DCC is DDNext

[Raven_Crowking]

Well said, DimitriX.

The default is not "We'll pay for any crap you might care to put out just to say we've tried it" but, rather, "If you want our money, you must give us reason to spend it."

Goodman Games has given me that reason, time and again. Even when I was playing 3e, the 3pp were often better than the official WotC rules, IMHO. (There are a few exceptions, of course, but really, the Tome of Horrors had better versions of classic monsters, for example, than did later WotC releases [even though the OGL permitted them to use the ToH versions at no cost!], Frost and Fur beats the heck out of Frostburn, etc., etc., etc.) Which is why, I think, WotC became so hostile to 3pp with 4e. Why would anyone buy the WotC product, if other companies could produce better for cheaper?

And this is editorial direction, too, rather than talent. Mike Mearls, for example, did great work for 3pp.


RC

[finarvyn]

"If you want our money, you must give us reason to spend it."

Goodman Games has given me that reason, time and again.

I think you're right here. The typical GG product has high production value, nice artwork, and plays like a fun game and not just something cranked out. GG has given me reason over and over.

[DimitriX]

And this is editorial direction, too, rather than talent. Mike Mearls, for example, did great work for 3pp.


RC

That's another good point I would like to make. I don't distrust the designers at WotC, I mistrust WotC and Hasbro. I REALLY liked Mearls' Iron Heroes book he did for Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press. A part of me was really sad when he joined WotC to work on 4e because I knew that he would not be able to produce any more Iron Heroes products (and the line did die after he left). But, I was hopeful that he would be able to make 4e great through his work and I do think I see some of his influence in the 4e PHB. However, WotC is a big corporation and therefore they need to make big profits to even stay afloat. Marketing decisions drove design and after while you get high glossy crap that feels like a bad computer RPG or a tabletop miniatures skirmish game rather than Dungeons and Dragons. This is why I say "DCC is DDN for me."

[Raven_Crowking]

Exactly.

When the editorial decision comes down the pike to, say, "design a game that pushes the use of miniatures, so that we can sell our pre-painted plastic minis...hey! and maybe some battle maps, too!" then the initial observation that combat takes to long in 3e suddenly ends in even longer combats in 4e.

Or, at least, I can easily imagine such a thing happening. I obviously have no direct knowledge of why a decision was made to make an identified problem worse, or why they did so in such a way as to put more figures in the combat, so I could be way off here. What I do know is that the reason is not that they failed to identify long combat times as a problem with 3e. They identified that early on.

Changing the adventure format to be a battle-map-centric one that tells you where to place your minis (Delve) was perhaps just a coincidence as well.


RC

[DimitriX]

Exactly.

When the editorial decision comes down the pike to, say, "design a game that pushes the use of miniatures, so that we can sell our pre-painted plastic minis...hey! and maybe some battle maps, too!" then the initial observation that combat takes to long in 3e suddenly ends in even longer combats in 4e.

Or, at least, I can easily imagine such a thing happening. I obviously have no direct knowledge of why a decision was made to make an identified problem worse, or why they did so in such a way as to put more figures in the combat, so I could be way off here. What I do know is that the reason is not that they failed to identify long combat times as a problem with 3e. They identified that early on.

Changing the adventure format to be a battle-map-centric one that tells you where to place your minis (Delve) was perhaps just a coincidence as well.


RC

Yes I also can't help but feel that the designers were doing there best to fix problems and the powers-that-be just kept introducing new ones. The upside is that WotC did such a horrible job of working with 3PP that they gave everyone from Paizo to Goodman Games a good excuse to go out and do their own thing. I think that WotC felt that they could corner the market by making life difficult for anyone who wanted to use their system. Instead, they created a Frankenstein's monster of an industry where 3PP can produce their own game systems for less money and attract all of the customers that WotC has alienated.

[jmucchiello]

Well, money is a good reason to not give DDN a look.

WTF. Who says you have to buy a book to take a look at it?

[blindelf]

In a couple of weeks we'll have a good look at D&DN for free.

I keep thinking that turning away from the OGL model was WotC's real
mis-step. Giving people a more progressive and open system and then
saying "nope, sorry, we take that back" is pretty self-defeating.

Going backward doesn't look good, it looks like you're confused.

There is no positive spin to be put on that. It just kind of stinks.

With Paizo making slick art-heavy books and Pathfinder out-selling
4e they really do have their backs against the wall, which is maybe for
the best.

If they're smart they will look at DCC RPG as inspiration, but I don't
think they can see that clearly.

[DimitriX]

In a couple of weeks we'll have a good look at D&DN for free.

I keep thinking that turning away from the OGL model was WotC's real
mis-step. Giving people a more progressive and open system and then
saying "nope, sorry, we take that back" is pretty self-defeating.

Going backward doesn't look good, it looks like you're confused.

There is no positive spin to be put on that. It just kind of stinks.

With Paizo making slick art-heavy books and Pathfinder out-selling
4e they really do have their backs against the wall, which is maybe for
the best.

If they're smart they will look at DCC RPG as inspiration, but I don't
think they can see that clearly.

I think once we get a look at DDN in a few weeks, people will realize that WotC is just working on issues that Goodman Games have already solved. I also agree that WotC biggest mistake was alienating 3PP with the GSL. Remember back at the beginning of 4e, Goodman Games was about the only 3PP that jumped into supporting 4e whole-heartedly and put out some great supplements and adventures for the game. But, WotC demonstrated that they didn't really give a damn about the little guys. So, now I don't give a damn about them.

[Karaptis]

I don't even consider calling it Wizards of the Coast anymore because some corporate weeny at Wall st. traded Hasbro makes the final descisions on what to do. They (wall st. types) screwed up the economy and took the good name of DnD and Jersey Shored it into an MMORPG frankisteined turd! Sorry 4e fans that's the way I feel. Now it is my turn to "occupy" my hobby back and play a grass roots game made out of love of the game not whether zit faced kids will be stupid enough to buy this if we let them play dragons. Screw you Hasbro! Long live Goodman Games!

[yell0w_lantern]

I was composing a post about the importance of a writer's vision and not having a committe design away the flavor but instead I am going to mention this as being what the kids call pure "awesome sauce": Steven and Davis Chenault are caricatured in the monsters section under "Troll Lords"!

[Karaptis]

I was composing a post about the importance of a writer's vision and not having a committe design away the flavor but instead I am going to mention this as being what the kids call pure "awesome sauce": Steven and Davis Chenault are caricatured in the monsters section under "Troll Lords"!

Makes you say "Holy B3 Batman!!!!"

[DimitriX]

I was composing a post about the importance of a writer's vision and not having a committe design away the flavor but instead I am going to mention this as being what the kids call pure "awesome sauce": Steven and Davis Chenault are caricatured in the monsters section under "Troll Lords"!

I'm glad you pointed that out. I didn't get the reference. But, yes, its very cool how Goodman Games can incorporate those little personal touches. I think it is especially classy of Joseph Goodman to dedicate his DCC RPG book to Jim Roslof, an artist who helped shape the look and feel of AD&D and luckily was able to contribute to this book before he died. That's something you wouldn't see WotC do!

[reverenddak]

Don't even start with the art. I can go on for days on how the look of D&D has gone to s#!+. One of the reasons I can't stand Pathfinder either is the art. WotC and Paizo use the same fricking artists. It's hard to explain but their art reminds me of the 4e powers, uninspired & boring homogeneous comic book superheroes. It's not D&D, and I am not a fan.

[RevTurkey]

Okay...for what it is worth here is my take:

I don't really care if 3e is better than 4e or Pathfinder or whatever in regard to Dungeons & Dragons and the way it has been handled by WoTc (Hasbro) recently.

I guess if you like 4e then go play it... The books are on sale now. It has some good points.
If you like 1e then terrific, so do I but I find Castles & Crusades easier to run. Still, off you go.
Etc etc... I think most of us agree that DCC RPG is looking great and are excited to play it.

What makes me want to throw rocks at WoTc is the way they treated me as a customer.
I bought 4e...my group and I had fun with it, honestly. As a miniatures game it was great.

However, to play it you really (unless you are 16 with all the time in the world or a book keeping genius...) had to subscribe to their D&D Insider to get access to the Character Generator. This was sort of clunky but worked alright and you only needed to subscribe for a month to get the basic initial version. Great.

Then they made Essentials which I personally liked a lot. Brought out some excellent boxed sets of counters and the like. Then...

They changed the Character Generator to an online version. Okay, so... I subscribed for a year, to take benefit of cheaper costs.

IT DID NOT WORK! Took ages. Couldn't print them out. UTTER GARBAGE!

Cost me a lot of money to get nothing and they had basically made all the Essentials stuff I had just bought a waste of time (this after I had sold my other books to upgrade/change to what Mr.Mearls was championing). I complained and got fobbed off.

That is why DCC RPG is my 'Next' version of D&D and why WoTc will have to perform miracles to get me interested in supporting their games again.

I also found it interesting that I sent Mike Mearls a comprehensive email suggesting ways that they could make 5e a modular system including some of the best elements from past editions about a year before they made the new edition announcements. Might be coincidence and it probably never reached him but then....you never know.

Anyway, if I upset anybody with these comments, sorry but WoTc upset me and that is why I have pre-ordered DCC and nearly all the upcoming modules. Goodman Games are much more deserving of my time, money, support and praise. Long may they do well.

[Karaptis]

Despite everything I hated of 4e, if they had a virtual tabletop like they promised for the monthly fee, I might have swallowed their gristle. But given their broken promises and their shitty system, they can eat it. In a way, if it wasn't for their BS, we might not see as much of an old school movement like we have seen. That and the passing of Mr Gygax, to me, got the ball rolling on the old days.

[RevTurkey]

4e would make a good online roll-playing game. Shame they couldn't deliver that. It would have been a good thing in it's own right regardless of which system is better around the table.

Anyway because of my problems with D&D 4e I went searching and found and played some excellent games that I would never have tried. Maybe they had a secret plan all along to stick one over on 'The Man'?

[Vanguard]

Don't even start with the art. I can go on for days on how the look of D&D has gone to s#!+. One of the reasons I can't stand Pathfinder either is the art. WotC and Paizo use the same fricking artists. It's hard to explain but their art reminds me of the 4e powers, uninspired & boring homogeneous comic book superheroes. It's not D&D, and I am not a fan.

The art in PF does fit the mood. It's high-fantasy, which, to borrow your metaphor, is like a game of medieval super-heroes/villains.

[reverenddak]

The art in PF does fit the mood. It's high-fantasy, which, to borrow your metaphor, is like a game of medieval super-heroes/villains.

I totally understand that, it's the same with 4e--if not more so. I guess I really don't like the modern aesthetics which is all the rage these days. There are modern artists like Doug Kovacs and Peter Mullen that get the look and feel of the D&D I want to play. If you notice, DCC RPG doesn't have any narrative fiction. Any and all fluff is done through tons & tons of amazing and flavorful art. Which is pretty awesome if you think about it. WotC D&D didn't have much fluff to set the tone of the game, either, just its art.

[jmucchiello]

Don't even start with the art. I can go on for days on how the look of D&D has gone to s#!+. One of the reasons I can't stand Pathfinder either is the art. WotC and Paizo use the same fricking artists. It's hard to explain but their art reminds me of the 4e powers, uninspired & boring homogeneous comic book superheroes. It's not D&D, and I am not a fan.

I think it is the art direction really. The artists are artists. They draw what they are asked to draw. I dislike most of Wayne Reynolds stuff in D&D 3e but love his cover to Heroes of the Jade Oath (by Rite Publishing). Same artist, different requirements, different results.

Question: Do you like or dislike 2nd ed stuff by Elmore, Caldwell, Parkinson, etc.?

[DimitriX]

I never really thought about the art much. I was too bothered by the format, layout, and rule system to be bothered by the art. But, as people discuss it more, I do think that it had an influence on my opinion of the game. But, it wasn't the style of the art as much as it was the substance. I think all of the art in 4e books are great in that they are well done and created by talented artists. Rarely do I look at any piece of art in any book of any edition of D&D and say, "WTF?" But, it is obvious that WotC wanted to create a game in which a 12 year old boy could take a book to his parent and ask them to buy it and there would be nothing in the book that might offend the parent. This is a big shift that WotC has made: D&D is for kids.

I started playing D&D when I was 10 years old back in 1980 (there, now you know how old I am). This was a game that I saved up my allowance from mowing lawns and doing chores around the house so I could go out and buy another book or adventure. I hid my Deities and Demigods book from my mother so she wouldn't find all of the pictures of goddess with bare breasts. One reason why D&D was a fun game was because it was something that my parents didn't approve of. (Of course, this was back in the day when playground equipment was made of steel and placed over asphalt and kids went out on Halloween after dark and without parental escorts.) WotC made D&D politically correct and parent friendly and one way they did it was to create art that, while being crafted by talented people, is devoid of any real life or inspiration.

[reverenddak]

Question: Do you like or dislike 2nd ed stuff by Elmore, Caldwell, Parkinson, etc.?

I associate them more with later AD&D. Elmore has always been one of my favorites since the BECMI sets. Don't forget Easley. In hind-sight I do notice that they did start to change the feel of D&D with their style. It made it feel more legit with these fine artists. And I think that's exactly what they were trying to do in the mid-80s.

[Vanguard]

I don't know that making D&D PC was a bad thing. I understand being excited because it was a rebellious thing and all, but the objectification of women isn't integral to this game being fun.

[reverenddak]

the objectification of women isn't integral to this game being fun.

What? Don't know where you're getting that from. The removal of demons & devils, and human sacrifices, I get. But don't agree with it.

Anyway, I have a direct association with the fine-art style of Elmore & Parkinson and the "cleaning up" of D&D. It's all in hind-sight, and I didn't think about it then, but it did change the way the game looked and felt.

[Karaptis]

Sorry put me down for being into the women in sexy outfits art over the yugioh superhero wannbe crap of today.

[Vanguard]

I was responding to DimitriX, not either of you. Being into barely-clothed women isn't bad, but complaining about the PC-ness of newer editions strikes me as odd. The two major changes (removal of demons, human sacrifices etc and a more inclusive approach to the art) have been a net gain for the game, I think.

1) It's distanced the game from the controversies in the 80s where D&D was thought to be a gateway into Satanism. As good as this was for the game for getting young people into it, it's not going to attract people like it used to. It will, however, piss off plenty of parents who don't want their kids participating in imaginary satanic rituals.

2) The game was clearly written for a male audience in its heyday, both in the art direction and the point of view (ie, look at pronouns). Making women appear in similar roles that the men in the books do will attract women to the game, especially if not every girl is sporting an iron bikini in the art.

PC = / = not being attracted to women, it's about balance.