Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDaze

Did I read that right? Redone to be BC/OW compatible?

Recommended Posts

I was under the impression that the reason why D&D had such a hard time with 4E is that their open D20 license (which, coincidentally, Gygax himself thought was a terrible idea) allowed certain other companies to literally steal their game system and ideas wholesale and make the claim that this copied property was the "true successor" to D&D. Also, although D&D lost market share for 4E, they also made money hand over fist with 4E and had a very successful line with tons of top-selling products. There's a reason why no one was competing with Wizards during 3E, and it's because Wizards is **** good at what they do.

 

FFG has two advantages in this aspect: Warhammer is a licensed and heavily protected property. Also, the d100 system used for DH isn't under an open license the way d20 was. I know that there is a group making its own successor version of WFRP 2nd edition, but I'd imagine as soon as they start trying to sell it, the hammer is going to come down hard.

 

I'm reserving judgment about what the new beta will bring with it, as I found the OW system to be workable. I just feel like game design is a technology the same as anything else, and there have been a lot of recent developments that really shine a light on the problems with the old WFRP d100 system. It's like Settlers of Catan. That game seems incredible when it's the first euro board game you've played. But, when you start to get to know other games, and get more experience with it, a lot of the flaws really start to shine, and you realize that half the fun of the game is the other people you're playing with. I think a lot of people forget that about playing old systems; a lot of the fun you've had with it comes from your friends, not the system itself. I'd personally prefer to play a really enjoyable game with my cool friends rather than a passable one. I hope that the new update is the former.

 

Howdy,

 

The "open license" for D&D 4th was VERY restrictive, which is why there was very little third-party support, and one of the reasons why 4th failed.  The 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition open licenses were VERY open, and EVERYBODY made money - WotC and all of the supporting companies.  Some would argue that there was TOO much support and market saturation, but that is still argued.  It was a *great* model.

 

WotC made money with the initial sales of 4th, but it TANKED.  HARD.  So much so that WotC stopped supporting 4th almost 2 years ago - they have been publishing "special" editions of previous incarnations of D&D (1st and 2nd Editions) just to keep the revenue stream up.  Paizo and Pathfinder (basically D&D 3.75) overtook D&D in popularity and sales a few years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be assuming 4E performed poorly, but do you guys actually have EVIDENCE to back that up? Sure, Pathfinder sold more books, but that doesn't mean 4E did badly by any means, and anyway, most of WotC's money from 4E comes from their subscription services, not book sales (Pathfinder has more books to sell, too).

 

Howdy,

 

You can talk to game store owners.  You can also comb through sales numbers from Diamond and Alliance (really the same company).  You can also talk to WotC and Hasbro emplyees at GenCon (I live in RI near Hasbro headquarters and have a friend or two there, but I also used to go out to drink with some of the WotC crew at GC).  It really is no secret.

 

A more overt clue?  When a company stops main support for a game for 2+ years (D&D Next is not until 2014), that's never a good sign....

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, I'm out of here.

I  really enjoyed the Beta test so far and am sad to see it take this direction. Frankly, this is all far too much drama for me to deal with and I really don't care anymore. 

I'm already set up to start a campaign this Saturday using the Beta rules, and I guess I'll just continue using them. They're certainly my favorite iteration of the rules yet and the best suited to the type of game I want to run, which is really what all this "rules preference" boils down to.

Also, bummed to not see an update for yesterday- I wish that they could've given it to those of us who liked the Beta.

But somehow, I'm sure it would have created drama in the fan community. Really, this is why you shouldn't do Open Betas for games that aren't in their first edition- everyone has their own style of gameplay and everybody wants something different out of a revision. Catering to everyone is impossible because their wishes typically run contradictory to each other (as far as execution is concerned, mostly everyone wants a "cleaner system"). So then it's just a matter of time before the devs either release the best game they can with mitigated input from the community, or they listen to the fan community and the game implodes under its own weight.

Just look at D&D Next.

Either option runs contradictory to the idea of a "Beta Test". Which, really, when did people decide Open Betas were a good idea? Really, up front, they're just publicity stunts.

I feel like we almost had a great game if we would've let FFG be on their merry way.

Because, frankly, I really don't want any of you editing my game. I can do that, and they're called house rules.

I'll see you guys when this book hits shelves, whenever that may be.  

 

Howdy,

 

It *is* a publicity stunt, and also a great way to make money through the back door (like it or loathe it, they have your $20, plus more if you buy the hardcopy).

 

But it can also be smart marketing.  With an open beta, they can judge their customer reactions, and no company wants to release product to see it fail.  Apparently, based on convention and internet feedback, they decided to change course.

 

You may love the current DH 2.0 (and thanks to the beta, you will always have it), but they have to tailor their products to projected audience and sales.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather view this as an opportunity to carry forward. Who plays DH1e without any House Rules? Not even one? Why can't the beta as-is be completed by a collaboration of forumites? For that matter, we could combine the best of both editions. There doesn't have to be a schism that pits some 40K RPG players against others.

 

There are plenty of contributing members I agree whole-heartedly with, and others not so much, but that doesn't mean we can't work together to create alternate versions. Seriously speaking: how many people expected to use DH2e without a single House Rule? Even if it was the best game ever designed, I'm sure someone somewhere was going to suggest an alternative mechanic that someone else somewhere else would prefer over what might be published. Let us all get down from our soap boxes and high horses and work together. We can take what we want, and leave the rest for others.

We will never reach consensus. There is no comfortable middle ground between, say, what I want out of DH2 and what Gaunt wants.

 

That's by no means meant to discourage you to work on whatever version of the rules you'll find to your liking and gathering likely-minded individuals to help you on the project, but it's impossible to create a version of the rules that will satisfy everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would rather view this as an opportunity to carry forward. Who plays DH1e without any House Rules? Not even one? Why can't the beta as-is be completed by a collaboration of forumites? For that matter, we could combine the best of both editions. There doesn't have to be a schism that pits some 40K RPG players against others.

 

There are plenty of contributing members I agree whole-heartedly with, and others not so much, but that doesn't mean we can't work together to create alternate versions. Seriously speaking: how many people expected to use DH2e without a single House Rule? Even if it was the best game ever designed, I'm sure someone somewhere was going to suggest an alternative mechanic that someone else somewhere else would prefer over what might be published. Let us all get down from our soap boxes and high horses and work together. We can take what we want, and leave the rest for others.

We will never reach consensus. There is no comfortable middle ground between, say, what I want out of DH2 and what Gaunt wants.

 

That's by no means meant to discourage you to work on whatever version of the rules you'll find to your liking and gathering likely-minded individuals to help you on the project, but it's impossible to create a version of the rules that will satisfy everyone.

 

 

Morangias is correct - everyone wants different things out of the game. The trick is to try find a middle ground that sort of suits eveeryone as much as possible.

 

So far I'm finding the DH 2e beta far superior to DH 1 but then my group had a lot of issues with DH 1 (and a LOT of house rules). Hoping the next update when it comes will clear the air a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a pity to read that creativity and innovation are the first victims of the DH edition wars even before the second Ed. is released :(

It's 40k, man, 'innovation' is a curse word in the Imperium  :P

 

Seriously, though, as much as I'm happy that the IMHO horrible combat system gets scrapped, I'll be as much disappointed as Gaunt if all we get is OW with serial numbers filed off and one or two Inquisition-specific rules slapped on it. Well, maybe not as much disappointed - I'll gladly buy it to keep new quality material coming - but plenty disappointed nevertheless. I'm all for FFG trying new things, I just really didn't like the particular new things proposed in the first beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D 4th was an attempt to draw MMO and non-RPG tabletop gamers into the game (as well as sell WotC figures).  It was a failure on all fronts.  D&D 3.5 had NUMEROUS flaws, but it was HUGE and VERY well supported not only by WoTC, but by NUMEROUS third-party companies.  All of that went away.  Pathfinder (basically D&D 3.75 - still flawed) trounced D&D, and WotC stopped support of 4th almost 2 years ago - nothing until D&D Next at GenCon 2014.  THAT said, WotC is still flogging new printings of D&D 1st and 2nd Editions, as they have to show SOME revenue stream to their Hasbro masters.... or else.

 

FFG tried something new with their props and dice mechanic for WFRP 3rd, but again the previous edition STILL outshines it in popularity.  With both D&D 4th and WFRP 3rd, the changes were attempts to draw NEW audiences into the fold (and both failed in varying degrees).

It really does not help 4e that the online playboard system they promised was vaporware, the minis became tokens and early books all but explicitly suggested that the stuff in between fights, especially skills - not surprising given their skill system - was stuff to be glossed over as fast as possible so you could cut back to the 'fun'. **** good tabletop minis game overall, but Chainmail II, while related to DnD, was not  dungeons and dragons on its own.

 

WFRP3e I have to admit had us kneejerking the bloody hell away from it at first. Then one day we heard good things about it... and found it on sale for cheap. Turns out all that stuff wasn't a boardgame but just handy formats for abilities and other stuff, and a very fun system overall... but we almost never found that out.

 

Here, I gotta say it takes some **** spine to admit your Beta is full of severe holes and needs a trip back to the writing board.  Few big companies would ever admit they're wrong, and few small ones could ever afford not to put the product out on the initial timeline, so if nothing else this deserves respect.

 

I like some of the stuff. The AP system's a great upgrade to "you get these actions", just that the things using it [mostly hey there armory/psyker chapter] were badly executed. The wounding system also had bad math on it, but was an excellent concept. I'd be half sad to see it go, but only half because that's an annoying stack of bookkeeping added to combat. The character creation system was well thought out, though it had some issues mostly stemming from lacking one or two steps to spread out [and throw in a little more skill training] across.

 

Compatibility won't necessarily mean those are gone, any more than the changes in RT/BC/OW's changes between them. There'll be adjusting and converting, but that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It really does not help 4e that the online playboard system they promised was vaporware,

To be fair, there were some pretty extraordinary circumstances that WotC simply could not have planned for there.  The offline character builder thing was great though, and with Insider giving you access to every published character option you had everything you could need.

 

I'm really kind of surprised RPG companies aren't moving more toward software like that. With the advent of affordable tablet computers there's all kinds of things you can do with a game that wouldn't work otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It really does not help 4e that the online playboard system they promised was vaporware,

To be fair, there were some pretty extraordinary circumstances that WotC simply could not have planned for there.  The offline character builder thing was great though, and with Insider giving you access to every published character option you had everything you could need.

 

I'm really kind of surprised RPG companies aren't moving more toward software like that. With the advent of affordable tablet computers there's all kinds of things you can do with a game that wouldn't work otherwise. 

 

 

Even WOTC stepped away from it, tho.  They mysteriously stopped support of the offline builder for 3 months without breathing a word or answering any questions (this was a full year before they finally admitted they were cancelling 4e), then introduced an online-only builder with great fanfare, as if people would be pleased that they don't own their own characters anymore and need subscription-only access to DDI for perpetuity.

 

There's always Hero Labs though, they support a number of systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It really does not help 4e that the online playboard system they promised was vaporware,

To be fair, there were some pretty extraordinary circumstances that WotC simply could not have planned for there.  The offline character builder thing was great though, and with Insider giving you access to every published character option you had everything you could need.

 

I'm really kind of surprised RPG companies aren't moving more toward software like that. With the advent of affordable tablet computers there's all kinds of things you can do with a game that wouldn't work otherwise. 

 

 

Even WOTC stepped away from it, tho.  They mysteriously stopped support of the offline builder for 3 months without breathing a word or answering any questions (this was a full year before they finally admitted they were cancelling 4e), then introduced an online-only builder with great fanfare, as if people would be pleased that they don't own their own characters anymore and need subscription-only access to DDI for perpetuity.

 

There's always Hero Labs though, they support a number of systems.

 

 

That made me angry more than any thing else.  Not only that, but when they took away their dnd pdfs from drive thru rpg the first time around due to "piratcy" reasons.  That is when I stop supporting WotC.  This is horrible customer treatment 101.  You don't do this to your paying customers and still amazes me that people still wonder why Pathfinder gain so much support from fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of a company whose core product is another company's game with a new coat of paint being lauded for its openness while the original company is panned for trying to protect its property is astonishing.

 

I mean I'm all for books in electronic format but the protections put on by DriveThru are pretty paper thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of a company whose core product is another company's game with a new coat of paint being lauded for its openness while the original company is panned for trying to protect its property is astonishing.

 

I mean I'm all for books in electronic format but the protections put on by DriveThru are pretty paper thin.

 

I like to think of it as irony.  Or karma biting WotC on the ass for forcing Paizo to stop publishing Dragon.  Calling part of 'D&D Insider' 'Dragon' was less using an IP than it was desecrating the corpse of a beloved publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of a company whose core product is another company's game with a new coat of paint being lauded for its openness while the original company is panned for trying to protect its property is astonishing.

 

I mean I'm all for books in electronic format but the protections put on by DriveThru are pretty paper thin.

 

Howdy,

 

....Yet everyone makes money with DTRPG. :)

 

No irony here - I PRAISE Paizo and rebuke WotC for pretty obvious and popular reasons.

 

The D20 Open License was a great idea and it really generated a LOT of business for WotC and third party companies - a number of industry insiders cite the OGL as helping to resurrect the RPG industry in the early 2000s after Magic the Gathering sucked most the money out of the tabletop RPG hobby in the 1990s.  The restrictive "Open" License of D&D 4e was a BAD idea, and third party support dried up almost IMMEDIATELY.

 

Protecting sales and IP is critical, but misguided restrictive measures regarding software and content support is just DUMB.  And WotC reaped the dividends of this.

 

Paizo did everything "right" - followed the OGL to the legal letter and filled a market niche.  WotC dropped the ball with design, support, and licensing.  The market decided who the winner would be - Pathfinder usurped D&D a few years ago for a *reason*.  Had WotC designed a "better" game, had they fulfilled their promise of print and online support, had they been less restrictive with software aids, and had they encouraged third party material, this conversation would be moot.  Instead, they stopped support of one of THE flagship RPGs a few *years* ago and are hoping to correct all of their errors for the next edition next year.

 

I wish them luck.

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone makes money off from Drive Thru RPG these days.  Even Fantasy Flight does it.  The piracy reason in why WotC did take away those pdfs was pure bull and people saw through that.  With all the horrible things WotC did during that time it is no wonder that Paizo made it on top.  It just seems to me that WotC did every thing they could do to piss off their customer base.

 

If WotC is smart it would do these things.

 

A.)  First off put the pdfs back in.  Which they are doing it, but what is the hold up because I just see trinkles of pdfs.  They could have one edition done by now if not sooner.

 

B.)  Make DnD Next OGL friendly.  This is the reason why not so many people jump on the band wagon and jump into Pathfinder's band wagon.  Not even indie games do what WotC had done when they release 4th edition.  Most indies that I had seen went straight for the OGL rights.  Even the people behind FATE system is going OGL.

 

C.)  Stop relying on the internet as a part of the game.  If your pen and paper rpg game requires always online, then your doing something wrong.  The internet should be a supplement, but never the important piece to make the game run.  This is why WotC got people angry with them when they failed to delivered their database in full.  They promise too much, failed, and then ask for full price.  You don't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C.)  Stop relying on the internet as a part of the game.  If your pen and paper rpg game requires always online, then your doing something wrong.  The internet should be a supplement, but never the important piece to make the game run.  This is why WotC got people angry with them when they failed to delivered their database in full.  They promise too much, failed, and then ask for full price.  You don't do that.

 

Like it or hate it, we as a society are moving toward constant connectivity. With the increasing ubiquity of smartphones and tablets, as well as internet being present in more devices that previously weren't internet-capable, I'd be surprised if an online-only RPG wasn't released in the near future. In this regard, WotC were innovative, even if they didn't quite deliver.

 

Think about it - if you treat the RPG content like a computer game, it's almost the same. You can release splatbooks as DLC, and apply errata as patches. It would eliminate piracy from scanned books and hacked pdfs, although I'm sure there'd still be some piracy. You don't have to lug around a dozen hardcopies, and you could access the game from anywhere. Hell, you could even add interactivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

C.)  Stop relying on the internet as a part of the game.  If your pen and paper rpg game requires always online, then your doing something wrong.  The internet should be a supplement, but never the important piece to make the game run.  This is why WotC got people angry with them when they failed to delivered their database in full.  They promise too much, failed, and then ask for full price.  You don't do that.

 

Like it or hate it, we as a society are moving toward constant connectivity. With the increasing ubiquity of smartphones and tablets, as well as internet being present in more devices that previously weren't internet-capable, I'd be surprised if an online-only RPG wasn't released in the near future. In this regard, WotC were innovative, even if they didn't quite deliver.

 

Think about it - if you treat the RPG content like a computer game, it's almost the same. You can release splatbooks as DLC, and apply errata as patches. It would eliminate piracy from scanned books and hacked pdfs, although I'm sure there'd still be some piracy. You don't have to lug around a dozen hardcopies, and you could access the game from anywhere. Hell, you could even add interactivity.

 

 

And I am pointing out games such as Diablo 3 and Simcity which got trash for its failed always online.  The more things you require to work the more likely it will fail.  It should be common knowledge at this point and I am sad to see people who refuse to accept that basic truth.

 

I will accept pen and paper rpgs are moving into the digital age, but I among many others want to see back ups.  We want our PDFs in case the internet fails.  We want our PODs in case the computer does crash.  If you make online program necessary for a game that really does not need the internet in order to function, then you are taking a risk.  A huge risk I will add.

 

As I said let the technology supplement rpgs.  It let be a useful tool, but for all that is good don't make it into a crutch cause when it snaps it will snap hard.  Then you have angry customers who will quickly remember, "Oh yeah this is a pen and paper RPG that should never require internet what so ever.  Who was the idiot that thought this was a good idea?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

C.)  Stop relying on the internet as a part of the game.  If your pen and paper rpg game requires always online, then your doing something wrong.  The internet should be a supplement, but never the important piece to make the game run.  This is why WotC got people angry with them when they failed to delivered their database in full.  They promise too much, failed, and then ask for full price.  You don't do that.

 

Like it or hate it, we as a society are moving toward constant connectivity. With the increasing ubiquity of smartphones and tablets, as well as internet being present in more devices that previously weren't internet-capable, I'd be surprised if an online-only RPG wasn't released in the near future. In this regard, WotC were innovative, even if they didn't quite deliver.

 

Think about it - if you treat the RPG content like a computer game, it's almost the same. You can release splatbooks as DLC, and apply errata as patches. It would eliminate piracy from scanned books and hacked pdfs, although I'm sure there'd still be some piracy. You don't have to lug around a dozen hardcopies, and you could access the game from anywhere. Hell, you could even add interactivity.

 

 

Howdy,

 

Many tabletop RPGs and tabletop games rely on pdf and online supplementation (to some degree), and that is GREAT.  However, I think that complete reliance on proprietary digital formats and cloud-only content is a set-up for failure.

 

Some popular tabletop games (i.e. Field of Glory) relied on a proprietary digital-only format and they flopped.  Having a pdf on your tablet (and being able to print it) is one thing, but having a proprietary format that is non-printable, possibly platform-specific, and potentially subject to arcane licensing is a recipe for fail.

 

With a tabletop RPG, I want maps and notes that I can pass around.  I don't want to worry about batteries (and at cons, theft), bad interfaces, and prolonged referencing.  With my WoD game, I can find any rule in a matter of seconds with the 3-4 books that I bring.  With my tablet or kindle, it just simply takes longer and can be a pain.  And if I need to access the cloud, I HOPE there is decent connectivity.

 

I noticied the ubiquity of tablets at RPG games at GenCon around 2011 - players using them for dice and notes, and the GMs using them for pdf references.  That is DEFINATELY part of the future.  Most GMs that I run into don't rely on the cloud for tabletop games at cons because of connectivity issues (heck, at one local con all of the RPGs were in the basement with NO web access).

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand there's a lot of apprehension when it comes to online games, I feel a lot of it is overreacting. Sure, there's been some well-documented major problems with online games - hell, even Grand Theft Auto V with its record $250 million budget has had problems with its online content - but there's been plenty of games that have done it well. World of Warcraft, EVE Online/Dust 514, CounterStrike, Dota 2, League of Legends, War Thunder, Journey - the list goes on. And then there's games for facebook and mobile platforms. Sure, you might not like these games - you may even despise them, but they work. I see absolutely no reason why a traditional RPG couldn't work in the same way.

 

There might be a risk involved for a company doing this, but there's also big rewards. If the initial release is set up correctly, subsequent content should be a breeze to roll out. Incomplete indexes can be done away with; instead, a search function could provide better usability. Boxouts could be replaced by popups. Fluff could be hidden away at the click of a button for more streamlined rules content. Character creation could be interactive.

 

As to the always-online argument, you wouldn't necessarily need to be online all the time. Steam handles this elegantly - you need an internet connection to set up, download and update your games, but other than that you can stay offline and play single player as much as you like.

 

Finally, I'm not saying every RPG company should be doing this. There'll always be traditionalists who want their hardcover books they can leaf through, and that's fine. I'm just saying the potential's there, and that it needn't be all bad.

Edited by MaliciousOnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but your pointing out games that is built and MADE FOR online.  A pen and paper is not designed for that and it shouldn't be designed for that.  It shouldn't be a MMO.  I am fine with a tablet with pdfs, notes, and a dice roller.  That is all the technology you would ever need.  That is for online play with a pen and paper game as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but your pointing out games that is built and MADE FOR online.  A pen and paper is not designed for that and it shouldn't be designed for that.  It shouldn't be a MMO.  I am fine with a tablet with pdfs, notes, and a dice roller.  That is all the technology you would ever need.  That is for online play with a pen and paper game as well.

 

The games you mentioned (Diablo 3, Simcity) were both MADE FOR online. I fail to see the difference.

 

I'll point out that I don't expect these hypothetical traditional RPGs to be played online, much like D&D4e wasn't.

Edited by MaliciousOnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And facilitating things for people who do want to play online is hardly a bad thing, it's a pretty big market. Roll20 recently hit 275,000 users, and I think that says a lot. 

This here is why I never got to play WHFRP3E - the dice/card thing sounds like a lot of fun but it's simply too difficult to run or play it in an online setting.

 

I really think the D&D4E character generator demonstrated the elegance of electronic character generation tools. Did all the math for you, had all of the content ever published, and spit out a usable, printable character sheet when you were done. Every game should have something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...