YOU are never going to write the "(Next) D&D Next"

[MisterDee]

PA's track record (with the possible exception of PAX, but that's something I'm quite happy to stay far away from) is "Meh, it's OK I guess", coupled with absurd, Molyneux-like amounts of overhype.

I don't doubt that Thornwatch will be well produced, since the PA team is pretty decent at project management and such, but Mike "Gabe" Krahulik is a RPG novice relatively speaking, and he has a long track record of not paying attention to details at all, making outrageously wrong assumptions, and ignoring any and all forms of advice he doesn't want to hear.

Plus, he's barely functional as a social human being, so there's that, too.

I expect Thornwatch will be a very nice looking product that will have two or three evenings of play in it before going stale. And of course, it'll break in half as soon as anyone with a smidgen of desire for optimization looks at it.

So, you know, kind of like D&D Next.

[erik]

I don't think Thornwatch is necessarily a competitor for a TTRPG unless we are counting anything that is a leisure activity, and in that case I propose computer games as a more likely heir apparent to claim our leisure time. Thornwatch looks to be more of a board game like Arkham Horror or Zombicide since characters don't appear to have continuity between games.

Now, something similar to Thornwatch could be appealing as a TTPRG- Cards for powers, cards for wounds, etc, but that does not appear to be their aim. It would need more complexity, more minigames, and continuity to be a full RPG. Adapting an RPG out of today's tactical or other board games seems a fine notion rather than trying to rebuild the wheel from scratch or trying to recook the corpse of D&D into something more palatable.

That said, it does look like an interesting competitor to those types of games. I think Thornwatch would appeal even more if it didn't need a GM, but maybe not. I'd have to see more to say fo sho.

[Seerow]

I don't think Thornwatch is necessarily a competitor for a TTRPG unless we are counting anything that is a leisure activity, and in that case I propose computer games as a more likely heir apparent to claim our leisure time. Thornwatch looks to be more of a board game like Arkham Horror or Zombicide since characters don't appear to have continuity between games.

From what I read, it looks like the goal is to be able to get advancement in the form of new cards, and have long lasting side effects in the form of scars (start with one, get one with every near death experience).

The first post on the card game laid out his problems with the WoW TCG which basically boiled down to "It can't be used as an RPG", citing lack of progression, lack of ways to handle non-combat resolution, and so on.

Given that as the starting premise, if it does end up as being just a board game with no continuity, it will have failed horribly.

[Previn]

Read what I actually wrote - Gabe is not influencing 5e D&D.

Here's the link to the only project which has enough hype to compete with the new edition of D&D.

Now given the track record of the PA folks vs the track record of the folks currently designing D&D, which product do you think will be better received?

Ah, apologies, I parsed the sentence wrong. Looks... Advanced Munchkin-ish. I would be willing to try it as a novel fast and loose game.

[shadzar]

4E's technique of "let's design a game that's very different from 3.5E to attract 3.5E fans" was not terribly successful.

I don't think that is true.
Many people were happy and optimistic about 4e trying to slay certain sacred cows,

but D&D isnt a game about slaying sacred cows, its about slaying dragons.

[Koumei]

My next D&D game will be all about killing Minotaurs with the Saint template.

[codeGlaze]

COW Dragons! (with the new SACRED template)

To be released in Monster Manual XXXIV !

[JonSetanta]

My next D&D game will be all about killing Minotaurs with the Saint template.

I don't know which would be more hazardous, that or Half-Fiend Bullywugs.

[shadzar]

COW Dragons! (with the new SACRED template)

To be released in Monster Manual XXXIV !

actually i think all forms of dragons including things like that already happened in 2e as there are over 20,000 variant monsters that were printed for it.

the point being made was that they wanted to skin D&D and wear its fur just to call something new D&D.

its like putting a chevy bowtie on an F350. it doesnt make it a chevy just be replacing the iconic name.

the new McDonald's quarter pounders aren't Whoppers even though they are trying to make something similar.

again goes back to how much of a boat can you replace before it is no longer the same boat.

if you wanted D&D, then why would you try to kill any "sacred cows", since those are what makes it D&D. this is what people said about 4th and why it failed as D&D because it was devoid of D&D. they tried to bring it down to what James Wyatt thought D&D was at its root, kicking in doors, killing things and taking their stuff. This is a game called Munchkin, not what D&D is about. that is the whole joke of the Munchkin game. you turn over a door card (kick in the door), try to kill the thing, and if you succeed you take its treasure. D&D concept as if it were MtG. D&D cant be played like that.

too bad WotC didnt come up with Munchkin concept back when they were trying to decide if MtG and D&D could crossover, cause they would have had a winner there!

D&D is D&D because it is D&D. it is as simple as that. something like 4th just isnt D&D, and the market has spoken on that.

this is why they keep remaking Batman, Superman and Spiderman in movies, because they want new gimmicks, but it is always Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, and Peter Parker. Only Green Lantern, who passes on the title, and Ghost Rider are readily accepted to be different people. those sacred cows are the glue. James Wyatt jizzing on what he thought was a good ruleset didnt hold 4th together at all.

the things like a cow dragon, or whatever that T$R, WotC, HASBRO wants to copyright arent the things that make D&D, D&D. it is the things that cant be copyrighted which are the rules, thus why everything looks like D&D because in the beginning the 6 stats carried over to EVERY game from TTRPGs to VGs to MMOs. so that isnt really what makes D&D since everything has it.

but take out those scores and you wont end up with D&D. D&D is all those sacred cows, the value of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

nobody knows and nobody really cares what Gary would have done with D&D. BD&D, OD&D, 1st, 2nd, 3rd....people have a version, they dont need another one.most people just want things cleaned up the way they want it to make more sense to run the game and play it (PF).

there are only really 2 or 3 RPGs, adventure, combat, story. everything else is jsut a retelling of how to play them. board games can diverse much more because they rely on the actual board, but RPGs have only those three modes interchanged.

what makes RIFTs RIFTs is its sacred cows, what makes a Marvel game is its sacred cows, and what makes D&D is its sacred cows. what makes a chevy isnt the bowtie emblem, but what is under the hood.

[hogarth]

4E's technique of "let's design a game that's very different from 3.5E to attract 3.5E fans" was not terribly successful.

I don't think that is true.
Many people were happy and optimistic about 4e trying to slay certain sacred cows, like: no more christmas tree of items on characters, better balance and a lot of other things

What people claim to want is often meaningless since, as Frank has pointed out on numerous occasions, people are perfectly happy saying they want diametrically opposed ideas at the same time. E.g. "I want to get rid of the item Christmas tree, and I also want a game that's balanced for a PC who has a belt of giant strength, a ring of protection +3, a sword +2, a cloak of resistance +3, etc., etc."

[K]

In marketing and product design, it's an accepted truth that people think they want one thing and actually want another.

For example, coffee drinkers will say that they overwhelmingly prefer dark coffees while actually buying far more light coffees.

This means that the only way to figure out what people want is to look at their actual behavior and ignore their stupid words, beginning design from there.

[Chamomile]

Your customers can tell you when something isn't working, but for the love of God don't ever think they can tell you why.

[codeGlaze]

Your customers can tell you when something isn't working, but for the love of God don't ever think they can tell you why.

You boiled that down pretty well.

[shadzar]

This means that the only way to figure out what people want is to look at their actual behavior and ignore their stupid words, beginning design from there.

in this day and age, that is what WotC does, right? since players flake off of one game to another so often, the edition treadmill is what they want?

the behavior could be not cosumer choice, but market problems as well so you cant ONLY look at costumer behavior, but market behavior. there is nothing stable in the market because EVERYONE keeps changing things.

is there any behavior yet that says what players want to due with their money in the game, except for having too much and nothing to spend it on they don't like, buyt not having any to spend except on required purchases for the characters is also not what they want?

just curious since this seems an ever-present problem that arises.

[Sashi]

Also your customers can't tell you that they want something if they don't even know it's an option. People won't tell you they want extra chunky pasta sauce if you never discuss chunks.

[K]

in this day and age, that is what WotC does, right?

No, WotC does surveys. Tons and tons of surveys. I have like six sitting in my trash file right now.

If they were looking at market trends, they'd be improving 3e and not reinventing the Red Box.

If they were looking at gaming tables, they'd notice a lot of things that they obviously haven't noticed.

[Koumei]

Yeah, these days WotC just asks people what they think they want, and get answers like:
1. Not _____ Edition (all of them, apparently)
2. Make X more simple
3. Make X more in-depth and less simple
4. Women need -4 Strength
5. Katana copypasta
6. Alignment needs seven different axes with the centrepoint (0,0,0,0,0,0,0) being Batman

Even if you manage to filter out the joke answers, it's still a mess of "don't know".

[Dean]

Here's the problem with this

You aren't going to publish an RPG that changes D&D/RPG gaming forever. YOU. Yes you. You AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. Maybe I'm wrong. But the chances that I am wrong are VANISHINGLY SMALL.

This isn't an interesting statement and you think it is. That's the problem. I could assemble any group of 2000 people (approx TGD's memberlist) and say "The odds of you becoming a successful (anything) are VANISHINGLY SMALL" and be right.

Imagine I take football players. If you take a kid who's been playing football all through high school the odds are only 4% he'll get to play college ball. No matter how devoted that kid is the odds are small. Then of that group you get the 66,000 College Football players currently in my country this year and the NFL draft will end up taking only about 200 of those guys to actually go pro. At virtually any stage of mastery you can say to a select group "The odds of you achieving fantastical success is statistically small" and it isn't a meaningful statement. The only meaningful way to look at something like that is whether doing something increases or decreases your odds of succeeding. If one's goal is to design games I would wager that this board has massively higher percentages of published game designers than other similar groups. So your original statement is not valuable and conversely an opposing statement like "If your goal is to design games there is a correlation between being a TGD poster and having higher game design credentials" IS a meaningful statement. So the implied idea that the next big designer won't come from here is a bad one, because the odds are provably better that they will come from here than some random other place. They just aren't more likely to come from here than from EVERY other random place.

That said I agree with a lot that you've said about not trying to win over imaginary grogs, appealing to the lowest denominator, or letting your personal design goals be stultified by your own imaginings of the market at large. Nevertheless your point of "The average TGD member is wrong to think they will do something valuable in game design" is either provably incorrect or valueless depending on your interpretation.

PS: Your first response to this was Shadzar agreeing wholeheartedly with you. So also you have that to live with now.

[Scrivener]

The problem is people want something that is relatively impossible.

People want meaningful options that are balanced, useful, and easy to understand.

2nd ed failed on balanced, useful, and easy to understand.

3.X wasn't balanced and useful.

4th sucked on meaningful.

5th looks like it will toss out all of the options for a belief that players want "engaging pseudorules that eschew actually representing characters abilities" (on a side note I tried looking at the play test rules and can find literally no reason anyone would pick playing a human over a half elf, what the fuck is that?)

But as to the topic, yes PL, you know more than us and everyone who disagrees with you is filled with self delusion.

[Voss]

Yeah, these days WotC just asks people what they think they want, and get answers like:
1. Not _____ Edition (all of them, apparently)
2. Make X more simple
3. Make X more in-depth and less simple
4. Women need -4 Strength
5. Katana copypasta
6. Alignment needs seven different axes with the centrepoint (0,0,0,0,0,0,0) being Batman

Even if you manage to filter out the joke answers, it's still a mess of "don't know".

The joke answers are more amusing then the actual questions, which involves having people picture their perfect vision of D&D in their head, not telling WotC what that vision actually is, and then telling them if the Nth iteration of the fighter feels like D&D or not.

The following is really from a D&D website poll. They also ask about chuuls and umber hulks as 'iconic D&D creatures.' The latter I could actually see. But chuuls and gray renders? I barely even remember what a render actually is, except for random big critter with fists.

7) How does the gray render I’ve described here fit with your sense of the iconic D&D creature?
1—I don’t know what it is, but it’s not a gray render. 15 1%
2—It’s gray and it rends, but that’s where the resemblance ends. 23 2%
3—I recognize the parts, but not the whole. 90 8%
4—I’m beginning to see gray render from here. 485 45%
5—It is the perfect summation of gray, rending hulkitude. 437 40%

Quality responses, yeah?

[Cyberzombie]

The D&DN polls are a joke. The only question they ask is if people like something or not, and have no idea why they don't like it. As far as feedback goes, it's completely useless. Though given the entire thing is a smokescreen by Mearls to stretch out the design process, it's not surprising.

[shadzar]

also they have too many WotC friends and employees answering positive. it is like Mike Lescault (Gamer_zer0) and his constant praise ofr 4e. you jsut knew it was going to be worthless shit because someone nobody ever saw play claims it is so good. if you have to advertise this much for something, it is because it sucks. they have that option A and option B because that is all they can come up with, and everyone gets to pick the lesser of the two evils

The problem is people want something that is relatively impossible.

People want meaningful options that are balanced, useful, and easy to understand.

2nd ed failed on balanced, useful, and easy to understand.

1. you get to pick 2 of those always and only.

2e wasnt about being balanced. it was useful and easy to understand. that is why it was the longest in print edition ever. (since B/X took a break as things moved to AD&D and no more rules sets were made until RC.)

EDIT: why are the forums on crack and giving 400 and 500 errors?

[Kaelik]

The D&DN polls are a joke. The only question they ask is if people like something or not, and have no idea why they don't like it. As far as feedback goes, it's completely useless. Though given the entire thing is a smokescreen by Mearls to stretch out the design process, it's not surprising.

Yeah, Every bad option is "It doesn't feel like X and I don't know why" which is bullshit. Because it makes it so that everyone who disagrees with you has to say they are stupid to disagree. You should have a fucking option for "It doesn't feel like D&D and here is why."

[Aryxbez]

It's true that I personally, am not likely to ever create the next big RPG, given what I feel are a lack of qualifications that good few others here have (course, if Mike Mearls can be in office, then I damn sure well qualify then).

Talking marketing and business is still useful, so to find a way to make it as doable as possible. Hopefully find some angle we haven't seen yet, figure out a solution from there to see that the RPG product isn't an "imaginary" effort.

The gaming den is not a revolution

I've yet to see other forums in the past, have any more "revolutionary", or good design ideas than this one. Quite possible they exist elsewhere, but the culture/people around this forum help to have more coherent ideas. It also helps that there are some damn good designers on this forum, who can produce better material than whoever's left on other forums. So assuming the notion that this forum has the greatest potential to make change is within bounds of possibility, and even likelihood with certain business factors taken care of.

Most of the gaming den's "newer" ideas (which are notably never actually unique to the gaming den) are massively unpopular with... more than half of the gaming den.

I figure the major disagreement comes with the desire to argue, or see the idea contested so that it may improve. When it gets down to it, quite possible they would simply agree when it means the product seeing the light of day, or improving the state of things. As for arguing about old problems, that's true, but I don't see that the solution's aren't "new". Given that little to noone has tried them, or if they have, haven't done it in a more successful manner as been discussed on here. Making our better solutions "new" in that sense, if they are in fact superior. Even if not, taking old ideas to mix in and create good results is a good thing to welcome, just shows how outdated RPG's have been becoming in updating over the years.

Far as Grognards go, they're either useless, or can manipulate them into liking/purchase without having to harm the designs necessarily. I'm not sure how they would be able to see through the guise, if they're truly as dumb as they are.

In regards to Penny Arcade, I was under the impression they have a large, cult-like following. How they have the power to sink or rise a given product based on their judgment of it, so I'd think this game would likely sell fairly well.

[tussock]

Mikes polls are all ... social engineering at work. They're not there to ask a question, the intent is to frame the debate about each article.

7) How does the gray render I’ve described here fit with your sense of the iconic D&D creature?

There's only one correct answer, that the Grey Render is not iconic. It's just not. It's a filler monster for 3e named after a singularly inconsistent mechanic. It's only interesting feature was not the eponymous rend, but it's unusual placement in the game world.

So he shits on that and says: But how rendy is this ICON? Very rendy? Not rendy at all? Eh? Eh? And people click something which makes them want to agree, because choices are like that, worming into your mind and wanting protected from later facts.