of an underused mechanic they liked in 3.5. I'll repeat, 4e might not use such concepts identically to 3.5, but it doesn't identically replicate the way MMOs use them either, so drawing the connection to the 3.5 material is at least as valid, if not moreso.

EDIT: Also, if you could stop this trend of telling me what I should be thinking, I'd appreciate it.

[stainboy]

Knee-jerk defense of 4e's design decisions would earn the D&D brand exactly zero new customers.

A thread about "Continuation of the D&D brand (from a business perspective)" is going to require that people discuss commonly perceived flaws in past editions. {{scrubbed}}

[Kurald Galain]

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

I don't think that's true. It's a solid brand name; if they wait a few years and make a new edition, then many people (including young new players) will buy it just to see what it's like. Of course the internet will complain, but then it always does.

Knee-jerk defense of 4e's design decisions would earn the D&D brand exactly zero new customers.

Precisely.

If players have the impression that "4E is like a video game", then from a marketing perspective it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not these people are "right". What is relevant is whether or not they're buying your product, and telling them that "no, you're wrong!" is not going to encourage them to do so.

[Reverent-One]

Knee-jerk defense of 4e's design decisions would earn the D&D brand exactly zero new customers.

How is a position supported by facts a "knee jerk defense"?

A thread about "Continuation of the D&D brand (from a business perspective)" is going to require that people discuss commonly perceived flaws in past editions. {{scrubbed}}

It's not even a flaw, it's a misunderstanding of not just one edition, but multiple ones. Such misunderstandings are conterproductive to the purpose of this thread, so debunking them is not derailing it. If you can't stand my points, no one is making you read my posts.

[hamishspence]

I wondered- how many of 4E's design decisions can be traced to perceived problems with older editions?

And how serious those problems actually were.

Thus- it might be handy to identify which things they are somewhat unlikely to change back.

[Kurald Galain]

I wondered- how many of 4E's design decisions can be traced to perceived problems with older editions?

Quite a lot, I'd say.

There was an insightful article by a 4E developer, that at one point was creating a 3E convention session. It was, basically, a team of characters around level 15, vs a big dragon; the intent was that players could walk in unprepared, play the fight for about an hour, and move on.

The problem he ran into is that casters can prepare way too many spells at that level, and that this (1) requires too much prep time, and (2) results in option paralysis. His reaction was to remove all their lower-level spells, and instead write "spells of this level are too weak to help you against a dragon" (and also, take just a few high-level spells and prep them multiple times each). This is basically why 4E characters are limited to just four encounter powers, and are expected to drop lower level powers when they get to paragon.

Of course, this facilitates one particular style of convention play, which doesn't necessarily match up with people's home campaigns.

[Crow]

I absolutely loath aggro mechanics. For me, they really shatter my willing suspension of disbelief, and that makes it hard for me to want to play a game that includes them.

I like games where people choose to attack the fighter because he is capable of hurting you pretty badly if you don't. Everybody seems to forget that while an M1 Abrams has massive armor, it also has a big frigging gun as well! But because in 4e everyone has to be "balanced" you can't have this. You're forced to use abstract and immersion breaking mechanics to manage "aggro" because every target the bad guys can attack is about equally as threatening as any other.

The problem with my tank fix though, is that whoever gets to be the tank is going to be probably quite better in combat than some other classes, but for a class called "Fighter", shouldn't that be expected? Still, many will not like this, so what is the solution?

[Kurald Galain]

I absolutely loath aggro mechanics. For me, they really shatter my willing suspension of disbelief, and that makes it hard for me to want to play a game that includes them.

The question, then, is whether it's possible to create a balanced game without using mechanics that break SOD too much.

Clearly 4E's emphasis on balance stems from the perennial complaints about how unbalanced 3E is (again, it doesn't matter whether these complains are right, it matters whether they cause people to not buy the product).

[Reverent-One]

I wondered- how many of 4E's design decisions can be traced to perceived problems with older editions?

Probably quite a few. Something I've seen players in 3.5 want to do is play the big tough fighter that protects his allies, which is hard to do unless you follow one or two very specific builds (like being a tripper). It does not seem to be a coincidence that the 4e fighter has elements of a 3.5 lockdown build built into it, he may not knock the enemy prone on his AoO as the 3.5 fighter can, but he still stops the movement, punishes them even if they take the equivalent of a 5 foot step, and does so without having to spend two of his feats and use a specific weapon.

I like games where people choose to attack the fighter because he is capable of hurting you pretty badly if you don't. Everybody seems to forget that while an M1 Abrams has massive armor, it also has a big frigging gun as well! But because in 4e everyone has to be "balanced" you can't have this. You're forced to use abstract and immersion breaking mechanics to manage "aggro" because every target the bad guys can attack is about equally as threatening as any other.

Which is incorrect, a fighter mainly "aggro's" an enemy by A) not letting them get to his buddies in the first place, like a 3.5 tripper fighter, and B) being more threatening by getting additional attacks if the enemy ignores him to attacks his buddies. While there's also the -2 marked penalty, that is by far the weakest element of the fighter's capabilty to protect his friends.

[Crow]

Which is incorrect, a fighter mainly "aggro's" an enemy by A) not letting them get to his buddies in the first place, like a 3.5 tripper fighter, and B) being more threatening by getting additional attacks if the enemy ignores him to attacks his buddies. While there's also the -2 marked penalty, that is by far the weakest element of the fighter's capabilty to protect his friends.

Yes, but many of those abilities are dependant upon the target being "marked" in the first place.

I think they should do away with Strikers altogether, and merge the Tank and Striker roles. You could have things like fighters acting as "armor tanks", while rogues would be evasion or speed tanks. Both would be capable of dishing out enough punishment to make it worthwhile to remove them from the fight.

[Reverent-One]

Yes, but many of those abilities are dependant upon the target being "marked" in the first place.

For the record, while the additional attack is dependent on the target being marked, the stopping movement with an AoO isn't. Even if that wasn't the case though, I'd still have to ask, so what? It still fits your idea of attracting attention by being more of a threat.

[Crow]

For the record, while the additional attack is dependent on the target being marked, the stopping movement with an AoO isn't. Even if that wasn't the case though, I'd still have to ask, so what? It still fits your idea of attracting attention by being more of a threat.

But you aren't more of a threat. You're back to the old problem of enemies just walking around you.

[Reverent-One]

But you aren't more of a threat. You're back to the old problem of enemies just walking around you.

Which they can't do because you stop their movement. And even if one of your buddies is right beside them as well, you still can be more of a threat because ignoring you means they get beaten more than they would otherwise.

EDIT: And we seem to just be going in circles now, you say they aren't any more of a threat than anyone else, I explain how they're a threat, you mention marking, I ask so what, and you say then they're not a threat, which brings us back here. To clarify my last post, if that is the issue, when I asked so what, I was asking about what's the big deal about having to mark an enemy? For a fighter, it merely means you've engaged some enemy, and it is easier to simply say they are marked than listing each effect seperately.

[Yora]

The question, then, is whether it's possible to create a balanced game without using mechanics that break SOD too much.

I think a big problem of D&D is that it focuses too much on giving players tonnes of options. You have rules creep all the time, but late 3rd Edition wasn't funny anymore, and 4th seems to head in the same direction since day 1.
It's not so much that individual abilities are unbalanced, it's the completely unpredictable synergies between abilities from widely different sources that causes many of the big problems.
The major problem here is, that churning out tonnes of character options is WotCs main business model here. In older editions you had kits, but you could put three or four of them on a single page. In the late 3.5e books, it was five to six pages for each PrC.
I think with TSR and many of the smaller publishers, they are in the business for the love of the game. It has to make some profits and pay the employees, but there's some general interest and care for the product. With WotC, the game is a means to generate maximum profit, so you need a very high quantity of sells. A neat and tidy game, that would be relatively easy to balance and run, is just not in the companies interest.

[Crow]

Which they can't do because you stop their movement. And even if one of your buddies is right beside them as well, you still can be more of a threat because ignoring you means they get beaten more than they would otherwise.

EDIT: And we seem to just be going in circles now, you say they aren't any more of a threat than anyone else, I explain how they're a threat, you mention marking, I ask so what, and you say then they're not a threat, which brings us back here. To clarify my last post, if that is the issue, when I asked so what, I was asking about what's the big deal about having to mark an enemy? For a fighter, it merely means you've engaged some enemy, and it is easier to simply say they are marked than listing each effect seperately.

But AoO's are easy to avoid, and always have been. They don't make you anymore of a threat. You shouldn't have to declare that you have engaged an enemy. Your actions and ability to harm the target should be evident on their own.