Dungeons and Dragons 4

Well, I heard today that they are releasing D&D 4 in May 2008.

Wow. I remember D&D from 1978 (although, I picked it up around 1982). Then AD&D, then AD&D 2nd edition. Then D&D 3rd and D&D 3.5. Now 4.

First thought...Glad I didn't spring for version 3.5 anytime in the last 5 years.

Second thought...why?

My experience with RPGs goes back to around 82, as I mentioned. I just realized that means I have been playing for around a quarter of a century.

Dear God.

The first release of D&D was 1974, the same year I was born. I have played fantasy, horror, military, superhero, sci-fi, James Bond and car (remember Car Wars?) role-playing games. I have typically played multiple game systems within each genre. So, while I wouldn't call myself an expert...never mind. I would call myself an expert. Not THE expert, but an expert.

So, I think I am entitled to my second question. I have played a lot of RPGs. I have played through different versions. I have played through versions made by different companies (like the 3 different company versions of Star Trek). In all of the games I have played, there were some key things that made the games good or bad.

First, setting/plot/characters. When we talk about different rpgs, the things that gamers remember are things like special settings. Whether it is the Temple of Elemental Evil, Castle Ravenloft, Sunnydale, Marvel's New York, Metropolis, Gotham, Deep Space Nine, Greyhawk or Klendathu, these settings are brought to life so completely, gamers can feel them. And whether it is Strahd, Zuggtmoy, The Master, Doctor Octopus, Lex Luthor, The Joker, the Dominion, Iuz or the thousands of mindless bugs, we vividly remember the great villains. And whether it is the first character you created (for me, Dan the Paladin), or one of the characters native to the setting, such as James Bond, Buffy, Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Capt. Sisko, Mordenkainen, or Career Sgt. Zim, you are connected to the hero of the story you guided against the memorable villain in the life-like setting. All of these things are the key things that make these adventuring experiences stand out.

Second, mechanics. The point of mechanics is to get out of the way while limiting the action of characters and villains to that which would be "realistic" for the playing environment. Superman can lift a building, but Batman can't. Bond can somehow escape from any situation, Sisko commands spaceships, and Mordenkainen can cast spells. But we all "know" Superman can't be everywhere at once (see movie Superman I), Batman can't fly, Bond occasionally takes a punch, Sisko can't take on a Dominion armada by himself, and Mordenkainen can't simply "wish" up the complete and utter defeat of his enemies. RPG mechanics/rules help us control the heroes within these worlds. If they are too simplistic, we are left wondering how we interact with these worlds. If they are too complex, we spend hours trying to figure out how to throw a punch.

If you have a good combination of setting/plot/characters and mechanics, you are in for a memorable role-playing experience. If one of those aspects is off, you are taking a risk playing. If both are bad (Call of Cthulhu, I'm talking about you), run the other direction.

I say all of this because, despite the decades of development of D&D, the mechanics haven't gotten drastically better or worse. At different times they have emphasized/de-emphasized different things. In D&D the original, skills weren't covered at all. By AD&D 2, skills were there, but didn't really impact the game. They were more of an afterthought. By AD&D 3, they were a major feature of the game. But, while details changed, the overall goal of having mechanics not get in the way was accomplished at about the same level. Another problem was that, despite revising mechanics, the various companies struggled to come up with new plot ideas, settings and characters. Ravenloft was an adventure in AD&D 1, a complete demi-plane setting in AD&D 2, and a reprinted adventure in AD&D 3 and 3.5. The mechanics changed, and they put some more effort into making the complete demi-plane, but the things that made the adventure memorable didn't change much.

So, when someone announces a "new" set of mechanics, I don't get too excited. I just hope they don't make them significantly worse. I wish someone would realize that the mechanics part is not the important part. They just need to stay out of the way. The thing that makes a rpg great are the adventures.

Superman is just a reporter without Lex, Batman is just depressed without The Joker, Bond is just a drunk, gambling, womanizer without the "Bond villains", Sisko is just an administrator without the Dominion, Buffy is just a weird teenager without the Master.

When you have a game like D&D where you don't have a big/known name as your hero, you rely even more upon setting, villain and plot. Unfortunately, if you develop a great adventure, you sell it once at about $20. If you change your mechanics, you sell a player's manual ($35), a Dungeon Master's Guide ($35), and a Monster Manual ($35). Also, you get to reprint all of the old adventures using the new mechanics. Then, you sell the add-ons (Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, MMs 2, 3, and 4, etc.) that build upon the new mechanics, without really presenting new ideas or adventures.

At some point, the companies need to realize that the thing that makes their games stand out is not the mechanics, but the settings, plots and villains. There are dozens of systems out there, none terribly different from the others. As long as they have a mechanics systems that isn't too obtrusive, they shouldn't change it.

If they want to make money long-term, keep people looking forward to what comes next (the next wonderful location, the next dastardly plot to foil, or the next, great supervillain), not just dreading the cost of updating their library with the "latest/greatest/not-so-different" mechanics system.