I am now beginning to hear things that I don't like, after being relatively impressed up to now. Not all of this is bad by any means, but I'm starting to see things in the implementation that will be turn-offs for me unless the way they are presented is really, really good.
Here's the Transcript:
Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards
This transcript is paraphrased, with some responses shortened. It is compiled from various tweets (thanks especially to Critical Hits, E. Foley, and Rolling20s for their live tweeting - I suggest you check out their Twitter feeds) plus WotC's live chat feed, and other sources. In attendence: Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, and Robert J. Schwalb.
Greg: Today we're going to be talking about Class Design, from Assassins to Wizards. To start things off, let's hear what your favorite class is and why.
Bruce: I would say the warlock in 4th edition. I really liked all the flavor and options that go into the class. I had a star pact warlock recently that was really fun to play.
Monte: The wizard. Historically it was the one that needed planning and forethought. It rewards good play above the others in my opinion.
Rob: My favorite class is the assassin. Even in first edition I could pretend to be a fighter, and then kill people. In 3rd and 4th I liked the versatility
and options that I could have with the assassin.
Greg: How complex or simple do you think classes should be?
Bruce: I think, we think that different classes should have different levels of complexity. If you want something easier to pick up, there should be a class for that, if you want something that's a bit more challenging or has a bit more going on, you should be able to do that out the gate as well.
Monte: I would also add that we want different levels of complexity for classes. For example, if a guy wants to pick up a fighter and have an easy time of it, there should be options for that. But also, if another person wants to pick up a fighter and have lots of options and/or complexity, we want to provide that too. The base game is the foundation. If you opt in to character development options, you can get complexity.
Rob: There was discussion of complexity parity in the classes. There's a baseline complexity, but can add as needed.
Greg: Do you want to talk about some of the ways that this could be accomplished?
Monte: Sure. So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more.
Rob: Even in the core you varying levels of complexity within each class. Even the wizard has a base starting point that is less complex than what you can get into if you opt into some of the options.
Greg: This conversation leads into the talk of balance. Is it important that classes are equally balanced? And how does that look - would that focus on damage output and number crunching?
Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.
Bruce: If all classes are putting out the same damage, there's no difference. We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat.
Greg: When you're talking about non-numerical class stuff, how do you figure out balance?
Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements. Each class has its time in the spotlight, and not all classes are built expressly for combat.
Rob: You may look at a class and see that it's damage output isn't as high as another class, for example maybe the bard doesn't do as much as raw damage as the fighter. That other class will have other options, like charm person or something that fits into that class's niche and will give that class different options, but still equally useful in combat, exploration, or roleplaying. If the Fighter's damage is the baseline, and Bard is 70%, the Bard has extra stuff (spells, etc) to give variety. We find damage equivalence between offensive and other types of spells. Charm Person roughly 105 points of damage.
Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.
Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.
Greg: What's been the most challenging class to build?
Monte: Actually the fighter has been the most difficult. You have the basic idea of the figher, but you also have the wide range of option to make them more unique and complex. Also something like the D&D wizard and we have a clear view or set of examples for what that wizard could look like. With the fighther, there's not that clear example. So we've got like eight or nine different versions of the figher we've gone through while trying to nail that down.
Rob: The fighter is definitely one of the more challenging ones. Another would be the psion, who's currently over crying in the corner. I also think the current incarnations of the druid have been real challenging. Including all the different iterations of the druid from previous editions has been difficult while also trying to keep it from being overwhelming.
Bruce: To reiterate, the fighter has been hard. In comparison the monk has been relatively easy because he's focused and his path is relatively clear. For me, the sorcerer has also been fairly difficult - finding the balance between the story and mechanics of the previous editions and it's space when compared to other casters.
Greg: How long should character creation take and how much should be involved in those more complex options?
Bruce: If you're picking up one of those common classes and you're building a character, it shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes to create a character if experienced; a new player might take 30 minutes.
Rob: Yeah, it was really quick in one of my playtests. it was pretty sexy and awesome to be able to create the character and jump into the game. My group, 7th level, core characters, 15 minutes to make them.
Monte: What we're really getting at is that character creation should take as long as you want. If you want to jump into a game quickly, you can put together an easy character and not worry about too many of those options. But if you want to build the more complex character and go through the options and tweak it to be exactly what you want, then you have the time and options for that.
Greg: I like planning my feat chain over 20 levels. So let's talk about spell casters and the spell casting mechanics. What are your opinions on how that should be? Current playtest has a Vancian system of magic. Thoughts on using that system?
Monte: It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, is D&D. There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric
(core), Vancian is the way to go. There's something to be said for picking spells that match what you think is coming. Rewarding. I know it's a bit
contreversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will
abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace.
Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration.
Bruce: As Monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks.
Rob: And there's nothing stopping us from looking at all those green attacks from 4th and seeing how those fit into this new iteration. Some for combat, some for not combat. The spell feats fit for that and other class options or feats could offer similar things.
Bruce: I feel we're brining Vancian magic back to the place it began, keeping the story intact and making it important to the story of the world.
Greg: How about the 15 minute workday problem?
Bruce: Wizards have magical feats (at-will, always available). Hold on to higher spells until needed.
Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter).
Bruce: 4e took Vancian magic and gave it to all classes. We're bringing it back to the part of D&D where it belongs. Fighters have their version of abilities and options as well, but it will have a different feel than the vancian magic for arcane stuff.
Greg: How is the idea of rituals progressing in the next iteration of D&D?
Rob: Monte started running with the ball and wanted to make rituals there for the really big spells that are super awesome, but might take a bit longer to cast. I ran with that and really wanted to make them all very interesting and complex, and really invest the player/character in what they're doing. We could bring back a lot of the big, neat spells from previous editions, and rituals can be the spells that do that.
Monte: Magic is taking a broader turn than just spells. In the past we got to the point where everything you encountered in the game had some kind of spell attached to it or that replecated the effect. I really want to go back to the idea that magic is mysterious and wierd and not always entirely definable. I think it's good for the story of the game when the DM can use it to help to define and area or maybe a unique magic item. Things like rituals help us accomplish that - makes things more open ended and more interesting and also takes away some of the focus from the wizard and puts it on other things in the world.
Greg: 4e had advancement that was in lock-step for all classes. Essentials introduced variance. How do you think class progression should work going forward?
Bruce: I think there's room for idiosyncrating skill choices and progression for one class, but not have those same options, feel or look for another class. As Monte mentioned we want each class to look, feel and play differently. But there's also room for some options that spread across all classes.
Rob: For example we might say that all classes get a feat at third level. But then if you dip into the full customization options, you could trade that out for brute strike or something. So there will be some bits of progression that are shared from class to class, but each one will still feel like it's own class and have the ability to trade out it's own options.
Greg: Are there any classes that you're now interested in because of the design work you've been doing?
Rob: They're all awesome, but I think I would have to pick the Ranger. There's so much stuff going on that I'm excited for each version. You could make up a beast ranger, or an Aragorn stye ranger or a Drizzt style ranger and they all feel awesome and iconic.
Bruce: I don't think I could pick one really. I'm really excited about these iterations of the classes and every time I'm working on one I want to be playing that class. I haven't had a chance to play everything yet, but I hope I will.
Monte: I've seen a lot of cool classes. I've wanted to play every one I've seen. Every class has something in it that should make your (the players) excited about the class.
Greg: Once we get into the playtest feedback and start talking about things, what do you want to see feedback on?
Rob: I really want to see feedback on the wild talents. There's a lot of different and interesting things going on there and I think there's a lot of room for feedback there on if they work, how they work.
Monte: I'm really interested to see feedback on the spellcasting and how they support the three different pillars of the game. With the rituals, spell feats, classes, spells and other options, I'm really looking forward to see how this works in people's minds/games. Plus feedback on 8' tall halflings.
OPENED UP TO Q&A
Q: What about the barbarian and cleric?
Monte: Well the barbarian fits with what some of us are familiar with, he rages and can take lots and lots of damage and deal out lots of damage.
Bruce: As some of you have seen the cleric has an interesting mix of healing and other options. We're working on some things that focus on different kinds of clerics like healing, or marshal, or ranged focus. Cleric is interesting, because the Cleric has a few different potential expressions. Domains, healing, how will they express their powers? Work is continuing. I like what we've got so far.
Rob: The last time we were in Seattle we were thinking about the cleric, and my big thing with the cleric was getting back to the cleric of 1E that fights with a mace and shield and gets his party back up. But 2nd edition introduced the other option that is very closely related to your god and had more spell casting. So we're looking at keeping the cleric as this guy who fights and is that classic cleric, but the priest is that guy that is closer to his god,
maybe doesn't wear that armor is laying down more divine effects and spells.
Q: How do you think magic items fit in this next iteration?
Bruce: Magic items have always been a part of the game, but with 4th it became part of a player's natural progression so that you would have to pick up items from stores or other places to keep up. One of the negative things that brought up was that it eliminted some of the exploration that was so integral in earlier editions. You no longer had to go questing or searching for that magic item. We want to decouple magic items from character progression so they're not needed, and return that exploration and excitement of finding magic items.
Greg: Monte you had a poll like this in your Legends & Lore column. Do you remember what the results were?
Monte: Yeah, it was surprising. A majority wanted magic items to be special and not to be able to buy them in shops and such. Of course that could be campaign specific. We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression, though things could change through playtesting. But we want it to be something that the DM plans, or something that a player/character wants to go on a quest to get that magic item they've heard of or need to accomplish there goals. We're going forward with the idea that magic items are possible, but difficult to create by PCs. We're not balancing the classes based on the expectation of magical items. It's about the player going to find the loot.
Q: What are you planning for multiclassing?
Rob: We're shooting for the 3E style of multiclassing that makes it easy to multiclass into any other class. It's been on the forefront of our minds when we're doing all this class work.
Q: You mentioned that fighters are necessarily focused or super iconic. Why don't you split all the different fighter ideas out into different classes, like a dervish or fencer?
Bruce: If something comes along that's really evocative and has it's own flavor and story, it's definitely not off the table that it could be it's own class. There will be multiple classes that can heal, for example.
Q: With the Vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are you balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind?
Monte: Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of options and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're
taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting
higher level ability. And for managing how you those resources work throughout a day and looking at encounters, and keeping that trading-in mechanic in mind, we can look at average encounters a day, how long an average encounter will last, the resources an average character/player will go through and balance that that way.
Q: Are you looking at power sources?
Rob: Not explicitly. We're not going to be using the power sources as keywords or anything any more (probably). You'll still have psionic characters and primal characters for example, but we won't be using those words or jargon to separate things.
Bruce: We want to get away from jargon and catchphrases, and use natural language instead. "Arcane power source" breaks you out of the game. "I cast arcane spells" doesn't. We really want to get away from jargon that is just there for the sake of the game. For example you might use the word arcane, but a class wouldn't be labeled as an arcane class.
Q: How are you thinking about archtypes and iconic classes from previous editions and how that affects the classes in the next iteration of D&D?
Bruce: We want to have each class be the most iconic and archtypal it can be, based on what a D&D version of that archtype is or should be. The story of the character or class is really important when looking at this.
Q: How do you see advancement and experience acquisition and leveling?
Monte: I don't want any class to have to take longer than any other class to come into it's own. Story wise, I want all the classes to progress at the same rate. So that a third level assassin feels the same as a third level bard in as much as how assassiny or how bardy they feel. The story comes first, and character advancement should come as fast as the group wants it to. I think character advancement should go as fast as the group wants it to go. So I want information available so that you can control that entirely based on your gaming group. Yes, there will be a base progression, but I want there to be information on speeding that up or slowing that down as necessary. There will be a set pace in the player's book, but meaty rules in the DMs book to adjust that.
Q: What's the philosophy on status effect design?
Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun is and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that. We've pared down and increased the list of status effects, back and forth.
Q: What's your focus on high magic or high fantasy and low magic or low fantasy?
Bruce: Right out the gate, since magic item acquisition isn't part of the level progression a DM can say that you're going to have to work really hard for your magic. Also, the thing that Monte was talking about with your xp progression being modifiable, you could really stretch out those levels to have a low fantasy or lower power kind of game.
Q: How are you handling campaigns that may not have any traps or any social settings? Are you going to have the strong bard for example?
Rob: The bard as example, you may be in a campaign that's going to do more dungon crawling and not have a lot of social. There will be options that you can opt into where you can pick those combat relevant options in place of those social ones.
Q: Will classes like the bladesinger and swordmage still exist and be distinct from each other?
Bruce: There is some place for story separation with those two classes and we're looking into it.
Q: I know you're trying to have a game where people can play what they want, and party balance works out and you don't need any particular class to play. How are you guys making this game so that something like three rogues could show up at a table and play?
Monte: A 3 rogue game sounds awesome. I don't want any class to be mandatory, but I do want options and events that make you really happy that X class is with you. For example, when fighting undead, you don't need a cleric, but you'll be happy if you have one. If you're out in the wilderness, you'll be happy that the druid is in your party.
Q: Will some of the non-traditional classes like the Ninja appear early in the next edition?
Bruce: The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.
Q: What about a simple, tactical game?
Rob: With D&D Next, you should be able to play the same kind of 4e-type game that you're playing now.
Q: How are you addressing the linear fighter and quadratic wizard damage progression issue?
Bruce: The wizard has to choose when they deal the big damage, and that's the balancing portion. When a wizard gets fireball, he can do a lot of damage in the round, but he only has so many fireballs. The fighter doesn't have that limitation. We have a lot of math and play evidence that tells us how long average parties or play is going to last, so we feel like we've got a good grasp of how to make the fighter and wizard relevant throughout the day.
Rob: As Monte mentioned earlier, some spells and options drop out and are replaced with higher ones, so that addresses some of the problem - you don't end up with all of those options. With that in mind, and the math backing it up, we can balance that figher damage to make sure that it stays relevant.
Monte: Fireball is a static 5d6. If you want more damage, you use a higher-level spell slot. Much more balancing. Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.
Trevor: And that about wraps it up for the seminar and chat today folks. Thanks much for coming out and joining us. Tomorrow at 12:30 Eastern will be doing this again, focusing on the product release schedule and what you can expect to see this year.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
5e Twitter from Deisgners Ongoing
This is a copy of the tweets so far with Monte Cook and other designers from some seminar that's going on now. I quit trying to take out the info that got copied as the result of a button; more of a pain in the butt than it was worth.
Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Do you think D&D has started to take itself too seriously? Mike: D&D always needs an element of chaos, that can lead to silly or serious.
4m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How will it deal with more complex characters that take a long time to resolve an action? Monte: Big goal of design is to keep combat quick.
6m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: A spectrum of complexity is available in 4e in Essentials vs. other classes. This spectrum will be widened in new edition.
9m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: So a player that wants something simple can play it, but as the campaign goes on, can decide to add more complexity or not.
9m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What's the expectation of getting playgroups together with different styles? Monte: Want to make it possible to support multiple styles.
11m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Mike: There will still be room for DMs to customize in OP, but the basic implementation will be shared.
12m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How will the new edition address organized play? Mike: No specific decisions made yet. Want to make a standard set of modules used for OP.
14m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How easy it is to switch playstyles in mid-session? Mike: Modules will have a basic implementation that's easier to pick up and run.
14m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Open playtesting should begin in the spring, and will be available for all kinds of groups to run.
15m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: For instance some DMs make their adventures via random tables. Random tables will be back, but not a requirement to use.
15m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What will be the role of random charts? Monte: There are different styles of DMs that are inspired by different things.
19m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: Empowering the DM to make more rules calls allows the players to be more creative.
19m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What will empower the players to be creative? Monte: Moving away from looking at a character sheet for options, to limitless options.
21m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Support for new players? Mike: Complexity will be managed by products, all supported by the same core, and give the right experience.
22m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: The playtests will hint at some of the options. For example, the fighter is also a noble which grants some social skills.
24m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: Class customization is easier, while multiclassing is a more drastic change that is more of a commitment and rulesmastery.
25m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Audience Q&A beginning. Will customization be more like multiclassing, or within the class itself? Monte: Both are viable options.
27m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: Use modularity session by session. No minis or dice rolling in city, lots of dice rolling next session in big batttle.
28m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Mike: A game that starts with a simple core, then introduce new pieces as the campaign goes on. Flexibility.
29m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What kind of modules would you use in your games? Monte: Use minis, but not super-tactical. Lots of social interaction and exploring.
31m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: Adventures can be more customizable to account for a group's needs, and some can be more targeted to styles.
31m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Designing adventures for such a wide audience? Jeremy: Sometimes you make adventures that apply broadly, and some that are more focused.
33m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Identifying a D&D ranger is like looking at whether it's best represented by Aragorn or Drizzt.
34m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Part of the challenge is coming up with identifying what the D&D version of something "is," like what a D&D wizards means.
35m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Of course, this means that often feedback is diametrically opposed. It's the designer's job to come up with new creative solutions.
36m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Internal playtesting has been going on ~9 months. Main lesson is how diverse people's experience is with D&D.
37m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Sometimes the answer is to provide the DM with more tools to customize the experience instead of making an entirely new rule.
38m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Playtesting feedback will be considered carefully. The 1st impulse to feedback is to make a rule, which isn't always the right answer.
40m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
No matter what level, if the DM needs the party to encounter an orc, they can just open the monster manual and get a useable one.
41m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: One of the reasons behind this is to provide good world-building tools for DMs. An entire realm of orcs is always a threat.
42m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: instead of increasing attack bonuses, give higher level characters more interesting things to do.
44m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: wants lower level threats to remain relevant at all levels. Orcs start scary, become easier, but never are irrelevant.
44m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: disparities always develop the longer a games goes on, and they need to determine what that experience should feel like.
46m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
All in all, sounds like they're still working on it, but part of that is where asking play testers will come in to identify issues.
47m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
High level play: impression that all editions break down at some level. Trying to address those issues to let high level play work.
49m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: While the rogue may have a lot of exploration abilities, the customization may allow more "stabby" rogues.
50m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: "Bards can still kick ass."
51m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: The three pillars have helped the designers inform class design. It gives a lens to recognize each class's role in each.
52m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Modules could even allow rules for a single story, like using mass battle rules for a session, or customized for a campaign.
53m Matt Dukes Matt Dukes @direflail
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Roleplay, exploration, and combat. No official support for rules lawyering. Sorry everybody. #dndnext #ddxp
Retweeted by Gato, CH News Robot
53m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Modules would allow the game to shift styles in mid-campaign to react to DM and players' needs.
55m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Even if the DM makes a very character-driven game, a player could still make a very tactical character and know what to expect.
56m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: DM can say that he's running a very tactical game, so it's a code for the players to make characters that work well with it.
57m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Meanwhile, DMs also have optional modules to customize for the game they want to run.
58m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Between the two fighters, one is more complex, but because it is a trade-off, they remain balanced.
59m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
As an example, the fighter is built on some core abilities and concepts. Opt-in to more customization to exchange core abilities for others.
59m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
So the seeds of any potential module are placed in the core game.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
How to reconcile a modular system with exceptations of game balance? Jeremy: Each module is more of a spectrum approach.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Development team also handles the number crunching, like expected monster damage by level.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Each rule is examined for potential consequences, short term and long term, and if it's positive or negative.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Development team's role in the process. Jeremy: Received something from designers w/ goal, and determine if the goal is met or needs work.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: The modules would allow you to just play the core game, or add on modules for heavily tactical games, or heavily story driven games.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: In order to start, needed to distill down to a core game, a foundation on which different modules can be added on for all styles.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Designers realized that people have different desires and different needs when playing/running D&D, wanted to embrace all styles.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: There are shared stories too, like a culture, in things like the gazebo or the Head of Vecna.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mechanical elements of D&D: Mike: "First, here's what RPGs do. Then, here's what D&D does. Then you focus on the shared language."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: "Synthesis between toolbox for creating worlds and stories... we're making magic plus good game design."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: "I also like fireballs." Mike: "Players being creative in exploring a world."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
What things the panelists would like to see carried forward: "relationship between player and DM" from @MonteJCook
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Charting the Course #ddxp seminar beginning. Broad discussion about #dndnext, goals, challenge, etc.
Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Do you think D&D has started to take itself too seriously? Mike: D&D always needs an element of chaos, that can lead to silly or serious.
4m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How will it deal with more complex characters that take a long time to resolve an action? Monte: Big goal of design is to keep combat quick.
6m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: A spectrum of complexity is available in 4e in Essentials vs. other classes. This spectrum will be widened in new edition.
9m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: So a player that wants something simple can play it, but as the campaign goes on, can decide to add more complexity or not.
9m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What's the expectation of getting playgroups together with different styles? Monte: Want to make it possible to support multiple styles.
11m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Mike: There will still be room for DMs to customize in OP, but the basic implementation will be shared.
12m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How will the new edition address organized play? Mike: No specific decisions made yet. Want to make a standard set of modules used for OP.
14m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
How easy it is to switch playstyles in mid-session? Mike: Modules will have a basic implementation that's easier to pick up and run.
14m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Open playtesting should begin in the spring, and will be available for all kinds of groups to run.
15m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: For instance some DMs make their adventures via random tables. Random tables will be back, but not a requirement to use.
15m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What will be the role of random charts? Monte: There are different styles of DMs that are inspired by different things.
19m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: Empowering the DM to make more rules calls allows the players to be more creative.
19m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What will empower the players to be creative? Monte: Moving away from looking at a character sheet for options, to limitless options.
21m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Support for new players? Mike: Complexity will be managed by products, all supported by the same core, and give the right experience.
22m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: The playtests will hint at some of the options. For example, the fighter is also a noble which grants some social skills.
24m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Monte: Class customization is easier, while multiclassing is a more drastic change that is more of a commitment and rulesmastery.
25m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Audience Q&A beginning. Will customization be more like multiclassing, or within the class itself? Monte: Both are viable options.
27m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: Use modularity session by session. No minis or dice rolling in city, lots of dice rolling next session in big batttle.
28m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Mike: A game that starts with a simple core, then introduce new pieces as the campaign goes on. Flexibility.
29m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
What kind of modules would you use in your games? Monte: Use minis, but not super-tactical. Lots of social interaction and exploring.
31m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Jeremy: Adventures can be more customizable to account for a group's needs, and some can be more targeted to styles.
31m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Designing adventures for such a wide audience? Jeremy: Sometimes you make adventures that apply broadly, and some that are more focused.
33m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Identifying a D&D ranger is like looking at whether it's best represented by Aragorn or Drizzt.
34m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Part of the challenge is coming up with identifying what the D&D version of something "is," like what a D&D wizards means.
35m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Of course, this means that often feedback is diametrically opposed. It's the designer's job to come up with new creative solutions.
36m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Internal playtesting has been going on ~9 months. Main lesson is how diverse people's experience is with D&D.
37m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Sometimes the answer is to provide the DM with more tools to customize the experience instead of making an entirely new rule.
38m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Playtesting feedback will be considered carefully. The 1st impulse to feedback is to make a rule, which isn't always the right answer.
40m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
No matter what level, if the DM needs the party to encounter an orc, they can just open the monster manual and get a useable one.
41m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: One of the reasons behind this is to provide good world-building tools for DMs. An entire realm of orcs is always a threat.
42m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: instead of increasing attack bonuses, give higher level characters more interesting things to do.
44m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: wants lower level threats to remain relevant at all levels. Orcs start scary, become easier, but never are irrelevant.
44m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: disparities always develop the longer a games goes on, and they need to determine what that experience should feel like.
46m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
All in all, sounds like they're still working on it, but part of that is where asking play testers will come in to identify issues.
47m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
High level play: impression that all editions break down at some level. Trying to address those issues to let high level play work.
49m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: While the rogue may have a lot of exploration abilities, the customization may allow more "stabby" rogues.
50m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: "Bards can still kick ass."
51m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: The three pillars have helped the designers inform class design. It gives a lens to recognize each class's role in each.
52m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Modules could even allow rules for a single story, like using mass battle rules for a session, or customized for a campaign.
53m Matt Dukes Matt Dukes @direflail
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Roleplay, exploration, and combat. No official support for rules lawyering. Sorry everybody. #dndnext #ddxp
Retweeted by Gato, CH News Robot
53m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Modules would allow the game to shift styles in mid-campaign to react to DM and players' needs.
55m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: Even if the DM makes a very character-driven game, a player could still make a very tactical character and know what to expect.
56m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: DM can say that he's running a very tactical game, so it's a code for the players to make characters that work well with it.
57m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Meanwhile, DMs also have optional modules to customize for the game they want to run.
58m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Between the two fighters, one is more complex, but because it is a trade-off, they remain balanced.
59m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
As an example, the fighter is built on some core abilities and concepts. Opt-in to more customization to exchange core abilities for others.
59m Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
So the seeds of any potential module are placed in the core game.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
How to reconcile a modular system with exceptations of game balance? Jeremy: Each module is more of a spectrum approach.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Development team also handles the number crunching, like expected monster damage by level.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: Each rule is examined for potential consequences, short term and long term, and if it's positive or negative.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Development team's role in the process. Jeremy: Received something from designers w/ goal, and determine if the goal is met or needs work.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: The modules would allow you to just play the core game, or add on modules for heavily tactical games, or heavily story driven games.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: In order to start, needed to distill down to a core game, a foundation on which different modules can be added on for all styles.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: Designers realized that people have different desires and different needs when playing/running D&D, wanted to embrace all styles.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mike: There are shared stories too, like a culture, in things like the gazebo or the Head of Vecna.
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Mechanical elements of D&D: Mike: "First, here's what RPGs do. Then, here's what D&D does. Then you focus on the shared language."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Jeremy: "Synthesis between toolbox for creating worlds and stories... we're making magic plus good game design."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Monte: "I also like fireballs." Mike: "Players being creative in exploring a world."
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
What things the panelists would like to see carried forward: "relationship between player and DM" from @MonteJCook
1h Gato, CH News Robot Gato, CH News Robot @criticalhits
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
· Open
Charting the Course #ddxp seminar beginning. Broad discussion about #dndnext, goals, challenge, etc.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Whither (Wither?) the OSR
With the reprinting of AD&D, coupled with the impending release of 5e, mixed in with a healthy promise from Wizards of the Coast that 5e will be awesome for old school gamers ... we're at an interesting crossroads for the community of pre-3e gamers.
I call that the "OSR," since it's a blanket term for something with several -- often mutually exclusive -- moving parts. Interestingly, we may be moving as a result of the WotC release strategy toward a splintering of the relatively big-tent OSR that we've had so far.
The reprint of AD&D, done for whatever reason, may have had some intention of arresting the progress of OSRIC as a 1e resource. I imagine that once the reprints hit the street there will indeed be a decline in the number of downloads of the OSRIC rulebook. On the other hand, it might significantly increase the number of people who get interested in looking at OSRIC modules/resources. If part of the objective of the reprint was to slow down OSRIC, I think it's going to backfire on that particular point unless 5e happens to be so usable for 1e that a 5e module can actually, really be used for a 1e game.
In reality, I think WotC is doing the reprint because it's something they can sell in between 4e and 5e. In between editions they aren't going to sell much 4e material, after all. They have to look for their alternative sources of material, and a collector version of AD&D fits the bill quite nicely.
The potential compatibility of 1e and 5e isn't going to be known until the secret public playtesting session at this D&DXP convention leaks like a sieve and there are copies of the playtest document all over the internet. If WotC doesn't think that D&D players are beyond bringing in James Bond scanners and engaging in techno-stuff that would boggle the CIA in order to get copies of that document into circulation, they don't know the dynamics of the internet or the capabilities/determination of the fan base. I've already started seeing on ENWorld (yes, I went to ENWorld) the beginnings of grumbling about all the secrecy.
If 5e is somewhat compatible with 1e, whether that's forward compatibility or backward compatibility, there's going to be a neold-school group that fuses the two. Another edition war in the old school, how beautiful. Because this edition might very well be more old school than 3e ... it's almost certain to be closer to 1e than 4e was. (For those who didn't try 4e, it's very different from 1e, like that's going to shock anyone).
I can see a circumstance in which the compatibility with 1e is close enough to allow an agile person to write for 1e using either 5e or some kind of "AD&D Compatible" trademark license. That would be an extremely positive outcome for us, because it would mean (a) nice reprints on FLGS shelves, at least for a while, to attract new players and pull in our off-internet brethren who still play AD&D (b) ability to publish for the system without using the code-names made necessary by the terms of the Open Game License, and (c) OSRIC is still there, but goes into a Cthulhu-nap until the next WotC generation of managers removes the ability to legally speak the words "Ia, Ia, AD&D Ry'Leh." At which point, substitute "OSRIC" for "AD&D" and keep right on truckin'.
However, I've got a feeling that the attempt to make 5e compatible with 1e is going to disrupt our sense of identity a bit. Depending on the nature of the beast (unless it's utterly obvious that they aren't compatible -- a possibility) this is going to create some bitterness between those who think it's compatible enough and those who aren't influenced by "close enough," or by the idea of an expanded community, or by the idea of picking up mostly-usable game materials at Barnes & Noble.
No matter what, the core of our community isn't likely to change much, but the shape of the activity just might get rattled around a bit as some gamers switch to 5e, as they get edition-warred, as third-party publishers (including free resources) try to figure out the trademark/license landscape for the words "AD&D," as new people discover the OSR because of the reprints at the same time many leave for the "almost-compatible" 5e.
I don't think it's going to be seismic, but I betcha we have a great big edition war now that there's an edition coming out that -- we're told -- is actually aimed at bringing us back into the official fold. 4e made no ripple in our community because far from trying to attract us ... it brought new 1e players in droves. This time around, it's going to have some sort of effect in our part of the world.
We'll have to see.
PS, I don't think WotC is deliberately targeting the OSR other than probably wanting to reduce the number of OSRIC rulebooks that people are buying/downloading. They want us on the WotC website, buying WotC products, and I think they're legitimately making their best attempt to make that happen. I'm just a bit concerned about the collateral damage we're going to inflict on ourselves when the attempt is unveiled.
Although we're pretty safe, because all grognards are level-headed and slow to anger, fair in our judgements and accepting of ... um ... okay, yeah, there's going to be an edition war.
I call that the "OSR," since it's a blanket term for something with several -- often mutually exclusive -- moving parts. Interestingly, we may be moving as a result of the WotC release strategy toward a splintering of the relatively big-tent OSR that we've had so far.
The reprint of AD&D, done for whatever reason, may have had some intention of arresting the progress of OSRIC as a 1e resource. I imagine that once the reprints hit the street there will indeed be a decline in the number of downloads of the OSRIC rulebook. On the other hand, it might significantly increase the number of people who get interested in looking at OSRIC modules/resources. If part of the objective of the reprint was to slow down OSRIC, I think it's going to backfire on that particular point unless 5e happens to be so usable for 1e that a 5e module can actually, really be used for a 1e game.
In reality, I think WotC is doing the reprint because it's something they can sell in between 4e and 5e. In between editions they aren't going to sell much 4e material, after all. They have to look for their alternative sources of material, and a collector version of AD&D fits the bill quite nicely.
The potential compatibility of 1e and 5e isn't going to be known until the secret public playtesting session at this D&DXP convention leaks like a sieve and there are copies of the playtest document all over the internet. If WotC doesn't think that D&D players are beyond bringing in James Bond scanners and engaging in techno-stuff that would boggle the CIA in order to get copies of that document into circulation, they don't know the dynamics of the internet or the capabilities/determination of the fan base. I've already started seeing on ENWorld (yes, I went to ENWorld) the beginnings of grumbling about all the secrecy.
If 5e is somewhat compatible with 1e, whether that's forward compatibility or backward compatibility, there's going to be a neold-school group that fuses the two. Another edition war in the old school, how beautiful. Because this edition might very well be more old school than 3e ... it's almost certain to be closer to 1e than 4e was. (For those who didn't try 4e, it's very different from 1e, like that's going to shock anyone).
I can see a circumstance in which the compatibility with 1e is close enough to allow an agile person to write for 1e using either 5e or some kind of "AD&D Compatible" trademark license. That would be an extremely positive outcome for us, because it would mean (a) nice reprints on FLGS shelves, at least for a while, to attract new players and pull in our off-internet brethren who still play AD&D (b) ability to publish for the system without using the code-names made necessary by the terms of the Open Game License, and (c) OSRIC is still there, but goes into a Cthulhu-nap until the next WotC generation of managers removes the ability to legally speak the words "Ia, Ia, AD&D Ry'Leh." At which point, substitute "OSRIC" for "AD&D" and keep right on truckin'.
However, I've got a feeling that the attempt to make 5e compatible with 1e is going to disrupt our sense of identity a bit. Depending on the nature of the beast (unless it's utterly obvious that they aren't compatible -- a possibility) this is going to create some bitterness between those who think it's compatible enough and those who aren't influenced by "close enough," or by the idea of an expanded community, or by the idea of picking up mostly-usable game materials at Barnes & Noble.
No matter what, the core of our community isn't likely to change much, but the shape of the activity just might get rattled around a bit as some gamers switch to 5e, as they get edition-warred, as third-party publishers (including free resources) try to figure out the trademark/license landscape for the words "AD&D," as new people discover the OSR because of the reprints at the same time many leave for the "almost-compatible" 5e.
I don't think it's going to be seismic, but I betcha we have a great big edition war now that there's an edition coming out that -- we're told -- is actually aimed at bringing us back into the official fold. 4e made no ripple in our community because far from trying to attract us ... it brought new 1e players in droves. This time around, it's going to have some sort of effect in our part of the world.
We'll have to see.
PS, I don't think WotC is deliberately targeting the OSR other than probably wanting to reduce the number of OSRIC rulebooks that people are buying/downloading. They want us on the WotC website, buying WotC products, and I think they're legitimately making their best attempt to make that happen. I'm just a bit concerned about the collateral damage we're going to inflict on ourselves when the attempt is unveiled.
Although we're pretty safe, because all grognards are level-headed and slow to anger, fair in our judgements and accepting of ... um ... okay, yeah, there's going to be an edition war.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
My Sincere Apology
For years, people have been talking on messageboards about petitioning WotC to do a reprint of AD&D. I thought they were idiots for even wasting their time on such an impossible, Quixotic idea. I'm pretty sure I never flat-out said, "you're an idiot," since I completely sympathized and agreed with the sentiment ... but I'm also pretty sure that I posted some wet blanket types of responses like, "that will never happen."
You guys were right, and I'm the idiot. Which is really cool, given that I'm pleased to be wrong about this and to find that those reprints are actually being planned.
In terms of the whole retro-clone initiative, from my perspective this doesn't really change much since the purpose of OSRIC was to make the content available for third-party publications rather than for at-the-table gaming. On that particular project, the only way in which WotC could actually step beyond OSRIC would be to (a) make AD&D open content, which OSRIC already is, and (b) to allow some way for a third party publisher to mention compatibility with the AD&D trademark. Part (b) is the territory into which OSRIC can't venture, and I doubt that WotC would be willing to go so far.
And thus, in hopes of getting lucky a second time, I'll repeat the "you're an idiot" formula that worked so well last time, as an invocation. If you think that WotC will allow the AD&D trademark to be referenced by third-party publishers ... then "you're an idiot." Hopefully I can get the same result with that opinion as I did this time! :)
You guys were right, and I'm the idiot. Which is really cool, given that I'm pleased to be wrong about this and to find that those reprints are actually being planned.
In terms of the whole retro-clone initiative, from my perspective this doesn't really change much since the purpose of OSRIC was to make the content available for third-party publications rather than for at-the-table gaming. On that particular project, the only way in which WotC could actually step beyond OSRIC would be to (a) make AD&D open content, which OSRIC already is, and (b) to allow some way for a third party publisher to mention compatibility with the AD&D trademark. Part (b) is the territory into which OSRIC can't venture, and I doubt that WotC would be willing to go so far.
And thus, in hopes of getting lucky a second time, I'll repeat the "you're an idiot" formula that worked so well last time, as an invocation. If you think that WotC will allow the AD&D trademark to be referenced by third-party publishers ... then "you're an idiot." Hopefully I can get the same result with that opinion as I did this time! :)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
A Functional Taxonomy of Old School D&D
At the outset, this may become a long essay. We'll see.
Let's take a look at one aspect of each of four editions (0e, 1e, 2e, and 3e).
0e: requires (ie, promotes) house rules, gives no guidance for house ruling, rules cover very few specific circumstances.
1e: Forbids house rules entirely (at the time it was written), thus gives no guidance for house rules, but rules cover many specific circumstances without a streamlined method of resolution hardwired into the character sheet.
2e: Encourages house ruling and provides lots of ways to personalize the character sheet. Rules cover roughly the same number of specific circumstances as 1e and still don't have a streamlined resolution method, but more methods appear on the character sheet (ie, outside the DM's purview).
3e: Encourages house ruling but the amount of specific methods hard-wired into the character sheet makes it more difficult to make rulings that don't impinge on the character generation system. Rules cover a very large number of specific circumstances, but this is done by giving characters a wide variety of generally-usable skills to address most circumstances (drowning, climbing, finding food, negotiation, appraising items, etc). The contrast to 1e (and a bit less to 2e) here is that in 1e/2e the rules were not linked to the character sheet, which reduced the chance that a DM deciding to use different resolution methods didn't mess up the results of character generation.
I'm indebted to Matthew Stanham for pointing out something that made this taxonomy come together; the fact that 2e encourages house ruling more than 1e did.
This all helps to explain why there were once savage edition wars between 0e and 1e, and also why those evaporated after a decade to be replaced by virulence between 0e/1e on one hand, and 2e on the other hand. The reason is that once 1e was no longer "official," those who stuck with 1e started to view it more like the 0e players had viewed 0e ... as a vehicle for house ruling. House ruling is easy with 1e because the extensive rules aren't hardwired into the character sheet -- they are still all within the DM's internal system. But the official word had been not to house rule. Clearly, people had been house ruling since the dawn of 1e, but the message of officialness was very, very strong from EGG and TSR.
Once 1e is seen as a vehicle for house ruling, the very fact that there's no advice for how to do it suddenly makes it a pretty open system for modification. It's hard to break the system with house rules since only the DM is really given much in the way of rules. All of a sudden, 1e is no different from 0e except in terms of complexity.
2e, on the other hand, even though it encouraged house rules and tailored campaigns, once it's also out of print can be seen as a bit more restrictive than 0e/1e precisely because at one point it embraced the concept. By standardizing (some) of the ways to personalize a character sheet, 2e no longer looks quite as freewheeling as 1e, even though at the time of its publication it represented a huge step away from standardized officialness and toward a more freewheeling style. The passage of time actually reversed the way things operated when read as written.
Then there's 3e. Here, although house ruling is definitely encouraged, the amount of hard-wiring into the character sheet becomes very significant, to the point that if a DM changes much, he'd be invalidating choices that the players made at the time of chargen. ("Wait, if you make all negotiation into roleplaying, WTF did I take "negotiation" as one of my skills?"). Personalization of a gaming table was encouraged in terms of new monsters and details WITHIN the system, but personalization of the system ITSELF suffered precisely due to the fact that the system was so unified, streamlined, and hard-wired into the character sheet (as opposed to having lots of disjointed rules residing almost exclusively behind the DM screen).
There are a lot of implications to the fact that there are structural differences between these editions. The disjointedness of rules as opposed to streamlining/unifying, their location on the character sheet (as opposed to behind the screen), and whether the rules contain official rules for house-ruling (ie, official options), are three structural axes around which D&D editions have shifted.
It explains why a divide between 0e and 1e suddenly disappeared once 1e was no longer the official version. It explains why the flexible character generation system of 2e had less difference with 3e, even though 1e and 2e shared lots of other characteristics -- why it seems that the 1e players are such a hold-out against "modern" games as opposed to 2e players, who already worked with a much more personalized character sheet. All that 3e added to 2e was a more streamlined (and more complex) method for personalization. This also explains why 2e DMs seemed to get more irritated with 3e than 2e players did. The players had more of the same, but the DM faced an entirely different structure (unified methods vs. disjointed rules that could be cut or altered without screwing with the game's hardwiring).
Don't know if any of this makes sense, but I think it's going to become very relevant now that 5e is trying to create a modular system. Who's going to like it best? It might be that 5e is the big gift for the 2e players, who are most comfortable with personalized character generation, but whose DMs are used to modular (disjointed) rules.
Let's take a look at one aspect of each of four editions (0e, 1e, 2e, and 3e).
0e: requires (ie, promotes) house rules, gives no guidance for house ruling, rules cover very few specific circumstances.
1e: Forbids house rules entirely (at the time it was written), thus gives no guidance for house rules, but rules cover many specific circumstances without a streamlined method of resolution hardwired into the character sheet.
2e: Encourages house ruling and provides lots of ways to personalize the character sheet. Rules cover roughly the same number of specific circumstances as 1e and still don't have a streamlined resolution method, but more methods appear on the character sheet (ie, outside the DM's purview).
3e: Encourages house ruling but the amount of specific methods hard-wired into the character sheet makes it more difficult to make rulings that don't impinge on the character generation system. Rules cover a very large number of specific circumstances, but this is done by giving characters a wide variety of generally-usable skills to address most circumstances (drowning, climbing, finding food, negotiation, appraising items, etc). The contrast to 1e (and a bit less to 2e) here is that in 1e/2e the rules were not linked to the character sheet, which reduced the chance that a DM deciding to use different resolution methods didn't mess up the results of character generation.
I'm indebted to Matthew Stanham for pointing out something that made this taxonomy come together; the fact that 2e encourages house ruling more than 1e did.
This all helps to explain why there were once savage edition wars between 0e and 1e, and also why those evaporated after a decade to be replaced by virulence between 0e/1e on one hand, and 2e on the other hand. The reason is that once 1e was no longer "official," those who stuck with 1e started to view it more like the 0e players had viewed 0e ... as a vehicle for house ruling. House ruling is easy with 1e because the extensive rules aren't hardwired into the character sheet -- they are still all within the DM's internal system. But the official word had been not to house rule. Clearly, people had been house ruling since the dawn of 1e, but the message of officialness was very, very strong from EGG and TSR.
Once 1e is seen as a vehicle for house ruling, the very fact that there's no advice for how to do it suddenly makes it a pretty open system for modification. It's hard to break the system with house rules since only the DM is really given much in the way of rules. All of a sudden, 1e is no different from 0e except in terms of complexity.
2e, on the other hand, even though it encouraged house rules and tailored campaigns, once it's also out of print can be seen as a bit more restrictive than 0e/1e precisely because at one point it embraced the concept. By standardizing (some) of the ways to personalize a character sheet, 2e no longer looks quite as freewheeling as 1e, even though at the time of its publication it represented a huge step away from standardized officialness and toward a more freewheeling style. The passage of time actually reversed the way things operated when read as written.
Then there's 3e. Here, although house ruling is definitely encouraged, the amount of hard-wiring into the character sheet becomes very significant, to the point that if a DM changes much, he'd be invalidating choices that the players made at the time of chargen. ("Wait, if you make all negotiation into roleplaying, WTF did I take "negotiation" as one of my skills?"). Personalization of a gaming table was encouraged in terms of new monsters and details WITHIN the system, but personalization of the system ITSELF suffered precisely due to the fact that the system was so unified, streamlined, and hard-wired into the character sheet (as opposed to having lots of disjointed rules residing almost exclusively behind the DM screen).
There are a lot of implications to the fact that there are structural differences between these editions. The disjointedness of rules as opposed to streamlining/unifying, their location on the character sheet (as opposed to behind the screen), and whether the rules contain official rules for house-ruling (ie, official options), are three structural axes around which D&D editions have shifted.
It explains why a divide between 0e and 1e suddenly disappeared once 1e was no longer the official version. It explains why the flexible character generation system of 2e had less difference with 3e, even though 1e and 2e shared lots of other characteristics -- why it seems that the 1e players are such a hold-out against "modern" games as opposed to 2e players, who already worked with a much more personalized character sheet. All that 3e added to 2e was a more streamlined (and more complex) method for personalization. This also explains why 2e DMs seemed to get more irritated with 3e than 2e players did. The players had more of the same, but the DM faced an entirely different structure (unified methods vs. disjointed rules that could be cut or altered without screwing with the game's hardwiring).
Don't know if any of this makes sense, but I think it's going to become very relevant now that 5e is trying to create a modular system. Who's going to like it best? It might be that 5e is the big gift for the 2e players, who are most comfortable with personalized character generation, but whose DMs are used to modular (disjointed) rules.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Winter of Discontent: more 5e
If this upcoming edition of 5e D&D is going to have old-school influences on it, I have a question. Why, a couple of weeks before the announcement of the edition, did they think it was no problem to lay off Steve Winter, their one remaining employee from the olden days?
One would think that if older school design was supposed to be something they want to integrate, that they would have at least marginal interest in keeping an employee who knew something about old school design.
This roll-out is slick by any measure, and WotC clearly learned lessons from the 4e fiasco.
First they signaled, with the Monte Cook hiring, and then they pulled in the national press as well as the gaming pundits (under an NDA), and then they announce a beta playtest the same way Paizo did it. All being done very nicely.
But ..... why did they lay off their one older-school employee right before all these announcements? It's hardly a signal to write the whole thing off as hype, but it's not a good sign about they way that the thinking at WotC is really running.
One would think that if older school design was supposed to be something they want to integrate, that they would have at least marginal interest in keeping an employee who knew something about old school design.
This roll-out is slick by any measure, and WotC clearly learned lessons from the 4e fiasco.
First they signaled, with the Monte Cook hiring, and then they pulled in the national press as well as the gaming pundits (under an NDA), and then they announce a beta playtest the same way Paizo did it. All being done very nicely.
But ..... why did they lay off their one older-school employee right before all these announcements? It's hardly a signal to write the whole thing off as hype, but it's not a good sign about they way that the thinking at WotC is really running.
Monday, January 9, 2012
5e Initial Thoughts
Well, even the old school intarweb is probably going to be filled to the brim today with thoughts about the announcement that 5th edition is rolling toward playtesting. This is particularly true given that WotC is specifically invoking 1977 play as being something that they want to be able to emulate with this edition.
Clearly, the strategy is to cut off the trend toward increasingly powerful splinter groups mainly represented by Pathfinder and (gasp) the OSR. Joe Goodman's game is probably a factor as well, even though that game isn't squarely in the retro-rules camp.
Although no single factor about the OSR is individually large enough to create a blip on the WotC radar screen, I suspect that the volume of posts about the OSR in the mainstream gaming internet has created a cloud of tiny blips that actually register alongside the much bigger rebel battle-cruiser of Pathfinder. Perhaps we're a cloud of x-wing fighters, or something.
In any case, I think WotC has actually realized that the number of people playing the older versions of the game is actually a significant number. I doubt that they actually care about anything other than getting us to buy stuff and to shut up about how you don't have to play the current in-print edition, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Or maybe they just twigged to the fact that the people who currently have kids in middle school are the people who played original and first edition D&D...
Clearly, the strategy is to cut off the trend toward increasingly powerful splinter groups mainly represented by Pathfinder and (gasp) the OSR. Joe Goodman's game is probably a factor as well, even though that game isn't squarely in the retro-rules camp.
Although no single factor about the OSR is individually large enough to create a blip on the WotC radar screen, I suspect that the volume of posts about the OSR in the mainstream gaming internet has created a cloud of tiny blips that actually register alongside the much bigger rebel battle-cruiser of Pathfinder. Perhaps we're a cloud of x-wing fighters, or something.
In any case, I think WotC has actually realized that the number of people playing the older versions of the game is actually a significant number. I doubt that they actually care about anything other than getting us to buy stuff and to shut up about how you don't have to play the current in-print edition, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Or maybe they just twigged to the fact that the people who currently have kids in middle school are the people who played original and first edition D&D...
Friday, January 6, 2012
Illustrations for OSRIC New-Monsters Book
While my computer was dead, and for quite a while before that, I finished several illustrations for the upcoming book of new monsters for OSRIC,along with getting a great hag-picture from Paul Fini, which he's also posted on his blog.
Russ Nicholson is doing two more illustrations, which will probably be done around the end of this month, give or take. At this point I'm basically setting myself seven more monsters to illustrate (all in the demon section, which I want to be well covered illustration-wise). I might do more than that, but those seven are the minimum target. In the meantime, I have to finish the conversions to OSRIC -- the stats are mostly done, but the treasure still remains, and that's going to take a long time.
...And of course, I need to start sending in my levels of Rappan Athuk at this point, which means frantic self-editing and still some writing.
It's going to be a busy month.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Back from no-computer-land
I just got my computer back after a seven-day fixing spree. I'm working on a huge backlog of emails, so if you contacted me I'm working on getting through all of them.
Matt
Matt