Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ask the Designers of D&D Fourth Edition

Posted by Zonk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:21 PM
from the people-who-brought-you-the-hand-AND-eye-of-vecna dept.
This past August, big news dropped in the tabletop gaming community: 2008 would see the release of a fourth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Since then the official D&D Insider site, and communities like the excellent ENWorld, have been doing their best to keep us up to date on the ins and outs of the newest way to dungeon-delve. With the release just five months away, we've been given a chance to put some questions to the team developing the game. One question per post, if you would, and we'll make sure to pass the best questions on to the designers. Don't forget to ask about the online version of the D&D tools as well! We'll get their answers back to you as soon as we get them, so fire away.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Gen Con 2007 In A Nutshell 125 comments
Another year, another Gen Con? Hardly. This year was the 40th anniversary of Gen Con, marked the announcement of the newest edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and was the first year videogame companies were actively sought out as exhibitors. Put together this resulted in what felt like record crowds, a healthy dealer's hall, and an instant conversation-starter with every other person at the event. Read on for notes on the new tabletop releases, thoughts on the new edition of D&D, impressions of the videogames that were in attendance, and a shameful admission of weakness.
[+] D&D Fourth Edition Books To Be Released in June 59 comments
Bill Slavicsek, R&D director on Dungeons and Dragons at Wizards of the Coast, has announced via his personal column that the three core books for Fourth Edition will all be coming out in the same month. When the new game version was announced at Gen Con this year, the initial idea was that the books would be staggered over a three month period. "After conferring with our various trade partners, the Sales Team here at Wizards came back with word that they'd rather have the three core rulebooks release in the same month than over three consecutive months. As that's how we originally wanted to release them, Brand and R&D got together with our Production Team to see if we could accommodate the request. The answer is YES! The new release schedule looks like this: May: H1: Keep on the Shadowfell 4th Edition D&D adventure with Quick-Start Rules. June 6: 4th Edition Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual." As a note, the article is trapped behind an inane login for the Dungeons and Dragons Insider site. Hey WotC? It's really hard to talk up your new toys when you make it hard to read your content. Why not loosen up a bit?
[+] The D&D Designers Answer Your Questions 211 comments
In January we had the chance to ask the designers of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition a few questions about the new version of the classic tabletop game. The Wizards of the Coast Community Manager, Mike "Gamer_Zer0" Lescault put our questions to members of the development team, including: Andrew Collins, Chris Perkins, Scott Rouse, and Sara Girard. Some of the questions weren't quite answered in as much detail as I would have liked. That said, they've given us a great opportunity to follow up on their responses. If you have a follow-up question, put it in a comment below (one question per comment please). We'll pass on five of the best, and the designers will answer your question on-camera at the Dungeons and Dragons Experience at the end of this month. We'll post the video to the site early in March. This is a great chance to put a face to some legendary designer names, and get your unanswered issues resolved. Get asking.
[+] D&D 4th Edition Details Released 171 comments
Wired is reporting that some juicy details of Wizards of the Coast's new 4th edition for Dungeons and Dragons are being leaked on to the web from the D&D Experience in Arlington, VA this week. "Wizards of the Coast, the current custodians of the D&D universe, have been talking about the upcoming fourth edition of the game for months, but they've been fairly cagey about hard details, preferring to tell us more about how elves love footraces than how much damage a fireball does. They're running actual 4e games at D&D Experience, though, and thanks to people with scanners, you can too!"
[+] D&D's Story Manager Answers Your Questions on Camera 112 comments
Chris Perkins, story manager for the upcoming Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, took some time out this past weekend at the D&D Experience event to talk back to us. He answered the concerns of five readers who had commented on their responses to our earlier questions from January. With a large amount of information about Fourth Edition now out in the open and the NDA for playtesters lowered, there's been a floodgate of new concerns over the latest change to this tabletop icon. You might also be interested in the other videos from Gamer Radio Zero filmed at the D&D Experience event, which covers everything from DMG design to D&D Insider pricing. Chris's responses can be seen in the YouTube videos included below. Thanks both to Mr. Perkins and Michael Lescault for making this interaction possible.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • New spells? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2008, @12:24PM (#21943570)
    Will this be the edition that finally sees the new "Escape Parents Basement" spell?
      • by mr_mischief (456295) on Monday January 07 2008, @04:55PM (#21947150) Journal
        It's been done. It's just not in the games you're familiar with, apparently.

        A magic system for Fudge which works much the way you describe [panix.com]
        the system in Ars Magica [wikipedia.org] is quite similar

        Here are some discussions about magic systems:

        a discussion of different systems [darkshire.net]
        another discussion, led off by Ron Edwards of the Sorcerer RPG [sorcerer-rpg.com]

        Speaking of Sorcerer [sorcerer-rpg.com], its magic is something else entirely. It's a largely outcome-based game rather than specifically action-based, and the magic system in it is quite a neat play on that.

        GURPS, Rifts, and D&D pretty much follow the mystical grimoire approach. Ars Magica, White Wolf's Storyteller Series (Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, Wraith, Changeling, Hunters, etc), and some others take the combined skills approach. Still others have wholly different approaches. Here's a pretty good explanation of the theory of magic in Earthdawn [wakemen.com] which explains different ways magic can be used in that game, complete with disadvantages of some of them.

        The Forge [indie-rpgs.com] is very interesting reading material for anyone who's considered writing their own RPG. There's some advanced RPG jargon there so I'd suggest starting with the site glossary. It's not a site for arguing the merits or faults of different systems you've played although those might be used as support in discussing the design of new games.

        Personally, I've played games with set spells, spell research to make new spells (as some versions of D&D let you do with the right GM). I've played ones that require a combination of skills (from two to five (five!) skills for every casting. Some require each spell being taken as a character advantage in an advantage/disadvantage slot balanced game. I've played on in which the game world has special words that are foreign to the players/characters that must be learned throughout the campaign which represent factors of a spell (speaking "large" + "fire" + "ball" + "at" + character's secret magic name results in that) and learning the words as an outsider is how to become a better mage. It becomes the whole point of some adventures.

        I've even play tested one unpublished game in which the only magic was a link between two symbols dawn during a ritual trance. However, the link was so strong that whatever you did to one would happen to the other. You could talk into one, and someone in possession of the other could carry on a conversation with you. You could throw one safely in your fireplace while the other is inside an enemy's barrel of oil. You could lay one on the ground and step on it, and be transported to the other. However, if anyone unfriendly took over your other symbol, they could use it in reverse until one of the two was destroyed. If I ever give this game a name and publish a book, I hope you'll rush out to buy it. ;-)

        So yes, there can be quite different magic systems in games. Many of them could be used in D&D, or you could try the other games.
      • by An ominous Cow art (320322) * on Monday January 07 2008, @05:27PM (#21947508) Journal
        Here is an ancient Usenet post I saved. It details a magic system as a programming language of sorts. I posted it to my journal, since it's pretty lengthy.

        http://slashdot.org/~An+ominous+Cow+art/journal/192430 [slashdot.org]
  • Online PDFs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2008, @12:26PM (#21943604)
    Will I need to have a paid subscription in order to download the PDFs of the 4th edition books that I buy?
  • by dsginter (104154) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:26PM (#21943606)
    Are there any girls there? [youtube.com]

    Sorry - this just hits too close to home (self-proclaimed geek).
  • Critical Failure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pwnies (1034518) * <jjcm.linux+slashdot@gmail.com> on Monday January 07 2008, @12:26PM (#21943608) Homepage Journal
    I know at the moment there is only house rules for critical failures (i.e. rolling a 1 on a d20). Will there be set rules for this in 4.0?
    • by krog (25663) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:29PM (#21943662) Homepage
      A well-played D&D campaign is just one house rule after another.
      • First rule of D&D in the DMG is that these are only a ground work for you to make up whatever rules you see fit
        The second rule is don't talk about fight club for some reason... I think it just slows down play when we all deny being Tyler Durdin.
  • Why 4th Edition? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrMrLordX (559371) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:27PM (#21943628)
    3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically.

    Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
      • by CrashPoint (564165) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:15PM (#21944200)

        Come on, magic using dwarves, evil rangers, and wizards carrying swords. That goes against the very core of the game.
        Nonsense. The core of D&D is not, and never has been, "only play characters that fit pre-approved fantasy archetypes".
        • by internic (453511) on Monday January 07 2008, @03:45PM (#21946362)

          Sort of off topic here, but are wizards carrying swords really counter to "pre-approved fantasy archetypes"? I mean, I'd think Gandalf would be a pretty archetypal wizard and he carried a sword.

  • Miniatures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pryoplasm (809342) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:27PM (#21943630)
    Will 4th edition use the same or similar systems for miniatures? Will a medium creature still fit in a 5' x 5' square? A friend of mine has a large collection of minatures and a decent sized third party map, and I am just hoping we do not have to move onto something else in order to satisfy the new rules...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2008, @12:30PM (#21943664)
    1. Cannot base characters off the Ash from the Evil Dead movies.
    2. A one man band is not an appropriate bard instrument.
    3. There is no Dwarven god of heavy artillery.
    4. My 7th Sea character Boudreaux is not the 'Southern' Montaigne.
    5. Not allowed to blow all my skill points on 1pt professional skills.
    6. Synchronized panicking is not a proper battle plan.
    7. Nor is "Kill them all and let God sort them out"
    8. Not allowed to use psychic powers to do the dishes.
    9. How to serve Dragons is not a cookbook.
    10. My monk's lips must be in sync.
    11. Just because my character and I can speak German, doesn't mean the GM can.
    13. Not allowed to berserk for the hell of it, especially during royal masquerades.
    13. Must learn at least one offensive or defensive spell if I'm the sorcerer.
    14. Must not murder canon NPCs in their sleep, no matter how cliche they are.
    15. Ogres are not kosher.
    16. Plan B is not automatically twice as much explosives as Plan A.
    17. I will not beat Tomb of Horrors in less than 10 minutes from memory.
    18. Collateral Damage Man is not an appropriate name for a super hero.
    19. When surrendering I am to hand the sword over HILT first.
    20. Drow are not good eating.
    21. Polka is not appropriate marching music.
    22. No longer allowed to recreate the Death Star Trench Run out of genre.
    23. There is no such thing as a Gnomish Pygmy War Rhino.
    24. Any character who has a sensitivity training center named after him will be taken away.
    25. Even if the rules allow it, I am not allowed to summon 50,000 Blue Whales.
    26. The green elf does not need food badly.
    27. Valley speak has no place in a fantasy setting. Especially if you're the paladin.
    28. I am not to shoot every corpse in the head to make sure they aren't a zombie in Twilight 2000.
    29. The Goddess' of Marriage chosen weapon is not the whip.
    30. I cannot have any gun that requires me to continue the damage code on back.
    31. I am not to kill off all the vampires in the LARP, even if they are terminally stupid.
    32. The backup trap handler is not whoever has the most HP at the time.
    33. I cannot buy any animal in groups of 100 or over.
    34. There is no such skill as 'improvised cooking'
    35. I am not allowed to base any Droid off any character played by Joe Pesci.
    36. I am not allowed to convince the entire party to play R2 units.
    37. I am not allowed to convince the entire party to sit on the same side of the table.
    38. They do not make black market illegal cyberweapons for rodents.
    39. When investigating evil cultists not allowed to just torch the decrepit mansion from the outside.
    40. Dwarves do not have the racial ability 'can lick their eyebrows'
    41. Dwarves do not have the racial ability to hold their breath for 10 minutes.
    42. Dwarves do not have the racial ability 'impromptu kickstand'
    43. Having a big nose adds nothing to my seduction check.
    44. No longer allowed to set nazi propaganda music to a snappy disco beat.
    45. Not allowed to spend all 100 character points on 100 1pt skills.
    46. My character names are not allowed to be double entendres.
    47. Sliver rhymes with silver because the computer frelling says so.
    48. They do not make Nair in wookie sizes.
    49. The elf is restricted to decaf for the rest of the adventure.
    50. Not allowed to blow up the Death Star before that snotty farm kid gets his shot.
    51. Not allowed to use thermodynamic science to asphyxiate the orcs' cave instead of exploring it first.
    52. No longer allowed to use the time machine for booty calls.
    53. My bard does not know how to play Inna Godda Davida on marachas.
    54. Not allowed to start a drow character weighing more than a quarter ton.
    55. Cannot pimp out other party members.
    56. Before facing the dragon, not allowed to glaze the elf.
    57. No matter how well I roll, a squirrel cannot carry a horse and rider at full sprint.
    58. In the middle of a black op I cannot ask a guard to validate parking.
    59. Expended ammun
  • Thank you, now stop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by techpawn (969834) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:30PM (#21943668) Journal
    First off, thank you for no more Gnomes as a basic race (or so is the rumor)

    What exactly is happening to the wizard class? It sounds like it's becoming more like the Warlock and gaining spell casting like the CHA based casters or spell like abilities based on memorized spells? Are you able to expand on this or give us more information yet?
  • D&D and WOW (Score:5, Interesting)

    by halivar (535827) <bfelgerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday January 07 2008, @12:31PM (#21943682) Homepage
    It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?
  • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:33PM (#21943700)
    How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.
  • by Steeltalon (734391) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:34PM (#21943714)
    Why is there a need for a 4th edition? 3.5 wasn't released all that long ago (and the books were just as expensive as the 3.0 versions), so why do we need a 4.0? Is there a compelling reason or is this just a symptom of Hasbro casting "Animate Dead" on TSR's corpse?
      • I'm feeling pretty cynical about their reasons for doing this, too. The things I read about the new rules, up until I finally stopped reading in disgust, all seemed like a dumbening of the rules to appeal to attention span-challenged video gamers.
  • by flaming-opus (8186) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:34PM (#21943716)
    It seems to me that the fun of table-top Role Playing Games is the storytelling. It's the plots, and the character development, and the mythical settings that make RPGs so exciting. Do we really need to further refine the game rules, or is this a simple cash grab for the publisher, when all the gamers out there update to the new rules?
  • by andphi (899406) <phillipsam@@@gmail...com> on Monday January 07 2008, @12:35PM (#21943728) Journal
    I know that some of the old settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammers, Dark Sun, Planescape) have been transitioned to other companies or have been quietly kept alive by their fans with knowledge bases and efforts at rules translations between old rulesets and 3.5. Will any of these old, orphaned settings being making a comeback in 4.0? (Planescape. Please, Planescape!) If not, are the 4.0 rules being written to make these on-going translation efforts easier?

  • Negative Press (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Monday January 07 2008, @12:35PM (#21943734) Homepage Journal
    Short intro, I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. Play a lot of computer games. Enjoy reading up on lore and the like.

    But I never got into D&D. I had friends that played it but I was never into it. I tried playing it a few times and had some fun experiences. But there's always been a sort of negative stigma associated with it among ... well, the general populace. What are you doing to break free of this? Or do you embrace it? What are your thoughts & opinions on this strange negative publicity that popular movies push onto D&D players? Do you ever try to break free of that?
  • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:39PM (#21943778)
    It sounds like, in an effort to balance classes better, they've all become a lot more alike. That is, a wizard and a warrior will have a very different list of abilities, but they'll all have X abilities to use at will, X abilities to use once an encounter, and so on. Do you feel this is a fair assessment? If so, is there any concern that in making the classes more alike you'll have essentially created one well-balanced class that no one wants to play? In 3E, a lot of the classes require very different kinds of strategy and in my experience all players have different favorites for reasons that seem to be going away.
  • by Erwos (553607) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:40PM (#21943790)
    It upset quite a few folks when D&D 3.0E transitioned to 3.5E relatively soon after release, and made some people's investments in D&D become basically worthless overnight. While I appreciate that it's sometimes time to spawn a new edition that's incompatible with the old, it felt like 3.5E should have been an errata to 3.0E, rather than a totally new set of books.

    I understand that WotC can't commit itself to any firm "we will not release another edition for X years" guarantee, but it would be nice to hear some sort of assurance that we won't see a repeat of the 3.0E->3.5E debacle. What's the plan? What lessons have you learned?
  • Open Gaming License (Score:5, Interesting)

    by egg_green (727755) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:43PM (#21943826)
    With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?
  • by Mechagodzilla (94503) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:46PM (#21943854)
    Has there been any thoughts or discussions on reducing the amount of books needed to play? Donating a bookshelf to every new edition is getting a little ridiculous for the casual gamer. I have 40+ books from first and second edition. I bought the Player's Handbook from the third edition, read the first thirty pages and went "bleh".

    To reference another gaming system, I can generate a character in GURPS (Steve Jackson Games) in under an hour, have a little better feel for advantages and disadvantages, arm and clothe the character, and do it all from one book. Now there are other books available, but not necessary. Also, their magic system seems a lot more reasonable than memorizing spells. I always thought of spells more like skills than chunks of memory.

    I know it goes against the business model, but can you actually make a game that can be played with less than four books?
    • by east coast (590680) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:15PM (#21944198)
      What? You didn't find The Complete Potato Farmer v 3.504.321a to be worth the 30 USD?

      Sadly, and I know that someone will probably bitch at me, the WotC business model is based on people consuming what they normally don't need at an alarming rate. They gained wide popularity in the business of CCGs. Anyone who's ever spent any serious time playing CCGs knows that it's a scam; a monetary blackhole where rules are made up to make perfectly good cards obsolete and create an atmosphere where players (normally teens) beleive that their cards are going to be worth big money and are, in fact, an investment instead of a gaming supply. Come on folks, enough already.

      I felt that this would be the case with D&D when Wizards got their hooks into it and the speed with which 3.5 was announced only confirmed my thoughts. And this isn't even to mention the meager software offerings that went toes-up before the bittorrent could even be completed.

      While I still maintain and interest in the game and still play with the same small group I have for the better part of the last decade, I still clutch onto my 3.0 core rules and a copy of Tomes and Blood. I will not spend 30+ USD on more books for a game that does not justify it. I'm still running just fine with my Call of Cthulhu 5.0 rulebook. I've had it just as long or longer than most people have had their AD&D 2.0 books. And it's the only book needed for the game!
  • 4th edition?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Obliterous (466068) <shawn@somers.gmail@com> on Monday January 07 2008, @01:01PM (#21944020) Homepage Journal
    this is the `we're not making enough money' edition, right?

    Seriously. 3rd, and then 3.5, and now 4th edition, all within what, six years?? and how long did 2nd last?

    there's nothing wrong with the game as it plays, now, that a couple of house rules cant fix.

    another `lets make everything from the last version completely obsolete' version is NOT going to sit well with a lot of players.

    I paid all that money for 2nd edition books, and actually got my moneys worth. I had them for more than 10 years.

    I held off on buying 3rd edition, because I was still happy with 2nd, and by the time I was ready to buy, 3.5 had been released, so that's what I bought.

    considering how much I paid for all of these books, and how many 3.5 books I've purchased, I wont consider myself to have gotten my moneys worth from them until at LEAST 2012. So as far as I can tell, 4th edition is at LEAST 4 years too early. so I doubt that I'll be buying or playing 4th edition for a while.

    So, really, My question is: Did you actually come up with something so completely new that it makes a new edition essential, or is this just a move by WOC to squeeze as much money out of the AD&D franchise as possible?
  • by DeafDumbBlind (264205) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:21PM (#21944270)
    Currently, at higher levels, a fight between the party and a group of enemies can easily last a couple of hours.
    How has combat been streamlined?
  • by Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:23PM (#21944308)
    One of the things I dislike about 3rd edition is that at medium and high levels magic items are such a big part of a character's power. A PC has to be decorated like a Christmas tree with various magical doodads in order to be effective. Running a campaign in a world where magic items are rare or nonexistant required a lot of house rules and adjustment on the part of the DM. Will it be easier to run a low or no magic item campaign in 4e?
  • by HikingStick (878216) <z01riemer@NOSpaM.hotmail.com> on Monday January 07 2008, @01:29PM (#21944386)
    Pardom me if this mini-rant-around-a-question goes long. I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. (though we did opt to keep the original Ranger class, as our gaming world was very Norse and giant-heavy). For those of us who wanted games with more realistic (if you can use that term for a Fantasy RPG) combat mechanics, different skill allocation methods, and other detailed tables, we had RuneQuest, Palladium, and dozens of other options. The game was well-established, and players could be found anywhere.

    With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers (we may be a bit older now, but we are the ones with regular salaries and a desire to continue the delusion of ongoing youth by purchasing simple amusements like games). I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. The 3.5 Ed.? Didn't even pay attention. Fourth edition? Sorry, but not interested.

    My own sons are old enough to play now. I've been shopping around for some of the early 1st and 2nd Ed. books so my kids and I may try out the game together, but until that happens, we bide our time playing Guild Wars (online) and Magic: The Gathering (offline).

    My question is this: who are you trying to please? Do you have a core group of early gamers who will buy anything AD&D just because you print it? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? It's as bad as auto makers manufacturing '08 vehicles that are effectively the same as the '07s (Oh!, but the door for the gas cap is now square!).

    The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?" Unless the rules are relatively simple--something that won't require me to buy an entire library of books--you won't win me back. Once upon a time, only three books were needed for hours (months, and years) of fun: the DM handbook, the Player's handbook, and a Monster Manual (and the creative DM could get by without the MM). In all honesty, it looks like you are using the glorious history of (perhaps) the most storied RPG franchise of our time and using only as a perpetual money maker for your company. The more I hear about subsequent editions, the more I get the impression that you don't give a crap about the players out there (the people who made the game great in the first place), and that you simply wonder how much more you can squeeze the golden goose before it dies.
  • Non-combat design (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mchevallier (1214520) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:42PM (#21944556)
    I am slightly concerned by the rendering of monsters into simply combat stats. Please take this opportunity to allay my fears, as much of what I hear, I approve of. Will there be more to monsters than combat? Obviously, that's their most important role, but an understanding of their capabilities outside of combat (rituals they can cast, things they know - stuff that they WON'T use in a fight against PCs) is important to give a monster an ecology, purpose, traction - to use a popular word. Please explain to me how 4e takes account of this, or if it doesn't, explain why you have designed it thusly. (Oh, and thanks for your time and effort. It can't be easy redesigning D&D, what with the internet and all.)
  • by coppro (1143801) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:53PM (#21944734)
    We know that you are providing a tool for editing character sheets on your computer, although you have not specified anything else. An editable PDF sheet seems likely. However, there have been many popular tools (e.g. PCGen) that can update many aspects of data automatically based on game events, rather than numbers. Example: You are the target of eagle's grace (assuming it still exists and has the same function). You have a +2 cloak of Charisma (once again making assumptions). You simply enter the fact that you are affected by that spell and tool automatically increases your Charisma score by 2, and also makes all relevant modifications elsewhere (save DCs, skill modifiers, etc.) Will the suite of digital tools released with 4th Edition include a tool that can maintain a character sheet that can be updated based on effects and modifications, rather than simple numeric input? If so, will it be extensible with published supplements/user-provided data?
  • by Rydia (556444) on Monday January 07 2008, @01:54PM (#21944748)
    In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells.

    How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?
  • by fudgefactor7 (581449) on Monday January 07 2008, @02:03PM (#21944888)
    One of the things that always seemed out of place for me was the use of Hit Points. As any humanoid became higher level (i.e.: gained power) somehow they received a commensurate increase in physical ability to withstand a blow from something like a longsword. This issue was resolved in Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds where the whole idea of HP was replaced with a saving throw against damage. Did the D&D4 designers consider this as an option to replace the age-old (and some say broken) mechanic that is HP? And if so, why did they choose to remain with HP over the M&M mechanic?
  • by Entropius (188861) on Monday January 07 2008, @02:27PM (#21945232)
    My first module as a player, and then as a DM, was Monte Cook's excellent Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. The thing is huge and complicated, with an enormous volcanic crater mapped out and populated by lots of NPC's who are -- sort of -- cooperating. Rather than giving detailed descriptions of what these NPC's will do, whether out of combat or in, the module simply gives their statistics and explains their personalities, and lets the DM figure out what they do. There were very few notes about combat tactics other than those that relate to personality ("Imix enjoys whacking things with his greatsword and makes little use of his spell-like abilities"), since it's assumed that the DM is smart enough to come up with tactics on his own.

    While NPC's are given locations, there's a note: "The placement of NPC's in, and the description of, the mines is just a snapshot at one point in time. They move around, do stuff, raid each other, etc., as time passes, and it's important to keep the place dynamic." The module encourages a huge amount of flexibility.

    This was wonderful to DM, and the players enjoyed the feeling of being in such an active environment.

    Now, look at a more recent module, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. The setting is wonderful, the maps are wonderful, but all the encounters are ... almost pre-scripted. There's a separate section of the book for encounters, in which separate maps are given just of the "encounter area", with all the NPC's placed on it and combat tactics given for them. So you get "Encounter K42: Wight ambush", with a separate map with a bunch of wights on it. I've not run this module, but it seems like DM'ing it is more of an exercise in executing a pre-written script rather than being creative. There's not much room in there for flexibility, either -- it'd require a bunch of rewriting just to get the NPC information in a format conducive to being flexible with it.

    In short: Wonderful setting (not written anew, swiped from 1e), uninspired writing. Writing is targeted to the lowest common denominator of DM's who can't figure out how to run NPC's/set up encounters on their own.

    I hear Expedition to the Demonweb Pits is supposed to be pretty good, but haven't heard anything good about any of the other modern writing.

    My question is this: Are the modules written for 4e, and the overall design generally, going to lean more on the side of accessibility to less creative players/DM's or the side of giving more experienced players/DM's more flexibility?
  • by PrimalChrome (186162) on Monday January 07 2008, @02:29PM (#21945268)
    Can you publish an edition that likens back to 1st Edition AD&D where four books and a module pretty much could sum up a session? How about putting more energy into fleshing out a world instead of bloating the ruleset or creating more classes? Well designed modules/worldbooks will still generate the revenue that you are trying to force out of your clients with more core books.

    The magic of AD&D (whether it be high, dark, monty haul, hack-n-slash, dungeoncrawling, or comic) is in the minds of the players....the world they mold around their characters. Then again....most gaming companies today don't really care about this. WotC, Whizkids, Games Workshop....they're all about the $$ and number of units sold.
  • by destine (109885) on Monday January 07 2008, @02:38PM (#21945396)
    I always wanted to play games that were heroic. We've always had a standing rule in our campaigns of no evil characters. So I have to wonder, what's with all of the devil and demon based races and power sources and where are all of the good angelic based power sources? It seems as if the 4th edition rules have been swallowed by the "Evil is Cool" paradigm, which I have to say is incredibly sad to me(this was a big pet peeve of mine in Unearthed Arcana where there was a Tiefling but no Aasimar paragon class). In 3.5 all of the base classes and races were relatively neutral with a bit of a flavor for good. Why suddenly move to the "Evil is Cool" route in a game that historically and for the most part has been about epic struggles of good and neutral against an encompassing evil?
  • by xant (99438) on Monday January 07 2008, @02:55PM (#21945642) Homepage
    During the 3.x timeframe, you introduced OGL, the Open Gaming License, a reasonably good share-alike compromise for the game system.

    Alongside that, you published the System Reference Document (SRD) which contained most of the monsters and equipment from the core books and almost all of the rules. It made an excellent standard for spinning off games and creating publishable material based on a canon.

    And yet, at the same that Creative Commons license gaining ground, and YouTube and other crowd-publishing sites (like Gleemax?) are looming massively over the entertainment playground, I hear the rumour that OGL and the SRD are going away!

    What is Wizards really going to do to promote community publishing? Those of us creating content for the game, content that promotes the game, are waiting to hear that we'll have a green light, that we can publish our material freely for all to use without fear of The Lawyers, and that we can incorporate Wizards' canon material in those publications in a non-competitive way. Will we be given that license? Or will there be, as the rumor told it, licensing fees to keep out content creators?
  • Mass combat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hierarch (466609) <wilsonm AT cs DOT rpi DOT edu> on Monday January 07 2008, @05:08PM (#21947300) Homepage
    Will 4th Ed finally have an integral mass combat system for wars? If so, could you tell us a little bit about it?
  • DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MykeBNY (303290) on Monday January 07 2008, @05:10PM (#21947310)
    Many people are acting as if a new edition will not only obsolete their old books, it will actually prevent them from accessing the ruleset at all. Level-headed people of course regard that as silly, nobody's going to sneak into your house and burn your old books!

    However, with more and more importance being placed on digital content (not specifically Wizards of the Coast, but in general), if the wrong decision is made regarding DRM, that nightmare scenario may actually take place if WotC stops supporting this edition.

    Will WotC spend a lot of time and money in vain in adding restrictions that will only serve to frustrate legitimate customers, restrictions that pirates will figure out how to bypass within a week of release, if not sooner?

    Is the issue of whether to DRM or not, and why and how being treated very seriously within the company?
  • by Spyder (15137) on Monday January 07 2008, @07:48PM (#21948786)
    Has there been any discussion about moving from the D20 system and the inherent flat probability distribution of rolls to a multi die system? This aspect of the D20 system has led me to avoid playing D&D after having played in systems (White wolf, ShadowRun, EarthDawn and GURPS) where character capabilities are somewhat more predictable; and bonuses are more effective at the margin than for unlikely rolls.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Already published on the site: a 20 is a 20 is a critical hit.

      A critical hit automatically does maximum dice-plus-bonuses damage, plus additional dice apparently based on weapon type and enchantments. No crit ranges, no thresholds, no checks.

      • by Aeonite (263338) on Monday January 07 2008, @12:59PM (#21943992) Homepage

        The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party

        As opposed to the foursome of Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard thats been standard since the seventies?
        Yes, as opposed to. Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard obviously inspired Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster, but MMOs have twisted the roles away from the original classes. To whit: Rogues are now the de Facto DPS class. In olden days, Rogues had backstab, sure, but they were never the primary damage dealers. They were stealthy pickpocketing thieves.

        4e? Rogues are now the primary DPS class.

        Wizards Presents: Races and Classes (a 4e preview), makes it explicit.

        http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13546.phtml [rpg.net]

        To quote the author of that review:

        "These are new specific "jobs" in an adventuring party that they designed for. They are defender, striker, controller, and leader. The defender is a typical MMORPG tank, with high defenses and abilities to cause foes to focus on him. The striker is a one-on-one damage dealer. The controller is oddly named - this covers damaging or affecting multiple targets (like with a Fireball). The leader heals, aids, and buffs."

        If 4e was returning to roots, they'd have four classes and that's it. Instead, they're giving us four roles that are MMO-inspired and layering lots more than four classes atop those roles. That's not anything like D&D used to be.