271: Red Box Renaissance

[Archon]

I was wondering about a couple spots in the article, though: the link to that thread in enworld suggests its some sort of hard defamation of Mearls, when it struck me as a modest joke post site. Also, tieflings have been in D&D since the mid nineties, with Planescape; they've earned the right to be major players in D&D 4E, and my only questions on the matter is where are the damned Aasimar?!?!?! We need the aasimar back. Devas don't cut it! And the dragonborn in 4E are simply something we needed in the game long ago, but didn;t surface until 3rd edition, and didn't blossom until 4th. The great thing about D&D is, if you don't like something, you don't have to use it, so these really are non issues.

Gamer Cred: ran my first game of Gamma World in 1980, and subsequently started my career with the Otus edition Basic D&D set.

Camazotz, thanks for your well thought out comments.

You're right that the "Mike Mearls Ruined Everything" thread is basically a joke thread, in the same sense that the Chuck Norris threads are joke threads. But jokes are largely funny when they tug on the threads of expectations that people really do hold. Obviously, no fully informed consumer genuinely thinks "Mike Mearls Ruined Everything" but the fact that the thread exists is symptomatic of real and genuine frustration on the part of people who do think D&D 4e did damage to a brand they love. Or, put another way, the thread may be poking fun of the ideas of people who genuinely DO think Mearls ruined everything, but it's only funny because some people DO think that.

As far as Tieflings and Dragonborn, the point I made in my previous interview with Andy Collins is that the introduction of those races as *core races* suggested a very different world and setting than the Humanocentric D&D of past editions. (Read Gygax on why D&D must be Humanocentric in the 1st edition DMG if you disagree with me that this has been a long-stated philosophy of the game). The only playable races in D&D were Humans, and demi-Humans from Tolkien. It's fine to change it (Dark Sun did) but let's be honest and acknowledge it as a change that fundamentally alters the nature of the default setting.

I have tremendous empathy for the challenges that Mearls is facing, which is why I ask the reader to put themselves in his shoes. He's literally the flag-banner for an entire industry. I have strong opinions about the sort of games I like,, but if I have any bias, it's that I desperately want Wizards to succeed, because I love tabletop RPGs and want the hobby to thrive, and they are the only ones who really can make that happen.

 

[Plurralbles]

I AM GETTING THE REDBOX AND ESSENTIALS!

Screw the entire article, redbox is hte only news I need.

Oh, and I feel sorry for the mike guy. I love 4.0.

 

[Ulairi]

I really enjoyed the article and I do not understand the nerd rage reaction to it. I didn't like D&D 4E when it released 3 years ago for many of the reasons touched upon in the article and for others. This article was speaking to me. After reading it, I went to my hobby store and I picked up the Red Box, Rules Compendium and the Heroes of the Fallen Lands. I want to give WoTC a fair chance with the release of Essentials.

 

[grimmdm]

Well I for one am definitely happy about the Essentials, I just picked up the Rules Compendium, already got lots of use out of it. So I'll be picking up the rest of the line including the Red Box. And seeing how I got my start with a box set, the black one from 2nd ED, I'm really jazzed about the Box Sets coming back. I've missed them since 3rd ED.

 

[jacobkosh]

I didn't realize The Escapist were taking their journalism cues from FOX News. Wading through a few hundred words of the usual autistic grognard chest-beating about "betrayed legacies" and "disassociated mechanics" before the first actual quote by the actual interview subject left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. This is even before we get into stuff like presenting a joke thread as if it were actually serious.

Silly me for venturing outside of Zero Punctuation to begin with.

 

[jacobkosh]

The fact is WotC lost its way with 4E, it pandered to an audience it thought it could entice AFK to play there RPG & found that this audience has the attention span of a cocker-spaniel with ADHD.

Wow, both insulting and illiterate! Quite the hat trick.

 

[Benoist]

Thank you for the interview. It was a much appreciated read.

I just received the Red Box today, and, as a lapsed WotC D&D gamer who has been very critical of the current edition of the game, I have to say that my first impressions are positive. I am cautiously optimistic, and will start to read through the set tonight as if I had never read the 4e core books before. I'm willing to re-start from scratch and see where that leads me.

I hope Essentials represents a genuine adjustment of the way WotC's R&D department is looking at the game, and not just a temporary marketing move for the next few months.

On RPGnet, Mike Mearls was pointing out that "When you're dealing with beginning players, mechanics that clearly model what's happening in the game world are really, really helpful. They make it that much easier to understand how the game works and make informed decisions." (link provided at the end of my post)

To quote my answer to him on that thread, thing is, I don't think it's just beginners who are like this, but a sizeable subset of the player base as a whole, veterans, beginners and everyone in between. Some people, like myself, need mechanics to represent something in the game world, and are increasingly bothered with the rules of the game the more removed from the game world, or abstract, they become.

This makes them think more and more in terms of rules first, and game world second. This can even drive a wedge between these two aspects of the game for them. And there, you have it: people getting really upset with the game because "it doesn't let them role play with it". I'm guessing that's what they really mean when they write things like this (there's a thread on these boards titled with a variation of this), and that's really something that D&D R&D needs to understand and catter to for the game to become inclusive again for them.

I am cautiously optimistic.

Link to the RPGnet thread:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=12815503#post12815503

 

[jacobkosh]

The fact is WotC lost its way with 4E, it pandered to an audience it thought it could entice AFK to play there RPG & found that this audience has the attention span of a cocker-spaniel with ADHD.

Wow, both insulting and illiterate! Quite the hat trick.

Nope... I'm midly offended by your post, because i can in fact read it. I do love how you jumped so quickly to ad homenium attacks though. If you want to discuss something rashly however you may want to avoid that kind of behaviour, as it counter productive.

I realize this may be a shocking and difficult concept for you, but comparing gamers to "cocker spaniels with ADHD" is not actually a classy thing to do. The fact that it was rife with misspellings and bad punctuation was merely the icing.

 

[moonkid]

It's funny, isn't it, how our feelings about things we love can cloud our perceptions of the world. There's nothing particularly negative about this article, and yet several people have jumped down Archon's throat, comparing it to Fox News, of all things. First of all, this makes no attempt to be news-- it is an interview and an opinion piece, and a very interesting one at that. Why should Archon attempt to be "unbiased" about something he feels very strongly about?That would be deceitful. At the same time, he is rather more thoughtful and balanced in his approach than any of those who are attacking him.

My own relationship with D&D has been a tricky one. There has always been something about the concept of it that has filled me with wonder. I love games of all types, and in some ways D&D is the archetypal game. I started playing it back in the 2nd Edition days, and since then I have also bought 3rd and 4th editions (I skipped 3.5). Each time, I have read the books closely, I have been excited by the changes the designers have made, the attempts they've made to resolve the issues of the previous edition. I put hours and hours of work into designing a setting, a story and NPCs. I get my friends together, build some characters and start a game.

And it collapses after three sessions.

The third collapse, after an attempt at 4th edition, has led me to reflect on the game as a whole. And I think this is the problem: although conceptually exciting, the D&D rules have never been able to fulfil their promise, because they only try to "fix" what has come before, instead of trying to play to the strengths of a role-playing game.

Second Ed suffered from a lot of rules that were ludicrously inconsistent, so in 3rd Ed, they tried to standardise all the rules. When I saw what they'd done, as a game designer I approved. But what happened was that in removing the inconsistencies, they basically only revealed the weaknesses of the core rules. The complexities of the arcana of 2nd edition were in fact part of the fun of playing the game. It felt good to have an understanding of something so complex, as though we ourselves (the players, the DM) were wizards.

So the problem revealed in 3rd edition was this: D&D combat isn't a whole lot of fun. Fighters get to roll the same d20 every round, and hack a little bit more off their enemy, as though they were carving a marble statue. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about hit points!

Which brings us to 4th edition. As far as I can tell, this was the designers' logic: 1) Combat is a very important aspect of D&D, perhaps the most important; 2) Combat is boring a lot of the time; 3) Computer games do some interesting things that could make combat more fun.

Their solution, then, was to give every class more things to do in combat, and by making the game more reliant on miniatures and tactics. The problem was that in doing so, they moved further away from what makes role-playing games fun-- imagination.

Some of this has already been covered by the Dissociated Mechanics article linked in the post, but I want to make a couple of points about what I've realised about my own responses:

1) Computer games do combat much better than tabletop games, because the computer handles all the technical bits.

2) Role-playing games do story and character and imagination and social interaction much better than computer games.

3) The thing that I want from D&D is not streamlined rules or balance, nor is it combat that feels like carving a piece of stone. Instead, I want something that stimulates imagination. I want less rules and more freedom to do things that are exciting.

And yes, I realise that there are other RPGs out there that do these things better (but for better or worse) has always been THE role-playing game, and I believe that it should be leading the way. So when (god forbid) it comes time for 5th edition to be designed, I hope the developers head this advice:

Play to the strengths of role-playing games. Make the CONCEPT of D&D sacred, not the rules. Throw out levels and hit points -- they belong to WoW now. Stimulate out imaginations. Think big.

The End

(I'd just like to thank Chrome for saving this entire post from my accidental browser-close towards the end. I didn't know it did that. Chrome is awesome.)

 

[Evan Waters]

I honestly think the article does really lean too heavily on the "4E is failing!" narrative, when there's really not much evidence for that. What sales information we have for the new edition has been solidly positive, and while there are people who don't like the new edition, there are people who didn't like 3e, 2e, or anything past the original Basic Set. That's pretty much a universal thing, and people being up in arms about 4th edition doesn't really say much. We're gamers. We hate and fear change.

If anything I think the Essentials line is going even further in the direction that the first few 4th edition books started, in paring down the game and making it more accessible and streamlined. The 3rd Edition and 3.5 books are fine, I've kept most of 'em and may use them for certain settings, but there was a lot to keep track of. 4th edition sacrifices a little flexibility but we get some simplicity back in the process, and I'm glad WotC is continuing the push to have a good basic set for new gamers.

 

[tendo82]

Let's keep this in perspective. No one here killed Black Leaf [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP]. And for that we should all be grateful.

 

[LadyRhian]

Let's keep this in perspective. No one here killed Black Leaf [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP]. And for that we should all be grateful.

My first response to reading that tract way back when was "Where do I find the spell that gets my Dad to buy me $200 worth of D&D stuff?"

 

[Blake1001]

If you hate 4e and are preparing to dance on it's grave, fine. Put on your dancin' shoes, you've won.

But stop and think about it for a moment. D&D was never printed on rice paper. All the D&D, AD&D, and 3.x stuff ever printed is still out there. You can still play it. AD&D had a 12 year run. 2e went 10 years, and there were multiple campaign settings and mountains of suplements for it. I know people who are still playing 1e or 2e campaigns they started when those editions were relatively new. 3e had an 8 year run, has unprecedented 3rd-party support, including the in-print, ongoing Pathfinder.

4e has been around for 2 years. And for the crime of not sucking the way you're used to, it has to go? After 2 years? Really? You're that petty, are you?

Fine, enjoy the vengance your nerdrage berserkergang has wrought.
Hope you dug two graves.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I haven't picked up anything in 4Ee because I don't know anybody else that picked up anything 4e. If it isn't old(or New World of Darkness) then nobody's running it, because they don't know anybody else that has any books. It's a poor man's stalemate.

I haven't seen any of the gaming stores try to run any demos, I haven't seen anything really showcased, it's just all sitting there, collecting dust. Nobody wants to be the first to spend their money on it, so nobody's going to play it.

 

[Fabio Pagliara]

the article is interesting but the enworld thread you mention:

"Some of those fans say that Mearls betrayed everything that D&D has ever stood for. A popular thread at the ENWorld RPG community called "Mike Mearls Ruined Everything" is up to seven pages."

is a tribute to Mike not a rabid attack to him

 

[machvergil]

It really is sad that fourth edition has attracted such criticism. 4E is easily the best D&D has ever been in terms of overall fun factor and it's sad to me how much nostalgia keeps people from seeing that. Is it perfect? No, but it's much closer than any of the older editions were.

 

[Slycne]

It really is sad that fourth edition has attracted such criticism. 4E is easily the best D&D has ever been in terms of overall fun factor and it's sad to me how much nostalgia keeps people from seeing that. Is it perfect? No, but it's much closer than any of the older editions were.

But fun is a subjective experience, so you can't say that 4E is more 'fun' than another other edition sans your own interactions with it. So if you've had more fun with 4E and I've had more fun with another edition than we effectively just cancel each other out, but that doesn't make either one of us wrong in measuring our own enjoyment, just that we differ. I had fun with my time with 4E. I would probably even play in a campaign if given the chance, I enjoy the medium of tabletop games in almost any form. I simply prefer the experience given from older editions.

The irony here is that everyone complaining about new changes is becoming, in a way, the grognards which they scorn. At the end of the day 4E is going to change just like all the other editions did, and the new changes will have supporters and detractors like every other one did down the line.

So maybe we can all complain about 5E together?

 

[doombringer333]

There are plenty of good indicators as to why 4e might have betrayed D&D's legacy. But trying to push that EN World thread as evidence of 4e's failure? Stupidfuckery.

 

[Michael Mifsud]

Lets hope more of the classical D&D gaming style works its way in. 4E is the most enjoyable version of the game since 1e IMO. It has its problems but so did 1e.

 

[Mutak]

Contrary to some of the hysterical posts that came before me, i felt that this interview was both honest and kind to its subject as well as informative. I am not a fan of 4th edition. I have given it a try and i like a lot of the theories that went in to it (eg everyone should always have fun stuff to do) but in the end, it just doesn't work for me. It doesn't feel like D&D. It feels like a crappy miniatures game with the option of tacking on some free-form role-playing in-between combats.

"I almost think narrative games are a different hobby, where it really is group world building or literal group storytelling. In a more traditional roleplaying game like D&D, you build it as you go and it's almost like a game of football or some sport where the action arises as you go."

This highlights what i've been feeling since the launch of 4E. It looks like there's a fundamental disconnect between the way the people in charge of D&D play D&D and the way me and my friends and every other gaming group i've ever been a part of play D&D. We don't just have cool fights - we create worlds and tell stories. We've played that way since we were playing Basic D&D, played it that way in AD&D and in 2E and 3E. 4E seems to be a game that at best does not support that style of play, and at worst, actively discourages it. It looks like 4E is designed for convention games - one-offs that highlight interesting mechanics or scenarios, but which don't make up the bulk of your gaming time.


I can accept that the game is changing and maybe i should stick with my old edition - that's fine. What caused me to write off WotC wholesale was their abortive stab at making an online table-top experience. The hobby as a whole needs to go online, but the stuff available now is a mishmash of good and bad tools that require more technical expertise than most of my table-top gaming friends possess. 4E's announcement highlighted their digital efforts, promising online tools for playing and managing games. That was more attractive than any of the rules changes they talked about.

At launch, none of it was available - not even a character generator. I stopped waiting for it after a year of almost no progress, but afaik they never got the virtual game table up and running and have largely abandoned all of their digital efforts. WotC has proven time and again that they cannot handle a programming project for D&D. If they want to have a real go at it, they need to stop trying to do it on the cheap, in-house. They need to hire real developers and devote real resources to it because the online tools are the future of their business. If they can't see that then maybe they are headed for the death spiral.