The Death of Role-Playing
More about GenCon later, but the big news was the announcement of 4th edition D&D in May of next year. What follows is my opinion on this...
Once upon a time, game companies were run by game designers, who actually played the games, enjoyed the games, and listened to what the customers wanted. They produced many games and (mostly) quality products that sold enough to maintain a survivable, if not comfortable, lifestyle. Then came the dark times, when the evil corporate overlords took over the positions of power.
Overlords don't care about the games or the people who play them, they see the customer base as little dollar signs, not people. The designers, having become addicted to things like eating regularly, were enslaved by the overlords to do their bidding. If a designer didn't agree with the overlords' policies or, even worse, if a product they were responsible for flopped, the designer was terminated as an example to the others.
Eventually, the overlords corrupted even the lowest levels of the company. Making games ceased to be about fun and pleasing your customer base, it started being about making money. It didn't matter that many products were simply reprints of previous material, or that some new products violated existing canon, the only thing that mattered was flooding the market with products. What had begun as good ideas were driven to ground as feats became more and more extravagant, prestige classes became more necessity than flavor, and new races and core classes were created on a whim.
And now that online gaming has become all the rage, the overlords have decided that there is no need for human contact. The game can be vastly improved by keeping the players staring at their computer screens all day long. The Friday and Saturday traditions of gathering to play and socialize will fall to the wayside as the digital revolution takes hold. Soon, you will be able to play D&D without ever having to meet another person face-to-face. Within a few years, even gatherings such as GenCon, a long-standing tradition, will go digital. Players from across the globe will meet in cyberspace, instead of shaking hands and hobnobbing.
I'm not a Luddite. I understand that the game must evolve to stay fresh. And I do make use of technology in my gaming. I use electronic character sheets and tracking programs at the table. I even play online, with people I've never met. But it seems from everything I have witnessed, that 4E is such a radical departure from 3E, that I can't help but wonder how long it will be before we see 5E, then 6E, then 7E. Will a new edition be released every year? And with each change, will the game become further from the one that hooked me so many years ago?
I have been playing D&D since the late 70s. I cut my teeth on D&D Basic, moved to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and followed the hobby through the turbulence of 2nd edition and the fall of TSR through the refreshing change to 3E and then 3.5. I have been with Dragon magazine since it's earliest days, and began picking up Dungeon regularly around issue #20. Even when Lorraine Williams almost ran the hobby into the ground, I stood loyally by while others were jumping ship.
Each time it changed, I was told that the game would essentially remain the same, and that older materials could be used with the new format. Each time, it became more and more difficult to hold to that promise. Now, that premise has been abandoned entirely.
So I ask, not really expecting an answer. How will 4th edition better my game?
I asked this question of Gleemax at GenCon, and the answer was, "Have you seen the character creator? Don't have that in 3E!"
Well, yes I do. I have one that is far better than anything Wizards ever produced. I have mapping systems that put yours to shame. I have 3rd party supplements that show more originality than Wizards has offered since the advent of 3E. If that is all you can offer me to prove that 4th edition is necessary, you've failed.
This is the way that role-playing dies. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I wish now that I had
I wish now that I had listened to the voice in my head that said, "Cool off before you post." I regret having made that post, simply because it was made in the heat of the moment, in a fit of passion. Since then, I have researched what is known about the game, trying to separate fact from fiction as best I can amid the rampant rumors. As such, my views have changed quite a bit.
So now, though it may make me seem a hypocrite, here is my altered viewpoint on 4E:
On the one hand, there are things I have heard that intrigue me. The way that weapons work, for example. I have never liked the idea that a longsword is fundamentally the same as a battleaxe, save the difference in the way that crits are handled. From what I understand, a warrior's choice of weapons will now mean something, and that's a good thing.
To be painfully honest, I have also seen things that don't thrill me. I'm not sure about 25th level spells, for example. To me, that seems to take the game more towards MMORPGs, which I don't look forward to. I'm also not sure about these new "roles" that have been bandied about.
It seems to me, from what I've heard so far, that those in the "healer" role are still being largely delegated as the walking medkit, which irks me. I've never liked the idea of thinking of clerics that way, and this seems to just perpetuate the stereotype. But, I will concede that maybe I'm wrong. After all, we are still in the production stage.
I'm also treading cautiously when it comes to better defining what a character should be doing in combat. I mean, it really isn't too hard to figure out that if you have a friggin' huge sword, you should probably be over there swatting bad guys with it. If that simple concept eludes you, do you really need to be playing D&D? Sure, a character such as the bard might be a little harder to classify, but the "big 4" don't require a lot of thought. And it isn't as though all of this info is not right there in the Player's Handbook.
Grapple. I never found it that difficult. As far as I am concerned, it was more of a pain in 1E than in any subsequent edition. I used to make all my players figure out their basic modifications at the time of character creation in case the situation ever arose that someone wanted to grapple. Now? It's a piece of cake.
Suffer an attack of opportunity, if due. Make a touch attack. If you hit, you're grappling. I mean, really. THAC0 was more difficult.
As for the digital component, I accept it as an inevitability. The world is going digital, and we have to keep pace. But I'm also one of those people who fully expects that if I buy any type of book that isn't a comic book, I should receive a digital copy of that book, free of charge. It just makes sense. I've already paid for your product once, why would I buy it twice?
That is why I never purchased albums or CDs in my younger days. Many times, a CD would have one or two songs that I wanted, and the rest would be things I didn't want to hear, or songs that I already had on a different album. Why should I pay for the same material twice?
The short of it is, I've mellowed considerably in my view towards 4E. I won't go so far as to say that I'm embracing it, but neither do I view it with abject hatred any longer. I've taken more of a "wait and see" attitude. Some things I like, some things I don't, and in the end, I'll probably do what I've always done; discard what I don't like, keep what I do, and alter it to fit my sensibilities.
Of course, maybe if I had been invited to playtest, my view wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. (wink, wink; nudge, nudge) :)
Hmmm . . . if you can get my
Hmmm . . . if you can get my contact email from Steve, drop me an email. If not, I'll try to arrange something. We can talk.
So . . . might this be
So . . . might this be something that us former reviewers could ask you about?
I'm intrigued by what I've
I'm intrigued by what I've read of 4e. For as long as I've been playing (since 2e), I've noticed rules that I didn't like and made my own house rules to change them. In 3e, I wasn't playing D&D so much as my own personal RPG Frakenstein creation, stitched together from parts of other d20 system books I owned. So I see 4e as a chance to get a more polished and refined rules base to make my own game system from. Maybe I'll even like it as is--it certainly would be a lot less work!
John, I respect you as a
John,
I respect you as a reviewer, and I'm posting here to answer you because of that respect. I don't mean to insult you, but a lot of what you say here is baseless speculation and/or emotional rhetoric at best.
I, as one of the designers working on 4e, can tell you that D&D is still a tabletop game. We have no interest in turning D&D into a miniatures game, a computer game, a game that requires a laptop at the table, or a boardgame. Digital tools on D&D Insider might allow you to do some things that haven't been done in an official capacity before, but D&D Insider isn't any more essential to enjoying 4e as the Wizards website is to enjoying 3e now.
You and I share a similar history—I am a gamer that has played D&D since the 70s. I'm as/more excited about D&D now, as I was when I got that first red box (Erol Otus art) for Christmas in 1979. The players at my home playtest are more excited about playing this version of D&D than they ever were about 3e.
4e will better your game because:
• It'll be easier to run and prepare to run.
• It'll get rid of the clunky bits of 3e, so it plays faster.
• It'll keep the stuff that makes it D&D.
• It'll make spellcaster players feel like spellcasters all the time.
• It'll be more accessible to new players.
• It'll require better roleplaying communication.
• It'll have a long life compared to almost every other game on the market that has comparable complexity. (2e is an anomaly in the game industry, and by far outlived its viability.)
I could go on. I could tell you things it won’t do, such as respect “existing canon” that isn’t necessarily good for the play experience of the game. But I hope this at least starts to get through to you the truth of this situation.