The session was pretty open, in that they were happy to talk about anything the attendees wanted to talk about. Most of the attendees were interested in WotC itself or how WotC ended up pursuing and developing 4E vs. sticking to 3.5 and publishing something more like 3.75. That was an interesting discussion, for sure. However, I wanted to center in on some aspects of the game that are interesting in the context of the RPGA and LFR. I asked a few questions during the session and later asked for a bit of extra time to ask a few more. Here are my notes (all quotes are approximations as I remember them). Luke Lefler was podcasting the general session and you can listen here. Please note this does not include some of the issues I raised after the session concluded, which I write about below.
Publishing Timeframe
Perhaps the most 'blow-your-mind' moment came early on when someone asked about current vs. future. Andy and Rob shared that their 'present' is our 'future', and this is something they try to keep in mind. As an example, Andy said something like "4 months ago we handed out the PH2 internally to all our employees. At that same time, PH3 was heading out to print. We started work on PH2 one year ago." That really put into context that when we are asking questions about one product, their minds are very well considering (and playing with) a whole additional set of content we don't even know will exist.
Gamist vs. Realist
It was very clear from the session that WotC feels that 3.5 is about as good a realistic setting as they could do, with lots of rules that approximate what the fantasy world would look like and how it would function. They wanted to go in a new direction so as to have new ideas, new opportunities, and a better game. They acknowledged that the 4E game is much less precise on purpose. They pointed to the difficulty by level table in the DMG and said "that quarter panel is the DM's toolkit to understanding how to adjudicate whatever a player wants to do, from crafting arrows to whatever, rather than create a million rules that have questionable value and which the players can use to hang a DM." They also said that "you cannot extrapolate from the PCs to the town's mayor or to the society. That just doesn't work in this edition of the game." At the same time, they clearly did not see it as a problem, nor did Jonathan. Again, I am paraphrasing on the quotes as best I can remember them. We also talked about whether 4E favored the player, in that the DM now is more likely to say to a player "Yes, you can try that, here's how". Andy said the shift was true, but that in many ways 3.5 was the most player-centric edition in that there were so many rules aimed at what players could do and players could use those rules and their combos endlessly to force the DM's hand. He saw 4th as being about saying yes but being more balanced in how that happens. (I hope I am summarizing this right, Andy!)
Narrow and Deep vs Broad and Wide
Andy said that they are making a concerted effort to provide sourcebooks that everyone can use and which are usually setting-independent. "Instead of Dragons of Faerun and Dragons of Athas, Draconomicon. Instead of Undead of X, Open Grave." They said they will support worlds, including plans for many classic settings, but indicated that we would not see a whole lot more content for FR, for example, beyond what we already have seen. I asked when we would see Dark Sun... no answer. (Which I think is actually a good sign!)
Errata
Andy said he oversaw/was in charge of errata efforts, which he saw as lacking previously and improving currently. He clearly wants to pull in feedback from the players in better ways and sees the current state as the beginning. He was very competent (managerial perspective) in explaining that WotC has a perfectionist "we can do it" attitude that can be dangerous to them. Thus, he wants to slowly ratchet up towards the end goal. For now, he says there are weekly meetings where Customer Support leads meet and decide which issues need attention. He said the Gleemax forums specifically for Errata are another big part of the equation, with the posts there receiving attention that goes to the top. (I've separately seen evidence of this).
Playtests
As part of the errata discussion I raised the RPGA perspective, where we largely feel that playtests have been great to sell content and raise interest, but that not having some playtest material make it into the final Dragon issue then causes us great heartache because we cannot test this and get them proper feedback. I contrasted the likely sound correction to the playtested Valorous Bard (I play one) to the lack of any corrections to the Battlerager (which was not playtested and which has similar temp HP issues to those initially in the Bard). They explained that playtesting has wildly exceeded their hopes for how it would work and what it could accomplish, but that they work hard not to exceed their capacity to act on the amount of playtesting info generated. I would hazard a guess that the production schedule (PH3 is already printed) combined with their ability to gather information is a reason why we see many previews vs. playtests. No reason in asking for feedback if it is already printed.
RPGA and DME
I spoke a bit with both Andy and Rob about the DME changes we are seeing, going from a "each table must be the same" to "what the heck is DME?". I explained that there is still a lot of confusion over DME and what can be changed. They talked about how Tulach is doing a great job, sitting in on design sessions, etc. and also about how they understand that DME is still misunderstood. I said something like "we really need a tight definition of what it is supposed to be" and they nodded. From what they said, and I don't recall enough to quote, what I gathered is that they favor a pretty open framework by which DMs adjudicate what the mod contains (we didn't get into whether you can change the content). It was clear to me that they want RPGA judges to exercise their judgment, for better or worse, in running an RPGA mod. That's what they want to see happen.
Skill Challenges
I shared with Rob that skill challenges (post-errata) are a mixed bag in the RPGA, with many seeing that they inhibit RP and others liking that they showcase skills. Rob made a note of this for future work.
Traps
I shared that traps have an even less favorable impression in RPGA play. I contrasted the Indiana Jones coolness of the picture at the front of the skills section in the PH, where you are promised to madly disarm a trap in combat with the reality of play... where RPGA players just flatly ignore the trap until everything else has been defeated. Taking a striker out of combat, making it a long multi-round skill challenge with failure potential, these all inspire ignoring the trap instead of treating it as what it is... essentially another monster that the PCs should be tackling (and having fun doing so). I pointed out that there are options, such as each success having an iterative benefit (-1 to trap's attack, -2, attacks every round, shut down). Rob agreed with the overall issue, was interested in hearing how the RPGA community feels about traps, and made a number of notes (it was at this point he grabbed his notepad). He did say there might be some solution of sorts in an upcoming sourcebook but was not sure.
Untiered Hazards / Terrain
Rob and I discussed this, one of my biggest concerns/desires in 4E. I explained how RPGA adventures and even published works (Dungeon, Open Grave) often use terrain elements that should really be considered hazards or traps, but without charging XP. We discussed how terrain and these types of elements are awesome, but need proper XP accounting. I explained that personally I would love to see more fun terrain, from options for fantastic terrain beyond Bloodrock to normal terrain such as icy slopes, rope bridge, broken stairs, etc. Having terrain elements you can drop into play, with proper XP costs when appropriate, would be awesome. Rob seemed pretty interested by the discussion and again made notes.
Minions
No surprise given the podcasts, but Rob agreed that minions are failing as a mechanic. His words and body language suggested complete and utter agreement of this. I said "I see the problem is not so much that they die quickly, but that their XP value does not equate to 1/4 of their non-minion equivalent", to which he said "no question". To me, that is important because it confirms what the DMG says and what podcasts say, in that they should die quickly. I asked if there were any upcoming fixes, but he did not answer.
Warlock Two-Rod Combo
I asked Andy about the Rod of Reaving and Rod of Corruption working together. He was, interestingly, not aware of the interaction, but when I explained it, he quickly understood the implication and agreed it would work as explained. I asked him if he though that was strong. Unwilling to really answer, he smartly asked "How is it playing in your game?"
How Charging Works
This seems simple, but we have seen a lot of people interpret "closest square" and not having to move in a straight line as meaning they can basically move to any square they can reach. On the opposite end, some say you cannot charge because the initially closest square is not open.
I asked Rob and he said that the intention is for you to, at the beginning of the charge action, be able to charge to the closest available square by whatever path you wish to take (to the extent your movement rate allows). So, the key really is that bit about the beginning of your charge. If the closest square is not one you want to charge to (or can't reach), you can first take a move action to change what the closest square would be, then use your charge to reach the new closest square.
New Products
They had Arcane Power there and showed 7 boxes of the new minis. The minis are very good, comparable to most rares from the D&D minis line. They gave out a few D&D alternate paint minis from the past, which was awesome.
In conclusion, I found Andy and Rob to clearly be competent guys. Jonathan called 4E the best edition of D&D ever published. The group seemed like the right guys to have in charge (I include Jonathan in this, because we never know what the future will hold). They seemed to have a coherent vision and and an awareness that there is a lot of work to be done. They acknowledged their shortcomings and that many of the tasks are difficult. They seemed to understand that there is real value in the RPGA as a group of hardcore gamers that really helps provide feedback. Both Andy and Rob checked out the gaming at various stages. (Rob observed as my table took on the last encounter in Radiant Vessel... it was fun to explain the premise).
Given the production timeframe, it is clear that changes we want and we voice will not happen overnight (at least in hardbound books... Dragon might be different). All-in-all, a good session.
Teos
Dave Guerrieri
YOU ArE TO BE COMmENDeD FoR ThIS PoSTiNG.
yoinks url
News Article!!
Thanks for posting this!!
Anyway, great info Teos.
Regarding DME, this is DM Empowerment, a clause/rule added to the beginning of each LFR (Living Forgotten Realms) adventure. It is currently very open-ended, leaving players and judges to argue over exactly what is allowed and not allowed in the RPGA. Plus, it is a huge sea-change from the way LG (Living Greyhawk) was run, where the RPGA directed DMs to ensure each mod was run consistently with no variation from table to table. The new era changes from a 'fairness amongst tables' policy to 'the DM should ensure fun, using the 4E rules at their disposal'.
What is not clear is the extent to which a DM can go. Can a DM lower the DC of a skill check because the player RPd well? Seems very likely and reasonable. Can the DM remove an encounter and replace it with free-form RP? Can the DM change three of the four monsters in an encounter to something of their choosing? Etc. I've written a guide with some thoughts and a rough classification system for degree/level of DME plus what DMs should do for each level. (At the high levels of DME you tread carefully and seek approval from players before adding the changes).
So.... what is DME?
But more importantly... can I play a warforged in LFR?
But more importantly... can I play a warforged in LFR?
ThIS UNiT TIRES Of yOUR "hUMOR" - YOUr DEsTRUCtION HAs BEeN SlATED.
Is FRiDAY GOoD FOR yOU?
John
Who while he does enjoy April Fools to begin with, does eventually get grouchy by the end of it all.
Just to clarify, is this yet another April Fools Joke? Because its officially over now (its been April 2nd in Australia for 15 hours and 40 minutes now. But also its now April 2nd in America too), so a straight answer would be nice
John
Who while he does enjoy April Fools to begin with, does eventually get grouchy by the end of it all.
Yes, Staffers are apparently going through the forums one-by-one to restore the default skins. It seems we're next-to-last onthe list, but it's coming soon.
It was interesting so thanks for sharing.
Keith
Work: Things at the day job are humming along nicely. PH 2 lived up to my lofty expectations, PH 3 is now in development, and I'm working on another big release for next year. I love being lead designer. It's a dream come true, which doesn't happen for a lot of people.
Source: http://mearls.livejournal.com/158707.html
But more importantly... can I play a warforged in LFR?
yes, but the table is going to groan when you pull out your mini.