![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on Ultraviolet
Aug. 19th, 2007 12:38 amIt hits its stride in the third episode and just keeps getting better. getting to the nerdy perspective, it would be eminently gameable with a system that emphasized interpersonal ties and investigation.
Aug. 19th, 2007
D&D4: Seriously Now
Aug. 19th, 2007 05:09 pmReading about what's in store, it looks like we will end up with a mix of very smart, somewhat risky and probably dumb things.
Impression: This is the 2e of 3e. It even has the same aesthetic, from the magazine/action scene format to the red lettering and cheesy ampersand.
First up -- The Digital Initiative: This is what I've called the media utility problem in the past: the tendency for one medium to adopt the traits of a more popular competing medium to the point where it more effectively proves the superiority of its competitor. This is a powerful tendency in all kinds of businesses like this. I recently did some private work for an outfit that is falling prey to it now.
The point of the DI is to get D&D to hog your internet time so you won't play WoW, while giving you people you can play with in your underwear. Let's be honest about this. WotC is; my older son's computer gaming mags have anti-MMO attack ads for D&D in them.
The trouble with any venture like this is that it has to prove it can do something you will pay for, because it's easy to play RPGs with free tools. The social network won't do it, because social networks are hockey-sticking their way to the top regularly, and have plenty of gamers. It won't be technical features, because we can see a world where anybody can upload a 3d map with real time animation for free in our near future anyway. The only thing the DI has to offer is official content. That's why there can't be Dungeon or Dragon.
There will doubtless be a huge temptation on the executive (though not the R&D) level to make D&D virtually unplayable without the DI. If you want to know whether the DI is succeeding, you'll be able to find out based on how mandatory it becomes. If the DI starts holding major revisions or near-core books without print counterparts, the DI has probably turned into a turkey.
Characters: The rumours are interesting. Ending spellcaster outages is an excellent idea. Increasing the starting complexity of all classes is, on the other hand, a mistake. D&D character classes had an unintentional but very useful learning curve built into them so that you could tool around as a fighter for a while before bothering with sneaking or spell slots. The 3e fighter was bad for this; the 4e fighter stands to be even worse. The promise of no dead levels makes me think we'll see a combination of resource buffs that are granular by level and a bunch of dumb powers stapled on to convince you to stick with the class. There can be balanced powers that just strain commitment to the world. At its worst you have things like the Loremaster's Con buff (from reading the Book of Pushups) and in D20 Modern, the tech-type AdC's ability to make robots, even if he doesn't care about robots. Races evolving by level is interesting too, but at the same time, there are limits to how well power sets convince people.
Classwise, rendering them down to archetype completely is a bad idea, flavourless and one of the things people didn't like about 2e. AT the same time the monk and bard have just got to go. They're "solo" classes in a game with no soloing.
Prediction: A new class will use MMO Pet concepts extensively.
Rules: Star Wars Saga made me happy in a lot of ways. I think the single neatest thing in it is the idea of Force powers being in a hand that you discard over the scene. I'd love for minor, inexhaustible magic to work this way. Low level toughness, scores instead of saves -- all good.
What isn't so good is the idea of social combat/strategy rules in the game. It's lame. Very, very lame. Especially in a digital environment. Social rules are kind of game design penitence. They get written because the guy who designed a kickass multi-phase combat system feels guilty for being hack-oriented. The exceptions occur when the social rules are just an additional layer over top of physical combat or when there is a political social/system inherent to the game.
In D&D, any social conflict system will either be one where you can get beaten up or distracted by words (combat/skill overlay), will be useless (subjective social results only), or will be a combination of the two. Anything which mandates changes to PC behavior will be indistinguishable from magic.
Social systems work as "soft" guidance in other games because those games cultures support them. If I get 5 successes in a WoD game, everybody knows I was pretty persuasive and this moderates -- but does not override -- what I actually say in character.
(This is especially true online, by the way, and this working process is why Ryan Dancey is hilariously wrong about social rules as a necessary element of a multiplatform game. The Burning Wheel's rules are firmly in the "aesthetic guilt" mode, based on a desire to balance attention in the design -- though this is not true for Burning Empires, where they matter -- and would just get in the way of a typical online conversation, where players need rough benchmarks to aid improv, as an online "status game." But far be it from him to dirty his hands by looking at working examples of what he's talking about.
Come to think of it, love him or hate him (I think he's OK) Conrad Hubbard is probably a visionary when it comes to developing cross-platform games. White Wolf absolutely needs to support the chat community with better tools instead of just jumping to MMO.)
Impression: This is the 2e of 3e. It even has the same aesthetic, from the magazine/action scene format to the red lettering and cheesy ampersand.
First up -- The Digital Initiative: This is what I've called the media utility problem in the past: the tendency for one medium to adopt the traits of a more popular competing medium to the point where it more effectively proves the superiority of its competitor. This is a powerful tendency in all kinds of businesses like this. I recently did some private work for an outfit that is falling prey to it now.
The point of the DI is to get D&D to hog your internet time so you won't play WoW, while giving you people you can play with in your underwear. Let's be honest about this. WotC is; my older son's computer gaming mags have anti-MMO attack ads for D&D in them.
The trouble with any venture like this is that it has to prove it can do something you will pay for, because it's easy to play RPGs with free tools. The social network won't do it, because social networks are hockey-sticking their way to the top regularly, and have plenty of gamers. It won't be technical features, because we can see a world where anybody can upload a 3d map with real time animation for free in our near future anyway. The only thing the DI has to offer is official content. That's why there can't be Dungeon or Dragon.
There will doubtless be a huge temptation on the executive (though not the R&D) level to make D&D virtually unplayable without the DI. If you want to know whether the DI is succeeding, you'll be able to find out based on how mandatory it becomes. If the DI starts holding major revisions or near-core books without print counterparts, the DI has probably turned into a turkey.
Characters: The rumours are interesting. Ending spellcaster outages is an excellent idea. Increasing the starting complexity of all classes is, on the other hand, a mistake. D&D character classes had an unintentional but very useful learning curve built into them so that you could tool around as a fighter for a while before bothering with sneaking or spell slots. The 3e fighter was bad for this; the 4e fighter stands to be even worse. The promise of no dead levels makes me think we'll see a combination of resource buffs that are granular by level and a bunch of dumb powers stapled on to convince you to stick with the class. There can be balanced powers that just strain commitment to the world. At its worst you have things like the Loremaster's Con buff (from reading the Book of Pushups) and in D20 Modern, the tech-type AdC's ability to make robots, even if he doesn't care about robots. Races evolving by level is interesting too, but at the same time, there are limits to how well power sets convince people.
Classwise, rendering them down to archetype completely is a bad idea, flavourless and one of the things people didn't like about 2e. AT the same time the monk and bard have just got to go. They're "solo" classes in a game with no soloing.
Prediction: A new class will use MMO Pet concepts extensively.
Rules: Star Wars Saga made me happy in a lot of ways. I think the single neatest thing in it is the idea of Force powers being in a hand that you discard over the scene. I'd love for minor, inexhaustible magic to work this way. Low level toughness, scores instead of saves -- all good.
What isn't so good is the idea of social combat/strategy rules in the game. It's lame. Very, very lame. Especially in a digital environment. Social rules are kind of game design penitence. They get written because the guy who designed a kickass multi-phase combat system feels guilty for being hack-oriented. The exceptions occur when the social rules are just an additional layer over top of physical combat or when there is a political social/system inherent to the game.
In D&D, any social conflict system will either be one where you can get beaten up or distracted by words (combat/skill overlay), will be useless (subjective social results only), or will be a combination of the two. Anything which mandates changes to PC behavior will be indistinguishable from magic.
Social systems work as "soft" guidance in other games because those games cultures support them. If I get 5 successes in a WoD game, everybody knows I was pretty persuasive and this moderates -- but does not override -- what I actually say in character.
(This is especially true online, by the way, and this working process is why Ryan Dancey is hilariously wrong about social rules as a necessary element of a multiplatform game. The Burning Wheel's rules are firmly in the "aesthetic guilt" mode, based on a desire to balance attention in the design -- though this is not true for Burning Empires, where they matter -- and would just get in the way of a typical online conversation, where players need rough benchmarks to aid improv, as an online "status game." But far be it from him to dirty his hands by looking at working examples of what he's talking about.
Come to think of it, love him or hate him (I think he's OK) Conrad Hubbard is probably a visionary when it comes to developing cross-platform games. White Wolf absolutely needs to support the chat community with better tools instead of just jumping to MMO.)
D&D4: Seriously Now
Aug. 19th, 2007 05:09 pmReading about what's in store, it looks like we will end up with a mix of very smart, somewhat risky and probably dumb things.
Impression: This is the 2e of 3e. It even has the same aesthetic, from the magazine/action scene format to the red lettering and cheesy ampersand.
First up -- The Digital Initiative: This is what I've called the media utility problem in the past: the tendency for one medium to adopt the traits of a more popular competing medium to the point where it more effectively proves the superiority of its competitor. This is a powerful tendency in all kinds of businesses like this. I recently did some private work for an outfit that is falling prey to it now.
The point of the DI is to get D&D to hog your internet time so you won't play WoW, while giving you people you can play with in your underwear. Let's be honest about this. WotC is; my older son's computer gaming mags have anti-MMO attack ads for D&D in them.
The trouble with any venture like this is that it has to prove it can do something you will pay for, because it's easy to play RPGs with free tools. The social network won't do it, because social networks are hockey-sticking their way to the top regularly, and have plenty of gamers. It won't be technical features, because we can see a world where anybody can upload a 3d map with real time animation for free in our near future anyway. The only thing the DI has to offer is official content. That's why there can't be Dungeon or Dragon.
There will doubtless be a huge temptation on the executive (though not the R&D) level to make D&D virtually unplayable without the DI. If you want to know whether the DI is succeeding, you'll be able to find out based on how mandatory it becomes. If the DI starts holding major revisions or near-core books without print counterparts, the DI has probably turned into a turkey.
Characters: The rumours are interesting. Ending spellcaster outages is an excellent idea. Increasing the starting complexity of all classes is, on the other hand, a mistake. D&D character classes had an unintentional but very useful learning curve built into them so that you could tool around as a fighter for a while before bothering with sneaking or spell slots. The 3e fighter was bad for this; the 4e fighter stands to be even worse. The promise of no dead levels makes me think we'll see a combination of resource buffs that are granular by level and a bunch of dumb powers stapled on to convince you to stick with the class. There can be balanced powers that just strain commitment to the world. At its worst you have things like the Loremaster's Con buff (from reading the Book of Pushups) and in D20 Modern, the tech-type AdC's ability to make robots, even if he doesn't care about robots. Races evolving by level is interesting too, but at the same time, there are limits to how well power sets convince people.
Classwise, rendering them down to archetype completely is a bad idea, flavourless and one of the things people didn't like about 2e. AT the same time the monk and bard have just got to go. They're "solo" classes in a game with no soloing.
Prediction: A new class will use MMO Pet concepts extensively.
Rules: Star Wars Saga made me happy in a lot of ways. I think the single neatest thing in it is the idea of Force powers being in a hand that you discard over the scene. I'd love for minor, inexhaustible magic to work this way. Low level toughness, scores instead of saves -- all good.
What isn't so good is the idea of social combat/strategy rules in the game. It's lame. Very, very lame. Especially in a digital environment. Social rules are kind of game design penitence. They get written because the guy who designed a kickass multi-phase combat system feels guilty for being hack-oriented. The exceptions occur when the social rules are just an additional layer over top of physical combat or when there is a political social/system inherent to the game.
In D&D, any social conflict system will either be one where you can get beaten up or distracted by words (combat/skill overlay), will be useless (subjective social results only), or will be a combination of the two. Anything which mandates changes to PC behavior will be indistinguishable from magic.
Social systems work as "soft" guidance in other games because those games cultures support them. If I get 5 successes in a WoD game, everybody knows I was pretty persuasive and this moderates -- but does not override -- what I actually say in character.
(This is especially true online, by the way, and this working process is why Ryan Dancey is hilariously wrong about social rules as a necessary element of a multiplatform game. The Burning Wheel's rules are firmly in the "aesthetic guilt" mode, based on a desire to balance attention in the design -- though this is not true for Burning Empires, where they matter -- and would just get in the way of a typical online conversation, where players need rough benchmarks to aid improv, as an online "status game." But far be it from him to dirty his hands by looking at working examples of what he's talking about.
Come to think of it, love him or hate him (I think he's OK) Conrad Hubbard is probably a visionary when it comes to developing cross-platform games. White Wolf absolutely needs to support the chat community with better tools instead of just jumping to MMO.)
Impression: This is the 2e of 3e. It even has the same aesthetic, from the magazine/action scene format to the red lettering and cheesy ampersand.
First up -- The Digital Initiative: This is what I've called the media utility problem in the past: the tendency for one medium to adopt the traits of a more popular competing medium to the point where it more effectively proves the superiority of its competitor. This is a powerful tendency in all kinds of businesses like this. I recently did some private work for an outfit that is falling prey to it now.
The point of the DI is to get D&D to hog your internet time so you won't play WoW, while giving you people you can play with in your underwear. Let's be honest about this. WotC is; my older son's computer gaming mags have anti-MMO attack ads for D&D in them.
The trouble with any venture like this is that it has to prove it can do something you will pay for, because it's easy to play RPGs with free tools. The social network won't do it, because social networks are hockey-sticking their way to the top regularly, and have plenty of gamers. It won't be technical features, because we can see a world where anybody can upload a 3d map with real time animation for free in our near future anyway. The only thing the DI has to offer is official content. That's why there can't be Dungeon or Dragon.
There will doubtless be a huge temptation on the executive (though not the R&D) level to make D&D virtually unplayable without the DI. If you want to know whether the DI is succeeding, you'll be able to find out based on how mandatory it becomes. If the DI starts holding major revisions or near-core books without print counterparts, the DI has probably turned into a turkey.
Characters: The rumours are interesting. Ending spellcaster outages is an excellent idea. Increasing the starting complexity of all classes is, on the other hand, a mistake. D&D character classes had an unintentional but very useful learning curve built into them so that you could tool around as a fighter for a while before bothering with sneaking or spell slots. The 3e fighter was bad for this; the 4e fighter stands to be even worse. The promise of no dead levels makes me think we'll see a combination of resource buffs that are granular by level and a bunch of dumb powers stapled on to convince you to stick with the class. There can be balanced powers that just strain commitment to the world. At its worst you have things like the Loremaster's Con buff (from reading the Book of Pushups) and in D20 Modern, the tech-type AdC's ability to make robots, even if he doesn't care about robots. Races evolving by level is interesting too, but at the same time, there are limits to how well power sets convince people.
Classwise, rendering them down to archetype completely is a bad idea, flavourless and one of the things people didn't like about 2e. AT the same time the monk and bard have just got to go. They're "solo" classes in a game with no soloing.
Prediction: A new class will use MMO Pet concepts extensively.
Rules: Star Wars Saga made me happy in a lot of ways. I think the single neatest thing in it is the idea of Force powers being in a hand that you discard over the scene. I'd love for minor, inexhaustible magic to work this way. Low level toughness, scores instead of saves -- all good.
What isn't so good is the idea of social combat/strategy rules in the game. It's lame. Very, very lame. Especially in a digital environment. Social rules are kind of game design penitence. They get written because the guy who designed a kickass multi-phase combat system feels guilty for being hack-oriented. The exceptions occur when the social rules are just an additional layer over top of physical combat or when there is a political social/system inherent to the game.
In D&D, any social conflict system will either be one where you can get beaten up or distracted by words (combat/skill overlay), will be useless (subjective social results only), or will be a combination of the two. Anything which mandates changes to PC behavior will be indistinguishable from magic.
Social systems work as "soft" guidance in other games because those games cultures support them. If I get 5 successes in a WoD game, everybody knows I was pretty persuasive and this moderates -- but does not override -- what I actually say in character.
(This is especially true online, by the way, and this working process is why Ryan Dancey is hilariously wrong about social rules as a necessary element of a multiplatform game. The Burning Wheel's rules are firmly in the "aesthetic guilt" mode, based on a desire to balance attention in the design -- though this is not true for Burning Empires, where they matter -- and would just get in the way of a typical online conversation, where players need rough benchmarks to aid improv, as an online "status game." But far be it from him to dirty his hands by looking at working examples of what he's talking about.
Come to think of it, love him or hate him (I think he's OK) Conrad Hubbard is probably a visionary when it comes to developing cross-platform games. White Wolf absolutely needs to support the chat community with better tools instead of just jumping to MMO.)