I love it! Finding the locus of power like this cleans up the ambiguities and lays a lot of cards on the table. It also puts the question of mechanics aside — it’s not what or how you play, rather who is most influential in the playing.

I’d like to see a similar theory of non-D&D derived gaming over time — but maybe, if D&D is the end-all-be-all of archetypal formalized rule sets, such a theory would be as coherent and ephemeral as catching butterflies in a net made of smoke.
Cameron Goble´s last blog ..I Owe My Life’s Work to Spaghetti Code

I’d like to see a similar theory of non-D&D derived gaming over time

I’ve got something that sort of bridges this topic and that one slated for tomorrow. I thought about doing the sort of post you describe, but it gets very, very convoluted. you have to look at the development of non-D&D games both as independent developments and as responses to D&D (either incorporating or rejecting aspects of various editions). On one track, you can start with Tunnels & Trolls, which was written as a rejection of the expensive 3-book model and complicated rules, and go all the way up to Houses of the Blooded, which inverts all of the standard go adventuring/kill things and take their stuff tropes. On the other track, you can start with, say, Traveller or Champions, which set out to create games in other genres where the tropes of D&D simply didn’t fit.

I don’t see such an article as catching butterflies in a net of smoke, as lyrically haunting as that imagery goes. I see it more as driving a railroad spike into my temple with the heel of my shoe.

I too am tired of the edition wars and whatnot, but you asked for disagreements, so here goes:

Saying that 4e is designed for WotC is disingenuous, and also seems to assume that the previous versions of D&D were not designed for profit, or that the OGL wasn’t a business decision.

What many (not necessarily you, Berin) fail to recognize is that WotC is and almost always has been the king of market research as far as the adventure game industry goes. I can point you to a recent statement by Scott Rouse, brand manager for D&D, that says they found that a significant enough portion of 3e players used miniatures for them to design 4e with minis in mind. Couple that with their own sales data of D&D Miniatures and the percentage that answered back with those little survey cards that they used the minis for D&D, and you have why they did it that way… not just because it helped their revenue stream, but because they decided to design a game that worked with the way their audience was telling them they played.

I would strongly argue that 4e is designed to put the heavy lifting onto the game itself, instead of onto DMs or players. Players have much less customization and streamlined character generation into picking powers (and are very simple to pick up and play from pre-generated characters), and DMs have a lot more to fall back on in terms of easily making encounters that are going to challenge them but not kill them (and take too damn long, but that’s neither here nor there). But to imply that it wasn’t designed for players or DMs, but was solely profit motivated? To put it simply, you’d have to assume a lot of people are lying for that to be the case.
Dave T. Game´s last blog ..YouTube Tuesday: Game Fuel Results Vary Edition

“Disingenuous how? And it certainly does not do is assume anything about the earlier editions. Berin, and he can correct me if I’m wrong here, is painting in broad strokes. I certainly didn’t make the assumption.”

But it’s only pointed out in the 4e version. The chief characteristic of Berin’s assessment of 4e was that it was designed to help WotC. I’m saying it’s not fair to point it out as the sole characteristic of the edition if it was true for at least most previous editions.

“If you want to go that route, all the market research they did can be used by either side of the argument. “They did to create a game that would sell better for the benefit of their own bottom line,” sounds more believable to me than, “they wanted to design a game for the gamers.” They wanted a game that gamers would buy. Who cares if they play it?”

Those things generally go hand in hand, right? And they do care if they play, because it leads to more book sales down the road. Again, I’m saying this isn’t a good way to characterize the game when it applies more broadly. If you want to assume that they designed the game just to sell and not to play, that’s fine, I just don’t see a lot of evidence for it (and in fact see statements that say the opposite).

“How? How does this lead to the assumption that a lot of people lied? Where, on the surveys?”

The designers and developers, in interviews, blogs, forum posts, etc. I can point you to plenty that have a quote from a designer saying “We talked to people who didn’t like X, so we tried to fix that.” My take-away from Berin’s assessment was that the game was instead designed to sell more stuff and not to help players or DMs. The only way for me to reconcile those two statements is to assume those people are lying, which I don’t believe (and I’ll admit it may be because I was the one doing some of those interviews).

“There is a very clear emphasis on the revenue stream in a way no previous edition even vaguely matched.”

I would agree with that (though it’s certainly not unusual in other parts of the adventure game industry). But…

“None of this has anything to do with old school or new school or how the game is played. Only how its marketed. And, I can not see how anyone can look at the marketing for 4e, and not see it as qualitatively and quantitatively different from pre-Hasbro WotC 3e. Or even the last days of TSR for that matter.”

…Berin’s article above seems to focus on how the game plays for most of it until it gets to 4e, which then (if I understand you right) switches to marketing? That’s what I’m arguing against, at least, that those are two separate entities. That the way the game plays isn’t about WotC, and that’s what I view as disingenuous to compare them on those terms.

Essentially, what I’m saying is thus:
-When I sat down to play/run in 2e or with the Rules Cyclopedia, there was a clear emphasis on the DM. (Agree with Berin)
-When I sat down to play/run 3e or 3.5e or similar, there was a clear emphasis on constructing my character. (Agree with Berin)
-When I sit down to play/run 4e, I don’t give two craps about WotC or the GSL or how it’s marketed. I’m playing a game that’s very focused on it being a game, yes, and that’s different than previous eras, but I disagree with Berin that it plays like I’m giving to WotC as a revenue stream.
Dave T. Game´s last blog ..Mining the 4E “Eberron Player’s Guide”

As usual, I tend to share Dave’s views on all things D&D.

However, I will grant you that WotC has explored and tried a new business models with 4e that target the ‘early adopters’ market. Subscription based content, a wider definition of what is Core material, gaming accessories like Power cards and Mini lines (many concepts introduced during 3.x).

I still don’t think that 4e is a game for WotC, but the business model behind it is creative to say the least.

So far, what they gave us (sourcebooks, Character Builder and D&D Compendiums) have been of higher quality than I have come to expect of Wizards.
The Chatty DM´s last blog ..Primal/Within Chronicles: A Master’s Wrath, Part 2

@DaveTheGame

“they decided to design a game that worked with the way their audience was telling them they played. ”

That explains a lot.

Anyone working in a commercial but creative environment (be it art, advertising, software development or games) that doing what the customer tells you they want is often worse thing possible.

On other hand, listening to them and doing what the user actually needs is the key to success.

(Ignoring the critique of Berin’s argument:)

The three-way-split you propose makes sense, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t address what I took away from the old/new school debate. Which was a set of standards which gave me new metrics by which I could analyze the way my group plays, and ideas as to how to optimize for one set of play goals or another.

I never took it to be a “my way good/your way sucks” thing, even if this is how it occasionally comes across when folks talk about it.

The discussion attempted to define two significantly different styles of play. In so doing, it helped me focus attention on certain aspects of what was going on at my table.

Your description helps track the evolution of D&D, and the evolution of playstyles alongside it. That’s a useful thing. It’s just not the same useful thing I got from the old/new school discussion.

Thank you, Dave.

I admit to being guilty of conflating what I think is really shitty business and shittier customer service with “bad game.”

In spite of everything, I hope when I finally get to play the thing that I fall in love and want to buy, buy, buy.

And while I accept that every edition has been sold for money. I do not believe every edition was designed to. 4e, more than any other, is one with a design driven by market research. Whether it’s a good game (all indications say yes) or not is another subject.

BUT! That design does include a style of play that requires add on purchases like minis and dungeon tiles. In spite of what some of the 3.x haters out there will try to tell me, it did not.

That style is distinct from every previous edition.

I love all those era’s of gaming. I’ll play any of them.

What I see in your post is a veiled jab at 4e players and fans. I’m tired of the edition wars as well, so why further them.

Amen, dar.

I am a big believer in the industry and the fragility of it. So my first feeling is that I’m thrilled when anyone makes money here and furthers the industry. No matter what I like personally.

I also find myself agreeing with Dave, in that in terms of game play, earlier versions of the game were built with more weight and dependence on the GM, the 3x period put a lot more power into the hands of the players, and that 4e actually puts more weight onto the game mechanics themself, taking some of the load off the players.

Thats gameplay. As in, ‘we sit down together and game’. Just as important is how the rules affect the long-term game, which is overlooked a lot. I’m not going to get into it now, but the different rulesets have gigantic differences in how they affect the campaign, and the speed and expectation of experience gain.

And while I do believe that Wotc has more of a defined business model than TSR did, etc, I do not believe that the people writing the game love their creation much less than Gary did.