Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2007-08-16 09:30 pm
subplotkudzu) wrote2007-08-16 09:30 pm
Entry tags:
D&D 4E
Just a little notice to my players: I never updated to 3.5, so I see no reason to 'upgrade' to 4.0. You have no cause for concern, except it will be even harder to find copies of the 3.0 PHB for any new players.
Unlike some others, after reading some of the WotC comments on 4.0 and some reviews of its likely precursor, "Star Wars Saga" I don't see 4.0 as being a betrayal. The betrayal of the promise that the company wouldn't publish another set of the rules just to boost the bottom line came with 3.5. I couldn't find anything in 3.5 that necessitated the production of a new 'edition'. The things that 3.5 purported to fix were not things I saw as broken, they were legitimate design decisions. That was when they tried to force gamers to buy another $60-80 worth of rulebooks.
4.0, on the other hand, appears to be a serious repositioning of the game for new market trends and game design pressures: by removing granularity and emphasizing on-line tools it looks like WotC is looking to claim (or reclaim) some of the Online game players. There are a lot of MMORPG players who don't play D&D because they're used (or want to) have the computer handle all the fiddly bits: experience progression, skill advancement, range and terrain modifiers. Since the basic game engines that power those games are clearly derived from D&D, I suspect the hope is that removing or standardizing the fiddly bits will make the tabletop experience closer to the MMORPG one and therefore draw in those gamers.
It's a fair strategy and one they have every right to try. I'd prefer it if they didn't try it at the expense of supporting the game editions for those of us that started on Tabletop and quite like our fiddly bits, but I think they have also realized that those of us likely to leave for that reason have already left. As I said, I haven't left 3E yet, and I see no reason to.
However, I also don't think the strategy is going to work - from what I have heard the average MMORPG player likes all the fiddly bits that the computer handles for them (I recall Jay waxing rhapsodic over the ease of EverQuest's language learning system, which is the sort of thing tabletop RPGs gloss over as too much buck for too little bang) and will miss them when they're gone. Maybe some of the newly touted on-line tools will give the fiddly without the effort on either the GM or players part. But if they don't, I don't expect an exodus from the computers to the tables
Though the Star Wars Saga engine sounds like it has potential for a pulp or space opera style game. I'll be interested to see what comes from it.
4.0, on the other hand, appears to be a serious repositioning of the game for new market trends and game design pressures: by removing granularity and emphasizing on-line tools it looks like WotC is looking to claim (or reclaim) some of the Online game players. There are a lot of MMORPG players who don't play D&D because they're used (or want to) have the computer handle all the fiddly bits: experience progression, skill advancement, range and terrain modifiers. Since the basic game engines that power those games are clearly derived from D&D, I suspect the hope is that removing or standardizing the fiddly bits will make the tabletop experience closer to the MMORPG one and therefore draw in those gamers.
It's a fair strategy and one they have every right to try. I'd prefer it if they didn't try it at the expense of supporting the game editions for those of us that started on Tabletop and quite like our fiddly bits, but I think they have also realized that those of us likely to leave for that reason have already left. As I said, I haven't left 3E yet, and I see no reason to.
However, I also don't think the strategy is going to work - from what I have heard the average MMORPG player likes all the fiddly bits that the computer handles for them (I recall Jay waxing rhapsodic over the ease of EverQuest's language learning system, which is the sort of thing tabletop RPGs gloss over as too much buck for too little bang) and will miss them when they're gone. Maybe some of the newly touted on-line tools will give the fiddly without the effort on either the GM or players part. But if they don't, I don't expect an exodus from the computers to the tables
Though the Star Wars Saga engine sounds like it has potential for a pulp or space opera style game. I'll be interested to see what comes from it.
no subject
I have to admit, it's more interesting than I'd assumed it would be.
no subject
I know that they have a sizable online player base - Jason had been doing that on and off, since it's easier to get into a pick up game at 10 PM after the kids are in bed when you can find other players through the internet.
John Cooper and I have been teaching Karen how to play recently as well. it is a fun game, but beware it's addicitve (and expensive) qualities. With the new edition just out, now is a good time to start.
no subject
It looks like another is setting up the virtual table to make on line tabletop games viable. THAT sounds like it could be a serious draw - perhaps as effective as Magic Online. I'd still want to get my real friends around a real table, but I'd consider the subscription rates for the chance to have a monthly game with friends netting in from other countries and continents without losing a sense of GM directed storytelling. It wouldn't be as good as face to face, but it would be a damn site better than the MMORPG environment that leaves me cold.