An “Open Letter” on how to fix the big-picture with D&D.
I'm new to the forum/group, but I wanted to share some thoughts about the general direction with 5th ed. This is “big picture” stuff, mostly not concerned with the minutia of the to-hit algorithm. Be warned, some of this post might be a bit wonkish – but it needs to be said. After discussions with a few WOTC reps at pax-east yesterday (completely fell on deaf ears) I decided I had to get this feedback out there for public consumption.
For context, I'm a 30-something adult gamer who's been with the D&D franchise since somewhere around 1991. I don't consider myself a version zealot, but I have a mildly negative opinion of 4th ed for various reasons that people have already expressed elsewhere on the forums here. I'm also a player of MTG (since revised edition), console&pc RPGs, and tabletop games (warhammer, etc). I'm a seasoned player and DM/GM, and also have a sourcebook for an original campaign setting (OGL/3.5 compatible, I didn't bother with 4th since so few people in my area play it) that's been independently published. So, that's the perspective I'm writing this post from. I realize that I'm including some personal anecdotes here, and take those with a grain of salt, but I make no claims that my own experiences necessarily mirror that of other players.
The first thing I want to talk about is rule mechanics. One of the things that I don't think is said often enough is that people actually like, and want, rules. We play a game like D&D because we want that structure – ask yourself “What is the difference between a game of D&D and 5 people just sitting around a table verbally telling a story?” ; the answer of course is “rules and structure”. The more recent version of the rules have been perceived by every gamer I know as a “dumbing down” or “simplification” of the game engine. Some have liked that, some have not. The majority of gamers I know have not. The most recent gaming group I was in on, a 4th ed group, had a player ask the DM “So, I want my character to ride a horse. What kind of rules do I need to know about for mounted combat?” the DM didn't have an answer, and we had to hunt around only to find that what rules DID exist for that situation were incredibly terse and left more questions than answers. One of the players was a first-timer to 4th ed and was -significantly- unhappy that carrying two weapons (one in each hand) didn't give any advantage (an extra attack, for example) unless he was a ranger. Now, I can't say for sure, but I -suspect- that was a conscious decision on the part of the design team at simplification – since rules for dual wielding can become complicated very quickly. The single biggest complaint I know of has been from people who like mages/wizards/etc. They HATE the current implementation of “spells”. The 'classic' system, with getting X spells of X level, is very strongly preferred by anyone I've heard speak on the topic. It allows there to be a huge difference between one mage and another, allows for school specialization, and so on. The whole “ritual” thing just isn't enough to replace it – perhaps supplement it? I don't want it to sound like I'm picking on 4th ed, but since it was my most recent game it's simply freshest in my mind. These simplifications are examples of the trend to avoid. By the same token, please don't go the opposite direction too far! Having rules to cover most situations is important, but those rules need not be complicated. Simple-er rules -can- be ok – as long as they actually exist in the first place.
Next we come to the rulebooks themselves. This section is likely to rile some nerves, so I want to disclaim up front that I'm not saying any of this to make anyone feel good, bad, or indifferent – I simply want to provoke some thought on the topic. Currently the PHB costs $35. The 2nd ed PHB used to cost $20. The price has jumped by $15, seventy five percent, over the last twelve years. This far outpaces inflation or other background economic factors. I can't speak for the entire community, but in all frankness – I see no increase in quality between a 2nd ed PHB and a 4th ed PHB. The only significant difference is that there s a LOT more flashy full-color artwork. In my opinion, this does not justify the price increase, and gamers like me (read the “context” at the top of my post) simply can't justify spending that much money on the rulebooks at the current price points (I'll confess that I simply borrowed the GM's books in every 4th ed game Ive been in.) This applies doubly-so for add-on and expansion content. The “complete fighter's handbook” style addons for 2nd ed were $15 to $18– a comparable supplement now is an even $30 to $35, double the price. Again, no significant increase in quality – only in artwork and “flashy-ness” (embossed covers, and the like). I understand that this kind of production methodology works well for MTG and a lot of other product lines, but … D&D is not MTG or other product lines. Not a single gamer I know has ever said they care too much about the artwork in the rulebooks. Having artwork at-all is important, sure, but again I'll point to the example of 2nd ed. The core rulebooks for 2nd ed, along with countless addons, sold incredibly well even while the majority of the art was black-and-white line drawings. It was enough to give us visual flavor, nothing more – nothing less. I've never heard a complaint like “the art sucked” in relation to the older-version books. Every gamer I know (again, see the “context” at the top) has commented that they would prefer to have an ecosystem with a set of core rules that's stable and good, and is expanded on over time. We like(d) the 2nd edition “business model” - pump out the sourcebooks that expand a stable ruleset we're already invested in. What we most decidedly do NOT like are business models built around “buy a new version every three to four years, which are not backwards compatible, and as a result require you to replace ALL the add-on books you picked up over time” - in fact, we detest it. I've heard players specifically remark that they avoid 4th ed specifically over objections to what they see as WOTC applying the MTG business model (with only the most recent sets being tournament legal, etc) to D&D. They're not the same game, and even while there IS overlap – we're not the same customer base. This situation compounds if, and when, we try to introduce new gamers into the hobby. To get started with 2nd ed was an up-front investment of at -most- $40 for a player. Currently, the up-front investment can be as high as $100 for a new player. For gamers like me, trying to attract new people into our group, this is quite the hard sell. I -really- think there is a serious risk of alienating huge swathes of the existing player base if these “physical” and “business” details are botched up with the next release.
Somewhat related to the previous issue, I want to talk about non-optional addons. Mainly; miniatures. I've been using minis with my D&D games since the early 90s. Mostly because I'm an avid tabletop gamer (warhammer, etc) and enjoy some cross-pollination between my gaming supplies. I've run into many players who don't like using minis, and many who do. However what almost nobody likes is the use of minis being almost required as a component of the rules. In the days of 2nd ed, using minis was difficult as the rules for doing so were kindof tacked-on afterthoughts. In the 3rd ed era, using minis was easy and fun, but not required. Currently, the combat mechanics are structured around the use of minis as a primary component. Please don't do this again. While I personally may enjoy using minis, and have a large supply from my other gaming hobbies, some players actively dislike it. As previously stated, this is one of the reasons a few zealots I know have stayed away from 4th ed – they say that it feels like an attempt to force them into purchasing additional items beyond the base rulebook -just to get started- with the game. They don't like this. Don't do it. Purchasing a pencil and a set of dice is about the only thing a new player should ever be expected to set themselves up with, beyond one or two (at most) reasonably priced core rulebooks, just in order to get started with the game and not feel like they are missing out. Having a great set of rules, and a good ecosystem, for miniatures or other accessories is completely possible without basing the rules around them.
The last major topic I want to touch on is something that WOTC is mostly doing right, and I want to share a general sentiment of “Don't screw it up now.” along with some specific suggestions. As a creator of third-party content (the published campaign setting I mentioned at the top of the post) the licensing and “compatibility” of third-party content is a very VERY big concern of mine. The OGL was a great start, and what was done with 4th ed was excellent progress with empowering third-party content producers and removing barriers-to-entry. What I want, as a third-party developer, is simple: I want to be allowed to state in some obvious way on the cover, or at least the back, of my book something like “This product is intended to be compatible with D&D and requires the core rulebooks in order to play”. The OGL was kindof obtuse on that point, but with 4th I think WOTC pretty much got it right in this regard. Please don't regress. Content-wise, I would like a little more freedom to exclude existing content. For example, some of the races in 4th ed really don't “fit right” with a lot of settings or overlap, and I'd like to be allowed to exclude them (simply mention, for example, “Eladrin are not represented in this setting” or something like that, or maybe they're extinct, whatever) in a way that doesn't dilute the Eladrin. Again, I think things were intentioned very well with the “don't re-define anything” clauses but it reads in current form as if to suggest you -must- include everything, and include it unchanged. This creates more trouble for an author if we want to say “All dwarves in this setting have blonde hair”. As it stands, we need to create a sub-species of dwarves (which is fine) that has blonde hair – BUT it seems as if we must also include the as-written not-all-blonde dwarves from the core rules, and aren't even (at least, not clearly) have them be some isolated group off on an island somewhere out of the way. Clarification on this would be good, or some mechanism to allow for replacement/exclusion so long as it doesn't dilute what a “dwarf from the core rules” is. I don't know if I'm articulating this very well, but it's a frustrating obstacle as an author – and I'll freely admit has been a strong disincentive towards producing a version of my setting that's 4th ed compatible, but isn't a show-stopping problem. I'd also really like to be able to restrict things beyond the core rules, for example to re-introduce the idea that not all races can select all classes. In some settings (such as my own) the idea of a dwarf being an arcane mage doesn't really fit at-all with the culture or history. However adding in class/race restrictions would “re-define” the races, so .. mild annoyance, but not a show-stopping issue. Assuming it's not intentionally restrictive, I'm confident some wording could be crafted to allow these kinds of modifications in a way that clearly distinguishes them from the core rules? I'm very happy/satisfied with the current paradigm for license acceptance, where WOTC wants me to simply fill out the card and mail it in to them for their records. That's fine, and seems perfectly reasonable. One super important thing: please, for the love of Maglubiyet, don't ever try to monetize third party content in some way. Having to pay some kind of fee in order to produce a third-party setting, and say it's compatible, would effectively shut-down what a lot of people are trying to do. Allowing the development culture to thrive helps everyone, and in the end helps WOTC by expanding the player base. Don't screw that up please. Pretty please.
In conclusion:
- Give a copy of the 2nd ed PHB to every core developer and editor, with instructions “no more flashy than this”.
- Give a copy of the 3.5th ed PHB to every core developer and editor, with instructions “no more simplistic than this”.
- Price the core rulebooks reasonably – make money from higher quantity of sales (which has ripple effects into sales of supplements) instead of huge prices on individual sales. Cut back on artwork/flashy-ness and this is do-able without reducing the margin much.
- Don't release a new version of the game for at LEAST eight to ten years – get it right with this one, and build on it.
- If you DO feel the need for a new version or something, please please please make it mostly backwards compatible (many 1st ed AD&D add-on books worked fine with 2nd ed AD&D for example).
- Don't expect new players to buy extra stuff beyond one or two rulebooks just to get started.
- Don't screw up the great progression that you've made with empowering third-party content producers - expand and empower rather than retract or restrict.
I realize that some of the suggestions I've made are outside the 'power' of those working on the rules for the next version; please -please- feel free to share these thoughts with anyone appropriate.
Timothy Smith
I'm afraid that the 1st post replying to you will be one in which I disagree with you, but rest assured that we are all friendly here.
The first thing I want to talk about is rule mechanics. One of the things that I don't think is said often enough is that people actually like, and want, rules.
Absolutely.
The more recent version of the rules have been perceived by every gamer I know as a “dumbing down” or “simplification” of the game engine. Some have liked that, some have not. The majority of gamers I know have not.
My experience is the opposite. 4e is way more complex than 3.5, though most of the complexity is emergent complexity from well thought out simple rules rather than from complex rules themselves.
The most recent gaming group I was in on, a 4th ed group, had a player ask the DM “So, I want my character to ride a horse. What kind of rules do I need to know about for mounted combat?” the DM didn't have an answer, and we had to hunt around only to find that what rules DID exist for that situation were incredibly terse and left more questions than answers.
Rules are shaped by the focus of the game. In a game like Pendragon mounted combat is a big part of the game, in a game like D&D mounted combat is not a central facet of the game. In fact the 4e rules by being light on mounted combat discourage this behaviour in players. Mounted combat is problematic - for the same reason you don't see centaurs in 4e you don't see mounted combat encouraged. Supporting something with rules sets up player expectations. 4e had rules for fighting orcs in dungeons, but was very light on rules for romantically wooing orcs - had the situation been reveresed more players would have tried to woo orcs. If mounted combat was supported more heavily in the rules you would have had more players try to get their mounts into dungeons or into tavern brawls.
One of the players was a first-timer to 4th ed and was -significantly- unhappy that carrying two weapons (one in each hand) didn't give any advantage (an extra attack, for example) unless he was a ranger. Now, I can't say for sure, but I -suspect- that was a conscious decision on the part of the design team at simplification – since rules for dual wielding can become complicated very quickly.
Actually - that isn't strictly speaking correct. Sure you have to take feats for it, and I'm not sure those options were available on day one, but two weapon fighting is totally a thing in 4e. IIRC the rules for dual wielding were very elegant, granting either bonus damage each round or a bonus to defence (depending on how you built the fighting style of your fighter.
The single biggest complaint I know of has been from people who like mages/wizards/etc. They HATE the current implementation of “spells”. The 'classic' system, with getting X spells of X level, is very strongly preferred by anyone I've heard speak on the topic.
Recent WotC polls and show that the majority don't prefer Vancian magic. I know I was pleased by the recent magic system, a welcome break from the glass canon wizard.
It allows there to be a huge difference between one mage and another, allows for school specialization, and so on. The whole “ritual” thing just isn't enough to replace it – perhaps supplement it?
I really liked the school and implement specialization for casters in the recent edition. Spell schools were not in PHB1 (it started to appear with essentials).
It seems that your experiences were with very early release stuff. One of the things that will be interesting with 5e is what is early release and what comes later. It looks like they are trying to get everything that has been in any PHB1 into the PHB1 of 5e.
I don't want it to sound like I'm picking on 4th ed, but since it was my most recent game it's simply freshest in my mind. These simplifications are examples of the trend to avoid.
I disagree. Simple to use rules that create emergent complexity in play are a welcome change from complex rules for the sake of complex rules. Any time there is a quicker and more elegant way to do something rules-wise it should be taken.
By the same token, please don't go the opposite direction too far! Having rules to cover most situations is important, but those rules need not be complicated. Simple-er rules -can- be ok – as long as they actually exist in the first place.
There does needto be some design decision at some point about what is needed rules-wise to support the game and what situations are going to comke up rarely enough that only very simple rules are needed. Rules for jumping across pits, fighting orcs, bluffing guards, sneak-attacking dragons, detecting traps, parlaying with the king - all likely to be considered part of the core experience. Mounted combat, mass combat, crafting? They will be in the rules, but not every player is going to use them.
Next we come to the rulebooks themselves. This section is likely to rile some nerves, so I want to disclaim up front that I'm not saying any of this to make anyone feel good, bad, or indifferent – I simply want to provoke some thought on the topic. Currently the PHB costs $35. The 2nd ed PHB used to cost $20. The price has jumped by $15, seventy five percent, over the last twelve years. This far outpaces inflation or other background economic factors.
I make $20 1989 = $36.72 2012. A cost of $35 is below inflation.
Well done WotC for making things cheeper.
I can't speak for the entire community, but in all frankness – I see no increase in quality between a 2nd ed PHB and a 4th ed PHB.
... ?
Really?
Really?
Obviously our frames of reference differ. Drastically.
The core rulebooks for 2nd ed, along with countless addons, sold incredibly well even while the majority of the art was black-and-white line drawings. It was enough to give us visual flavor, nothing more – nothing less.
Also in 1989 most cars didn't come with CD players or electric windows as standard. If you marketed a 1989 quality product today you will see it fall flat on it's face.
I've never heard a complaint like “the art sucked” in relation to the older-version books.
"That art sucked in older edition books. Sucked like a huge sucky thing. Like a black-hole inside a dyson vaccume cleaner. Sucked sucked sucked." There, now you have heard it. Maybe you didn't hear it much the same way you don't hear prople say "the sea is very wet today". It is obvious, going without saying. Of course, appreciation of art styles are very subjective, and what you like is obviously very different from what I like.
We like(d) the 2nd edition “business model”
Sadly the market didn't, and TSR was eventually purchased by WotC and thus we D&D was saved.
What we most decidedly do NOT like are business models built around “buy a new version every three to four years, which are not backwards compatible, and as a result require you to replace ALL the add-on books you picked up over time” - in fact, we detest it.
You and I certainly agree about that. That's why I avoided 3.5 and stuck with 3.0.
I've heard players specifically remark that they avoid 4th ed specifically over objections to what they see as WOTC applying the MTG business model (with only the most recent sets being tournament legal, etc) to D&D.
Er... what?
Certain tournament games only allow certain types of characters, but that has always been the case. Try bringing a Warforged into Living Forgotten Realms in 2005 and see where that gets you.
This situation compounds if, and when, we try to introduce new gamers into the hobby. To get started with 2nd ed was an up-front investment of at -most- $40 for a player. Currently, the up-front investment can be as high as $100 for a new player. For gamers like me, trying to attract new people into our group, this is quite the hard sell.
Or as low as $13.57 accoring to Amazon.
Somewhat related to the previous issue, I want to talk about non-optional addons. Mainly; miniatures.
... which have always been an optional part of the game as far back as oD&D. Even in 4e's grid-based combat you can use counters, pre-made standees, or even print your own standees directly - you don't have to lay out $$$ for pre-painted or unpainted minis.
The last major topic I want to touch on is something that WOTC is mostly doing right, and I want to share a general sentiment of “Don't screw it up now.” along with some specific suggestions. As a creator of third-party content (the published campaign setting I mentioned at the top of the post) the licensing and “compatibility” of third-party content is a very VERY big concern of mine. The OGL was a great start, and what was done with 4th ed was excellent progress with empowering third-party content producers and removing barriers-to-entry. What I want, as a third-party developer, is simple: I want to be allowed to state in some obvious way on the cover, or at least the back, of my book something like “This product is intended to be compatible with D&D and requires the core rulebooks in order to play”. The OGL was kindof obtuse on that point, but with 4thI think WOTC pretty much got it right in this regard. Please don't regress.
The 4e game licence is a nightmare. Really. There are threads on it here and elsewhere, but it seems that it was very much a reaction against what happened with the playerbase split with Pathfinder. The 4e licence is a reason why there just isn't that much support from 3rd party publishers for 4e.
With 5e WotC needs to tread a very careful line. Too draconian and there will be no 3rd party support for 5e. Too loose and you risk losing your customer base. What I suspect we'll see is spomething that allows for 3rd party supliments but not 3rd party clones, though as rules can not be copywrited preventing 3rd party clones is problematic.
Content-wise, I would like a little more freedom to exclude existing content. For example, some of the races in 4th ed really don't “fit right” with a lot of settings or overlap, and I'd like to be allowed to exclude them (simply mention, for example, “Eladrin are not represented in this setting” or something like that, or maybe they're extinct, whatever) in a way that doesn't dilute the Eladrin. Again, I think things were intentioned very well with the “don't re-define anything” clauses but it reads in current form as if to suggest you -must- include everything, and include it unchanged. This creates more trouble for an author if we want to say “All dwarves in this setting have blonde hair”. As it stands, we need to create a sub-species of dwarves (which is fine) that has blonde hair – BUT it seems as if we must also include the as-written not-all-blonde dwarves from the core rules, and aren't even (at least, not clearly) have them be some isolated group off on an island somewhere out of the way. Clarification on this would be good, or some mechanism to allow for replacement/exclusion so long as it doesn't dilute what a “dwarf from the core rules” is. I don't know if I'm articulating this very well,
You are correct, as I have no idea what you are saying. However, it seems to be interesting. Could you expand more clearly on your point please?
but it's a frustrating obstacle as an author – and I'll freely admit has been a strong disincentive towards producing a version of my setting that's 4th ed compatible, but isn't a show-stopping problem.
No, the real show-stopper would be the 4e version of the OGL. Seriously, go get a lawyer friend to read it. I understand why WotC felt they had to do it, but yuck!
Allowing the development culture to thrive helps everyone, and in the end helps WOTC by expanding the player base. Don't screw that up please. Pretty please.
I totally 100% agree. The doing of it is tricky from a buisiness/legal standpoint though.
In conclusion:
- Give a copy of the 2nd ed PHB to every core developer and editor, with instructions “no more flashy than this”.
No. Give every core developer all PHBs to date and say "flashier please" and "better and more" please.
- Give a copy of the 3.5th ed PHB to every core developer and editor, with instructions “no more simplistic than this”.
No. Give every delevoper 4e and say "more elegant and faster than this".
- Price the core rulebooks reasonably – make money from higher quantity of sales (which has ripple effects into sales of supplements) instead of huge prices on individual sales. Cut back on artwork/flashy-ness and this is do-able without reducing the margin much.
So current price trends then? Really, D&D is a lot cheeper per-book than many other systems. Accounting for inflation the price has actually dropped from previous editions.
- Don't release a new version of the game for at LEAST eight to ten years – get it right with this one, and build on it.
Agreed. With the state of the industry right now a fully modular 5e with support for indie publishers could be the next big thing (or not).
- If you DO feel the need for a new version or something, please please please make it mostly backwards compatible (many 1st ed AD&D add-on books worked fine with 2nd ed AD&D for example).
Unlikely. I mean Essentials was backwards compatable with 4e, but a wholy new edition? Probably won't be backwards compatable.
- Don't expect new players to buy extra stuff beyond one or two rulebooks just to get started.
A new player to 4th ed only needs 1 book (either PHB1 or one of the two essenials players books). If you purchase the starter set as well you then have dice, counters, terrain tiles, everything you need. I'd like to see something similar available upon release for 5e. So on release day there will be a boxed starter set similar to the recent red box or starter game (or dare I say it the Pathfinder starter set which had higher production values and standees instead of counters) and also the PHB+DMG+MM. Completists will purchase all 4, those just wanting to dip their toes will get the boxed set with the dice and counters/standees and tiles and pre-gens and the basic rules. 4e did have a basic rules booklet with KotSF which was available early on, but it wasn't marketed as a beginner set but as an adventure.
- Don't screw up the great progression that you've made with empowering third-party content producers - expand and empower rather than retract or restrict.
No. The 3e OGL was long-term financial suicide, the 4e version of that was death to 3rd party publishers.
I disagree with a lot of your points, but I find your ideas interesting coming as they do from somebody with a different experience of D&D. I look forward to reading a robust rebuttal to both of us and and some constructive yet friendly back-and-forth from everybody else.
Go!
When i speak of there not being a quality increase between the PHBs, i'm not talking about glitzy stuff or manufacturing quality/binding or artwork. I mean the game itself. When I purchase a D&D book, I'm buying the text. The book having, or not-having, embossed glossy artwork on the cover isn't going to decide if I buy it or not. As it stands, I can't justify (or sell to a potential new player) paying $35 for ONE book just because it's full of flashy artwork. If I wanted the overload of flashy artwork, I'd go pick up one of those "The Art Of Dragonlance" books or whatever. I really couldn't disagree any stronger on the "flasier please", flashyness costs money to develop and produce which translates into price. The percentage of players for whom flashy-stuff will be a selling point is very small, it does nothing but drive cost up for the rest of us. If it's really a sticking point, just put out a "collectors edition" or whatever that has the chromatic silver binding and the flashy embossed artwork and the built in foot massage unit into the back cover of the book. Keep it simple and cheap for the other 90% of us. As for the cost itself, sure if you go back to 89 the inflation isn't a pretty sight. However from the late 90s it's a different picture. In any case, the economics of it are a VERY long seperate discussion, but I stand by my basic premise that the cover-price is too high, and unneccessarily so if the level of glitzy stuff was reduced. I also stand by that reducing the glitz and flash wouldn't result in a significantly lower level of sales.
When I mention what it takes to "get started", we obviously have different experiences with that. I've yet to find a player in my area who tried 4th ed with nothing but the PHB and wasn't miserable from it. With the rules being setup for gridded combat, dice-on-a-grid really detracts from it especially if you're the only one without a fig. Same goes for only needing the PHB, as you pointed out there have been bunches of extras (the 'essentials' and whatnot) that are more-or-less needed, from a -practical- standpoint, to integrate well into an existing game. My comments on this topic are more of a cautionary tale than anything else though, and there are certainly games that are far FAR worse in this regard. :-)
On the section with customizations you asked me to elaborate on, basically my interpretation of the 4th ed third party license (backed up by a lawyer friend of mine, with all the disclaimers that no legal advice should be implied from this post blah blah blah) is incredibly restrictive on if you want to produce content where the "situation" differs from what the generic default is in the core rulebooks. I dont have my notes in front of me, but the section about not "diluting" product identity and such -really- needs to be re-written. As it stands, if you want a gameworld with no elves, you can't ... you must include them. Furthermore, they MUST have pointed ears exactly as described in the core rulebooks. You don't get any wiggle room with that sort of thing like you did with the OGL (for all it's other faults). I mean, as it stands, dragonlance wouldn't be publishable as a third-party-not-sponsored product under the current game system license..... that's a problem in my opinion. A big one.
To be incredibly specific, in the game setting I've got, halflings have a specific racial backstory (being decendents of a town that got hit by a curse, etc etc etc) which is a non-starter "dilution" of the term "halfling" under the 4th ed license. There are other examples, but that's the primary one. I can get around it by calling my halflings "Curse Halflings" or something, but then the 'regular' ones still have to be allowed to exist unmodified so .. what's the point? .. It's all about giving more empowerment and freedom to authors/developers. Assuming that WOTC wants to compete for third-party ecosystem talent, please please make it easier.
Obviously we disagree on a lot of core ideas, but to clarify afew things that look like they didn't communicate correctly :
When i speak of there not being a quality increase between the PHBs, i'm not talking about glitzy stuff or manufacturing quality/binding or artwork. I mean the game itself. When I purchase a D&D book, I'm buying the text. The book having, or not-having, embossed glossy artwork on the cover isn't going to decide if I buy it or not.
Sadly in today's market ideas are a dime a dozen and available in free PDF form. The one thing that can differentiate system X from system Y is production values.
Compare two books.
Book 1 has rules in and has black and white linedrawing.
Book 2 has rules in and has full color glossy artwork throughout.
With no other information, which is the better book?
Your average purchaser will spend maybe 10 seconds each flicking through the hundreds of RPGs available in a game store. Unless the game has an unusual concept or has been recommended to him she will not spend more than 10 seconds. To grab attention you need something in the book. A well written rules system is hard to convey in 10 seconds, or even in 100 seconds. Flashy artwork and color-illustration of rules catches the eye and causes the browser to spend longer, and maybe then they will take in some core concepts here and there ("Hey - all elves are technomages and all halflings can fly! Interesting") and then they might read long enough for the rules to sell them on the game.
Flashy pictures may not be needed to play the game, but those peacock feathers are needed to compete on the shelf of your LFGS.
Those who really genuinely don't care about artwork ... they will be the ones who download a text-only e-book. Those players care about different things, and the books that they purchase do not compete in the same arena.
As it stands, I can't justify (or sell to a potential new player) paying $35 for ONE book just because it's full of flashy artwork.
... then there are the newer younger players raised on computer games like Pokeball Z and Teenage Mutant Ponies for whom a game with no flashy visual component is totally alien.
As for the cost itself, sure if you go back to 89 the inflation isn't a pretty sight. However from the late 90s it's a different picture.
I'm just going off the release dates and costs of the two books. You may have picked up your AD&D book in the late 90s, but the late 80s are our price point.
The cover price is actually at or below what D&Ds current main competitors charge. I grant that the price might be too high for your tastes, but it is still (slightly) below market average.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />When I mention what it takes to "get started", we obviously have different experiences with that. I've yet to find a player in my area who tried 4th ed with nothing but the PHB and wasn't miserable from it.
Sure. You need dice as well
With the rules being setup for gridded combat, dice-on-a-grid really detracts from it especially if you're the only one without a fig.
I never mentioned dice on a grid. There are many other options available besides minis:
Monster and counters are available in most of the D&D boxed sets.
There are 3rd-party counters available in most mid-large gamestores.
There are 3rd party 'standees' available in most mid-large gamestores.
You can download and print your own standee or counter.
Same goes for only needing the PHB, as you pointed out there have been bunches of extras (the 'essentials' and whatnot) that are more-or-less needed, from a -practical- standpoint, to integrate well into an existing game. My comments on this topic are more of a cautionary tale than anything else though, and there are certainly games that are far FAR worse in this regard. :-)
You don't need them them to play, you do need them if you want to play a specific concept not supported in the books you have. Then again, that was true of all editions.
On the section with customizations you asked me to elaborate on, basically my interpretation of the 4th ed third party license (backed up by a lawyer friend of mine, with all the disclaimers that no legal advice should be implied from this post blah blah blah) is incredibly restrictive on if you want to produce content where the "situation" differs from what the generic default is in the core rulebooks. I dont have my notes in front of me, but the section about not "diluting" product identity and such -really- needs to be re-written. As it stands, if you want a gameworld with no elves, you can't ... you must include them. Furthermore, they MUST have pointed ears exactly as described in the core rulebooks. You don't get any wiggle room with that sort of thing like you did with the OGL (for all it's other faults). I mean, as it stands, dragonlance wouldn't be publishable as a third-party-not-sponsored product under the current game system license..... that's a problem in my opinion. A big one.
To be incredibly specific, in the game setting I've got, halflings have a specific racial backstory (being decendents of a town that got hit by a curse, etc etc etc) which is a non-starter "dilution" of the term "halfling" under the 4th ed license. There are other examples, but that's the primary one. I can get around it by calling my halflings "Curse Halflings" or something, but then the 'regular' ones still have to be allowed to exist unmodified so .. what's the point? .. It's all about giving more empowerment and freedom to authors/developers. Assuming that WOTC wants to compete for third-party ecosystem talent, please please make it easier.
Thank you, I did not know that.
Actually I can't find that in the 4e SRD or GSL, but then again I kind of stopped reading at the 'firstborn son' and 'immortal soul' parts of the 4e licence. (www.wizards.com/d20/files/4E_GSL.pdf)
- The 4e licence can be changed by WotC at any time, and by agreeing to use it you also agree to any updated version of it or you have to stop publishing and destroy all your stock.
- WotC can take away the licence at any time, for any reason. Should WotC do so, you must stop publishing destroy all your stock.
Those two clauses (section 2 and section 10) are the big game-changers. They basically grant WotC complete control over what you do, and means that any investment of time or money that you put into a 3rd party supliment is constantly at risk. With the OGL at least if WotC stopped publishing 3e you could continue to support it. With the GSL you risk doing a print run for 1000s of $ only to discover that your game suppliment is now scrapped. It takes around 60 days to go from final product to on-the-shelf for a big print run (not PoD though) so you could end up in a situation where your book has been printed and is ready to ship but WotC has removed your licence and now you have to pulp a warehouse full of product. That is financial death to a small publisher (or even to a large one) and so not many took the leap into publishing for 4e. Even Dragondyne Publishing only offered their 4e stuff as a PDF or in a binder.
I understand why WotC felt they had to take this step, but I beleive that approach hurt the 3rd party support which an RPG like D&D relies so much upon. True, 90% of 3rd party support for 3e was terrible game-bloaty power-gamey stuff or broke the game in unforseen ways, but there were some real gems (and I'll always have a soft spot for 'Arsenal' by Erik Kjerland, the magitech guns-and-paladins book that featured the Evard's Tentacle Grenade and +5 Holy Miniguns).
In 5e I'd like to see a happy medium between the OGL and the GSL. Something that lets WotC control their product and retain their customer base, but also allows 3rd party publishers room and safety to support 5e. Maybe an OGSL that allows for 3rd party support for an edition to end 6 months after a 'universal termination notice', that would (perhaps) allow for WotC to avoid another pathfinder but remove the fear of an individual licence revocation.
