The End of 4e D&D.

[RandomCasualty2]

I am dead serious when I say categorically that there is absolutely no way to make 4e fit into a 32 page book without altering it as drastically as Advanced D&D was altered to make the Basic Set.

Well actually AD&D and basic D&D weren't really all that different. The biggest real difference is that they didn't give any econological data for the monsters and they broke it down by levels. The D&D basic set was small because it was only levels 1-5 or something, meaning they could cut out a lot of the largest chapter. Spells. And really beyond spells, most of the AD&D PHB was a shitload of fluff.

Because we all know that in AD&D, the only real complex class was the spellcaster. Fighters can be summed up in probably 1-2 pages easily. They have one move, rush up and attack. Rogues weren't that complex either back then.

Cutting back 4E is going to be way harder than D&D versus AD&D, because 4E basically has all classes equally complex. There's just no way they'll have room for a skills system, magic items and feats.

They can probably do 5 classes at 3 pages apeice, Do 2 pages on races, 3 pages on equipment, and then devote the rest of the book to the combat chapter. And that still requires way more cutting than AD&D ever required.

[kjdavies]

I wonder if there could be a way to write 'to function points', as we do with code, and give a bonus for concise writing.

That is, the outline identifies the items that are expected to be covered for the document to be complete, and rather than paying by the word, the rewards are based on simple *and short* text.

There's also the unintended consequences of writing something so short and precise that it is very hard to understand, such as obfuscated C code.

For example, in principle one could try writing an entire rpg game as just a set of compact mathematical formulas on several sheets of paper.

I might argue that that fails the 'simple' component of the requirement if it's hard to understand, but it's still a fair point.

For what it's worth, I've worked in government for quite a while. After my first stint it took me months to break myself of the long-winded writing style it encouraged. Believe it or not, it used to be *worse*, now I'm mostly down to simple language again.

K.

[Funswoggle]

Sorry to write an extra post - but I snuggled in one more info in my above post (to those who read it earlier). There's a 64-page rules booklet for the DM in the Red Box.

64 page DM's guide with advice on running games.

32 page player guide comprised of rules on 4 races and 4 classes, covering levels 1 and 2.

And a Rules Compendium, page count unknown, containing all of the basic system rules with updated errata.

Seems to me that this is a repackaging of the game designed for mainstream retailers, rather than a new edition.

I would even hazrd an opinion that the rules will not change between the core game as it exists now, and the essentials line.

But if I'm wrong, I owe everyone a coke.

[shadzar]

so really not that different than the real red box set? it had 64 pages for each roughly, and had 6 classes and 3 levels.

seems most like this isn't to help anyone but cause more problems be removing all previous D&D from existence. cause when one speaks of the red books, they mean the old one, and now it will get clouded and confused with the "essentials" red books rather than Basic....

how very shitty of you WotC.

[Funswoggle]

seems most like this isn't to help anyone but cause more problems be removing all previous D&D from existence. cause when one speaks of the red books, they mean the old one, and now it will get clouded and confused with the "essentials" red books rather than Basic....

how very shitty of you WotC.

Well...that seems like an entirely rational reaction.

[Username17]

And a Rules Compendium, page count unknown, containing all of the basic system rules with updated errata.

At DDXP they said that Essential D&D would provide a compendium of rules in the DM Kit. The book in the DM Kit is 256 pages and includes advice on how to run a game. Meanwhile, there is a different book called the Rules Compendium, but it's 320 pages and is marked as a "D&D Rules Supplement" rather than an "Essential D&D Game Supplement."

It's right there in the catalog. Not only are the games getting different books to compendiumize their rules, but they aren't even listed as part of the same product line. "D&D" and "Essential D&D" get different rules supplements.

-Username17

[Windjammer]

The book in the DM Kit is 256 pages and includes advice on how to run a game. Meanwhile, there is a different book called the Rules Compendium, but it's 320 pages and is marked as a "D&D Rules Supplement" rather than an "Essential D&D Game Supplement."

The difference in page count and title could be explained as helpful pointers who these products are for, as opposed to another ominous subliminal pointer to the 'fact' that we're looking at two different incarnations or even sub-editions of one game.

The 320 page book is basically a new entry into D&D in its own right, replete with (1) "the complete core rules for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game" as well as (2) "providing an overview of the game and how it’s played" (quoting from the product description).

For all we know, the Compendium in the Essentials DM Kit could basically reprint all the stuff in (1) and kick out (2) as part (2) already made its way into the Red Box. I mean, so there's this ominous 64-page booklet in the Red Box for the DM; and then there's this "256-page book of rules and advice for Dungeon Masters" as part of the DM Kit (quoting from the product description). Add them, voila you got the rough page count of the Rules Compendium - we're talking about respective totals of 320 and 340 pages. Give and take 10 pages of illustrations etc. and you're nowhere near saying that these things will contain distinct rulesets.
I stand by my main point, sc. that WotC is basically trying to figure out multiple ways to drive their customers to their overstocked 4E supplements. By contrast, you're saying that WotC is trying to fragment its 4E customer base at a point when their 4E sales are on the decrease.

[ggroy]

[Manxome]

There's also the unintended consequences of writing something so short and precise that it is very hard to understand, such as obfuscated C code.

For example, in principle one could try writing an entire rpg game as just a set of compact mathematical formulas on several sheets of paper.

I might argue that that fails the 'simple' component of the requirement if it's hard to understand, but it's still a fair point.

Seems like you're approaching an abusive definition of "simple."

The issue I'd raise is that removing all redundant information from a rule removes the ability of the reader to automatically detect/correct errors they might make while reading it (or that you might have made while writing it), and makes it harder to see all the logical implications.

I could write "a hero has 1 action point after an extended rest." That's shorter than all previous rewrites of that information in this thread, and technically, it means no matter how many actions points you had before the rest, you will be reset to 1. But it could plausibly be misread as meaning that you will have at least one AP after a rest. Or someone reading it might not consider the case where you started with more, and so need to check the rule again when the situation arises instead of remembering the answer. And even if it's not misunderstood, it's something that the author might plausibly have written erroneously if he intended that you would be bumped up to 1 but wouldn't necessarily lose some if you had more than that, so the reader might suspect authorial error, and you'll end up writing even more words on it in the FAQ (if there is one).

And that's a very mild example--it's easy to imagine cases where changing one seeminly innocuous word or phrase in one rule could change how it interacts with three other rules and end up changing the tactical landscape of the entire game. Like the definition of "enemy" in 4e, perhaps...

Lengthening it to "a hero is reset to exactly 1 action point after each extended rest" makes it harder to misunderstand, and much less likely to be written by accident if the author intended a similar rule. In large part because the word "exactly" was inserted purely for emphasis without any change in meaning whatsoever. That means that the word is redundant, but sometimes redundancy is useful.

[shadzar]

seems most like this isn't to help anyone but cause more problems be removing all previous D&D from existence. cause when one speaks of the red books, they mean the old one, and now it will get clouded and confused with the "essentials" red books rather than Basic....

how very shitty of you WotC.

Well...that seems like an entirely rational reaction.

Did you see Frank's post on the first page?

So yeah, Essential D&D.

Oh and let us look at the original red books as comparison...side by side for your convenience.



No, that will not be confusing at all will it?

[kjdavies]

There's also the unintended consequences of writing something so short and precise that it is very hard to understand, such as obfuscated C code.

For example, in principle one could try writing an entire rpg game as just a set of compact mathematical formulas on several sheets of paper.

I might argue that that fails the 'simple' component of the requirement if it's hard to understand, but it's still a fair point.

Seems like you're approaching an abusive definition of "simple."

The issue I'd raise is that removing all redundant information from a rule removes the ability of the reader to automatically detect/correct errors they might make while reading it (or that you might have made while writing it), and makes it harder to see all the logical implications.

I could write "a hero has 1 action point after an extended rest." That's shorter than all previous rewrites of that information in this thread, and technically, it means no matter how many actions points you had before the rest, you will be reset to 1. But it could plausibly be misread as meaning that you will have at least one AP after a rest. Or someone reading it might not consider the case where you started with more, and so need to check the rule again when the situation arises instead of remembering the answer. And even if it's not misunderstood, it's something that the author might plausibly have written erroneously if he intended that you would be bumped up to 1 but wouldn't necessarily lose some if you had more than that, so the reader might suspect authorial error, and you'll end up writing even more words on it in the FAQ (if there is one).

\snip

Lengthening it to "a hero is reset to exactly 1 action point after each extended rest" makes it harder to misunderstand, and much less likely to be written by accident if the author intended a similar rule. In large part because the word "exactly" was inserted purely for emphasis without any change in meaning whatsoever. That means that the word is redundant, but sometimes redundancy is useful.

Mathematicians often use the expressions 'if and only if' and 'one and only one' for situations like this. Mildly redundant but very explicit. I see nothing wrong with the redundancy shown in your previous post.

When I say simple, I mean using simple and common words (where possible and appropriate -- sometimes a complex or uncommon word is the only one that works well) and simple sentence structure. It's not quite the same as minimizing word count... though simple writing often is shorter than what people might write otherwise.

"The purpose of my position is to utilize fermentation processes to produce beer" might become "My job is to brew beer". Simple, short, to the point and without ambiguity. I'd like to see the removal of unneeded fluff and fury, signifying nothing, rather than useful redundancy that makes things clearer and helps when someone runs into a possible misinterpretation.

"The purpose of" can almost always be removed. "Utilize" means "use", and so on. Modern writing style is unnecessarily verbose and wasteful, especially if the poor bastard writing it has spent time in business or government.

Keith

[ggroy]

[Surgo]

There's still ambiguity -- one must define the symbols before using them.

[ggroy]

[Username17]

And there are a number of commonly used Axioms that might or might not be "true." Like the Axiom of Choice.

-Username17

[ggroy]

[Lago PARANOIA]

Once again, you assholes are way overthinking the issue of rule ambiguity.

By the way, I am being dead serious with that link. No snark. If you have a clause in your book stating that then you can save tons of space. I'd be genuinely surprised if they didn't do that.

[Doom]

And there are a number of commonly used Axioms that might or might not be "true." Like the Axiom of Choice.

-Username17

But at least that's equivalent to Zorn's Lemma.

The Axiom isn't such a good choice (at the risk of making a funny), since at least it seems quite reasonable, as opposed to "Fermat's Last Theorem", a perfectly well defined 'rules' question that took a good long while to answer.

[Windjammer]

I'm adding a snippet to this thread which has been mostly focused thus far on voicing or speculations as to what the 'Essentials' line will be. Will it be a new edition, a re-packaging of extant material without significant rules changes, or something else?

The snippet I'd like to add is two posts by Scot Rouse, WotC' PR and Brand manager for D&D 4E until late 2009:

Overall our strategy for 2009 will be to continue to market to the existing D&D fans. Lapsed players, current players of other editions, and fans of the brand who participate in other ways like novels and video games. Our hope is that as D&D becomes a multi-generational brand with players now becoming moms & dads, the next generation starts being recruited with in existing playing families. we also will get some halo effect acquistion through our efforts focused on core fans. In 2010 we'll start to focus more on pure acquisition on non-players.

(...) We really want to counter the perception that D&D is a tactical, combat focused war game. We want to show off the roleplaying potential with the system. I have been told Robin [Laws] has written an excelennt chapter on storytelling inthe DMG 2 and we hope to demonstrate the RP potential of the system in other ways including a 4e version of Village of Homlet.

Rouse later clarified his post:

Q: You're saying that "existing D&D fans" = lapsed players, players of other editions, and fans of the brand.
Yes, typed in haste. D&D Fans: lapsed players (played but stopped typically due to a file change like starting a career), current players of older editions (e.g. OD&D *cough* Dialgo *cough*), novels readers (FR, Dragonlance etc), and people who have interacted in other ways like video games. Basically people who we don't need to explain what D&D is.


Q:Who are the core fans? Does this mean current 4e players?
People who play D&D or read D&D novels


Q: Am I understanding correctly that lapsed/prior edition fans aren't currently considered core?
No, I would say a core fan is someone who is actively engaged with the brand in some way. Reading books, playing games, etc.

If the Rouse quote is still accurate for WotC' plans in 2010, then DMG 2 and 'Village of Hommlet' were WotC' 2009 efforts to regain people actively playing D&D but older editions (as you can see, it wasn't planned that Hommlet was to be available to RPGA-reward people only), and the 'Essentials' line is addressed to people who've never played D&D or a pen & paper RPG before.

In other words, the 'Essentials' line couldn't possibly hold any appeal for people who already regularly buy and play 4E now.

[Doom]

Man, look at all the confusion at just trying to figure out if what WoTC means by a "D&D fan" is what other people consider a "D&D fan".

If they'd just named it Magic Sword instead of "DnD4.0" or whatever, so much could have been avoided...

[Lago PARANOIA]

So how much money do you want to bet that the Essentials line is going to be stupid and not include a clause like 'if there's any rules ambiguity, interpret it in the way that's most likely to screw the PC without killing them'?

Because even though that's lazy and vindictive, it saves a LOT of space. And considering that's how most rules are explained/interpreted anyway you don't lose much functionality.

[Crissa]

Of course they're trying to fragment their customer base.

Their customer base was already shattered by releasing 4e.

-Crissa

[RobbyPants]

Why would they want to fragment it?

[Roy]

Why would they want to fragment it?

Who fucking knows? Of course even if they didn't do anything it would be fragmented anyways because of Pathfinder. But they certainly are helping it along. D&D is basically dead at this point.

[Juton]

Why would they want to fragment it?

Who fucking knows? Of course even if they didn't do anything it would be fragmented anyways because of Pathfinder. But they certainly are helping it along. D&D is basically dead at this point.

There are people out there who could save D&D, but none of them are employed by WotC, that's for damn sure. Most game employed game designers seem really incompetent, I wonder why that is.