You might want to note this paragraph in Greg Tito's article over at the Escapist:
Link fixin'.
The people who are showing up with nothing more to say than, "4e is just the worst, WotC can go fornicate with undesirables, and I hope Hasbro's stock suffers momentary dips!" are only here for today, right? They're just going to post their unpleasant opinions and then leave, yeah?
They won't as long as you keep replying to them and baiting them.
Physician, heal thyself.
It seems as premature to make definitive statements like 'Hasbro won't be involved' as it is to assume that Hasbro's going to be all over this from top to bottom.
Not really. Everyone in the industry I've ever heard comment on the topic has said something along the lines of, "Yeah, Hasbro pretty much lets WotC run itself aside from some very high-level decisions." Incorporating tester feedback on individual rules is not a process Hasbro is going to bother inserting itself into.
The only people who imagine Hasbro to be some kind of evil corporate overlord puppetmaster intent on micromanaging a hobby they know nothing about are fans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look folks,
No matter how you felt about AD&D, 3rd edition or 4th edition the fact of the matter is that if the D&D brand stays healthy and beings in new tabletop players, it is good for this industry and good for the hobby in general.
It is even good for Paizo!
Personal boycotts and vented anger aside (and trust me, I am STILL plenty angry about the bashing of prior editions done in the lead up to 4th), I don't wan't D&D to see D&D disappear.
It's the big picture.
The people who are showing up with nothing more to say than, "4e is just the worst, WotC can go fornicate with undesirables, and I hope Hasbro's stock suffers momentary dips!" are only here for today, right? They're just going to post their unpleasant opinions and then leave, yeah?They won't as long as you keep replying to them and baiting them.
I really wish that were the case.
I really wish that were the case.The people who are showing up with nothing more to say than, "4e is just the worst, WotC can go fornicate with undesirables, and I hope Hasbro's stock suffers momentary dips!" are only here for today, right? They're just going to post their unpleasant opinions and then leave, yeah?They won't as long as you keep replying to them and baiting them.
Just sayin' ;-)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i stand before you as someone who still plays D&D 3.5, and whose preferred d20 system is Warriors and Warlocks, the fantasy setting of Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds. I like it because it is simple and fast. I added Attacks of Opportunity back in, because I like the effect they have on tactics, and I added in the Paizo Fumble deck, with some modifications. (I also run Pathfinder Society sessions, in order to support Paizo. So I have experience running Pathfinder with many the bells and whistles turned on.)
All of which is to say, I very much like the idea of a simple base system with modular rule options.
If this works right, it would get me back into playing D&D.
Look folks,
No matter how you felt about AD&D, 3rd edition or 4th edition the fact of the matter is that if the D&D brand stays healthy and beings in new tabletop players, it is good for this industry and good for the hobby in general.
It is even good for Paizo!
Personal boycotts and vented anger aside (and trust me, I am STILL plenty angry about the bashing of prior editions done in the lead up to 4th), I don't wan't D&D to see D&D disappear.
It's the big picture.
The fallacy in that premise is that a thriving D&D is required for other RPGs to succeed. Certainly, that has been the case historically. However, 2011 alone has shown that D&D doesn't have to "shoulder that burden" alone anymore.
WoW is the only MMO on the market, Nokia isn't the only cellphone manufacturer, etc.
RPGs exist in enough forms that the industry could survive without D&D. Who knows, the new kid on the block might take the industry places D&D never could.
It's all speculation.
The fallacy in that premise is that a thriving D&D is required for other RPGs to succeed.
Nope. Stop right there. Do not pass go and put that $200 back, bud. ;-)
I never said that "a thriving D&D is required for other RPGs to succeed".
What I DID say is that if D&D stays healthy and beings (sic) new tabletop players into the hobby, that it is good for the hobby in general.
I think you just misread my comment.
Hey, don't sweat it. I do it all the time. ;-)
The last time we've heard something similar from WotC, the "open beta" was actually a class preview for 4E (Barbarian or Assassin, sorry, don't remember right now) less than 3-4 months before release of the product.
Actually, the last time we heard this was when WotC announced their upcoming D&D miniatures skirmish game. It is now available for playtesting on their website.
So they want to create a GURPS Pathfinder with core framework based on 4E bones. At least that how I see their goals - they want to build upon 4E experience, but they want to have several levels of complexity (with set in stone miniature wargame system at the lowest level [Chainmail level], expanded for RPG customization around medium level [D&D RPG Basic], and then introduce design principles for metadesign of highest order of system complexity [D&D Advanced and Meta])..
You're adding the whole "4E" thing when they DID NOT state that's what they were doing. In fact, those that got a taste of the "friends and family" alpha test specifically stated that it felt more like their older (1E) gaming experiences. On top of that, the reporter who specifically said that about the sample game with Mike Mearls DMing does not care for the 4E rules set.
These statements from reporters counter-indicates your baseless assumption that they will somehow be building off of 4E as a framework.
Your logic has to work with the facts for it to have any kind of validation.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my point of view, as someone who doesn't play 4e and enjoyed playing 3.5e and 1e I am excited and happy to hear the news that wotc is going to make a new game & the way they say they are going to make it.
I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean
- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.
That's a good thing right?
As I say the news that wotc are going to make a new game instead of 4e ( which I don't play so don't care about ) is all good.
If they fail to make a game I like either because they are tricksy corporate suits or because they are hamfisted bunglers I am no worse off than I was before. But if they succeed....
Yay!
|
I agree. A way too fast turnover that does not catch as many new players as planned and grates on the established fanbase.
I'd think revamping and rereleasing the game every 3-5 years like has been happening since 3.0 release is much more of a danger to FTG then his attitude is. You burn out your player base and their good will much faster that way.
Its the game workshop principle all over again. The game grew when it went from RT to 2nd.....which stood around from 1990ish, or slightly before to 1999.
Then you had editions 3rd, 4th, 5th and now 6th is coming from years 2000 to 2012. GW has been losing players consistantly over the years. Their unit sales have been down for at least 9 out of the last 10 years.
When you churn you game too quickly you lose players, lose trust. I dont know of any game company out there that is even close to GW on the "love the game but actively hate the company" scale like they are. Although Wotc is getting there after the great divide of 3.5/4e and now 3-4 years later 5th edition...
Really? So why is 4e ending after what, 3 years? Could it be its not pulling in the projected profit it was suppose to? Maybe? Ya think?
This is a WotC project. Hasbro is pretty hands-off.
Yes, carmachu, I think. I think that WotC is trying to meet goals set by Hasbro, and I think that they're doing it in the best way they (WotC) can think of. You're trying to argue that Hasbro is responsible for deciding which bits of pre-release player testing feedback is incorporated into final design, and I'm telling you that's absurd.
Also, 4e will probably be finished just before Gen Con 2013, which gives it a lifespan of over 5 years, not 3.
Not that you care.
I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.That's a good thing right?
Here's the bad thing....
-
Pathfinder has the heart and soul of D&D, but 4e has the name recognition. People looking to play dungeons and dragons, or people who are STARTING to play dungeons and dragons, are now playing a different game. It splits the player base in a hobby where you need 5 compatable geeks within a certain distance of each other who can fenagle a scheduel to work together. Adding agreeing on the same system to that equation drops the effective geek population below sustainable in many areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has the heart and soul of D&D, but 4e has the name recognition.
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't recognize the huge number of people who firmly believe that 4e embodies the heart and soul of D&D, too. Many of them believe it embodies that heart and soul better than 3.5 or Pathfinder did.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...
Because everyone needs their own thread with their own post with their own opinions at the top of the thread, or else how will anyone on the internet know what the truth is?
I think 5e will be pretty much ready to go before 2012 is out. Its 2013 release date will probably be early spring, or maybe even sooner.
WotC can't afford to wait on this one. They already have a version they can playtest.
I think they can actually afford a lot of waiting time, and I think they've purposefully given themselves enough lead-in to make sure they get the product right. We'll know more after DDXP.
|
Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...Because everyone needs their own thread with their own post with their own opinions at the top of the thread, or else how will anyone on the internet know what the truth is?
Zing lol
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...Because everyone needs their own thread with their own post with their own opinions at the top of the thread, or else how will anyone on the internet know what the truth is?
Must be it.
I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.That's a good thing right?
Here's the bad thing....
-
Pathfinder has the heart and soul of D&D, but 4e has the name recognition. People looking to play dungeons and dragons, or people who are STARTING to play dungeons and dragons, are now playing a different game. It splits the player base in a hobby where you need 5 compatable geeks within a certain distance of each other who can fenagle a scheduel to work together. Adding agreeing on the same system to that equation drops the effective geek population below sustainable in many areas.
But that " bad thing " is the current situation, right?
That whole split hobby thing started with runequest. We now have dozens of fantasy RPGs and about a dozen D&D offshoot games. My experience with this is that if someone asks me to play in a game with a system I don't particularly like or know then if I like the people I say yes and give it a go.
Given Pathfinder won't ever be called D&D there will likely always be a current game called D&D that will either be one you don't like or one you might like why would you be against someone trying to develop a game you might like.
I can see it being a potentially bad thing for you if 5e ends up being a system you, as a pathfinder player, don't like but your current pathfinder players prefer. But if Pathfinder is all you say it is you have nothing to be concerned about. In fact Wotc may drive some of the 4e players away from d&d altogether, to Pathfinder.
I guess the further splitting the gaming community is a potentially detrimental effect of 5e coming out but they seem to recognize that and be trying to work to remedy it. They did some pretty good unification of hobby work with 3e.
Hey maybe d&d is like the Dune series, every odd numbered one is good and the even numbered ones not so much. ( yes I know totally my opinion on both subjects)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of initial reactions, EN World's Morrus ran a quick Twitter poll earlier today, asking for Favorable/Neutral/Unfavorable reactions to the announcement. The response was strongly favorable (something like an 82% rating if broken down into 100/50/0 scores and averaged). We don't know very much so far, but it seems like people are finding very little to object to.
The poll asked how people felt about the news: Positive, Neutral, or Negative.
There were over 250 responses, and only 4 said "Negative."
It had an 82% rating because I weighted the "Neutral" responses at 50. Given that EN World is pretty supportive of 4e, I'd say it's pretty likely that of the respondents only 4 people liked 4e.
I think it's more likely that the sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person who is excited about where the hobby is going next. I never saw 4e (or any edition, for that matter) as a stopping point of any kind, and I think a lot of people share that viewpoint. We think that the hobby today is cooler than it was 10 years ago, and that 10 years from now it will be cooler than it is today.
Do I understand correctly that poll participants were self-selected? (i.e.: People saw it, and some % decided to respond and be counted?)
If so, the entire poll is meaningless, because we don't know the population.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 5E is/isn't positively received. I'm just saying this poll doesn't (read:can't) tell you anything about that.
|
It strikes me that it's much more difficult to get away with marketing flim-flam when people are actively testing your product out pre-release in the public sphere, as we'll soon see them doing.
Yes it's all good and well to test a product with the general public but that dosn't mean that they'll take any of the comments to heart. Many of my friends were involved in the RPGA playtests of 4E and they claim their concerns were completly ignored.
Then there is the ugly baby mentality where a desiner refuses to accept that his ideas are bad.
It takes more than just a public playtest to be good.
|
|
It seems as premature to make definitive statements like 'Hasbro won't be involved' as it is to assume that Hasbro's going to be all over this from top to bottom.Not really. Everyone in the industry I've ever heard comment on the topic has said something along the lines of, "Yeah, Hasbro pretty much lets WotC run itself aside from some very high-level decisions." Incorporating tester feedback on individual rules is not a process Hasbro is going to bother inserting itself into.
The only people who imagine Hasbro to be some kind of evil corporate overlord puppetmaster intent on micromanaging a hobby they know nothing about are fans.
My post said nothing about tester feedback, though it was a reply to a reply to a post that did. I'm more curious about whether or not they'll make DDI a product worth what they want for it (usable VTT, better presentation, better content, less limitations) or stop charging as if it were, and/or whether they'll go back to offering PDFs.
Any pointers on where we can find these industry comments on the nature of Hasbro and WoTC's relationship? So far on this forum all I've run into is a bunch of 'I heard it from a guy' stuff, which isn't super helpful.
But that " bad thing " is the current situation, right?
That whole split hobby thing started with runequest. We now have dozens of fantasy RPGs and about a dozen D&D offshoot games. My experience with this is that if someone asks me to play in a game with a system I don't particularly like or know then if I like the people I say yes and give it a go.
yup.
The thing though is that if you have 20 RPG's and one of them has 90% of the market share then the loss of available gamers is minimal. If you have 2 rpgs and they're splitting the market 50 50 you have a problem.
Do I understand correctly that poll participants were self-selected? (i.e.: People saw it, and some % decided to respond and be counted?)
If so, the entire poll is meaningless, because we don't know the population.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 5E is/isn't positively received. I'm just saying this poll doesn't (read:can't) tell you anything about that.
I'm well aware of the confounds. I'm not submitting this for academic review, and I'm not giving you confidence levels. All I'm telling you is that this informal poll indicates that, among those who follow Russell on Twitter, the news was fairly well-received. There does not appear to be a substantial adverse reaction among 4e players, contrary to what conventional wisdom would have put forward.
Yes it's all good and well to test a product with the general public but that dosn't mean that they'll take any of the comments to heart. Many of my friends were involved in the RPGA playtests of 4E and they claim their concerns were completly ignored.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. This is a pretty common problem with people. They submit feedback on something, and when their suggested change isn't implemented, they throw up their hands and claim they were ignored. Well, maybe. But it's often the case that they weren't ignored, that their opinions were considered, but that the designers chose not to implement the suggested change based on any number of reasons (maybe the change wasn't feasible, or maybe they received feedback from many more groups that it was working fine as-is). It's easy to criticize the process from the outside (including as a tester), but that's sort of a myopic way of looking at it.
Then there is the ugly baby mentality where a desiner refuses to accept that his ideas are bad.
I can't say whether any of that has been an issue, but I do know that design features go through many levels of review and development, even within WotC.
Well, that corprate structure you all keep talking about does concentrate on one thing, and that's money. For WotC to stay out of the dust bin, they'll have to provide a real increase in income, pretty soon. Hasbro has some pretty hard and fast rules about companies that don't measure up to their 50 million threshold.
Unfortunately for the D&D 'section' of WoTC, the 50 million threshold is required to be met by each brand in their case (ie they cant include magic in with D&D or they'd be laughing). It's also slightly unfair, since any computer game royalties relating to the D&D brand are apparently 'not counted' as revenue derived from the D&D brand, which seems odd.
Well, that corprate structure you all keep talking about does concentrate on one thing, and that's money. For WotC to stay out of the dust bin, they'll have to provide a real increase in income, pretty soon. Hasbro has some pretty hard and fast rules about companies that don't measure up to their 50 million threshold.Unfortunately for the D&D 'section' of WoTC, the 50 million threshold is required to be met by each brand in their case (ie they cant include magic in with D&D or they'd be laughing). It's also slightly unfair, since any computer game royalties relating to the D&D brand are apparently 'not counted' as revenue derived from the D&D brand, which seems odd.
It struck me as odd, too, but I imagine that Hasbro views licensed titles (video games, movies, etc.) as less reflective of a brand's inherent strength than core sales of that brand's in-house products. That just sort of a wild guess, though.
|
|
However, how in the hell to you write an adventure for such a system? If you stick to the basics, you're leaving prep for GMs that use more "game pieces". GMs buy modules to save on prep.
I agree it would be trickier than with a single system, but don;t think its impossible. As stated NPCs could be statted up so that you can simply ignore part of their stat block if you don't use a certain module (e.g. Race, Skills, Powers) and then maybe give a bit of advice about tactics depending on which modules are being used.
It may be the case that WotC will put out modules for the core system only, and then try to label a collection of common modules as "Advanced" and write adventures for them.
I think it can be done, definately!
The thing though is that if you have 20 RPG's and one of them has 90% of the market share then the loss of available gamers is minimal. If you have 2 rpgs and they're splitting the market 50 50 you have a problem.That's only true if two large players in the market purely fracture the player base rather than increase it. There's every chance that two big games would lead to an overall greater amount of gamers in an area though. And ultimately a greater pool of gamers is a good thing.
But they would have to double it in order to break even. Thats highly unlikely even if they're working in different genres, but in the medievalish sword and sorcerey" genre that's never going to happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine the fun of trying to find and explain things to other gaming groups -- I mean, right now, if I tell people I'm running a Pathfinder campaign, then they know what to expect (in the same way that if I tell people I'm running a Mechwarrior 2ed, SR 4ed, Classic ED, whatever...) -- and if they don't like the feat-tree, Vancian, etc, etc, -- then they know not to play. But what will it mean that you're running a "D&D-5e" game?
I don't think it will actually be that much different than how I imagine people who start a campaign lay out the ground rules now.
For example when you run Pathfinder, are you running Core Only? Is char gen using dice rolling or points allocation? What level are you starting at, 1st or higher? Can players play characters of Evil alignment? What supplements are you allowing? Do you allow 3PP supplements? What about using a 3.5 supplement (apparently its all backward compatible :)? What about using optional rules like Hero Points from the APG or Words of Power from Ultimate Magic? Are we playing under PFS rules and so crafting is out?
Any GM worth his salt is likely to give a bit more information to his players than just "we're playing Pathfinder" before creating characters.
I am currently running the original Freeport Trilogy using D&D 3.5. Right from the start I set out what books I would allow (and even then I was talked into one more book), and that I would be using Action Points & Reserve Points from Unearthed Arcana, and the Insanity rules from the d20 Freeport Companion. Even then I was asked whether a player could play a Tiefling and would the Level Adjustment buy off rules from UA be able to be used? And I agreed.
I see not much difference from all this than a GM saying - I am running a D&D Next game using the Races, Skills and Feats modules but not the Tactical combat module. I also plan to use the Lingering Wounds optional rule as the campaign is going to have a gritty edge to it. At this time the only supplement I am allowing is the Greyhawk Players Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not D&D Next, it's 5E. No matter what WotC Brand Management says.
Yeah, that descision was taken from them within half an hour after the news was out.
|
|
It's not D&D Next, it's 5E. No matter what WotC Brand Management says.
By the same logic its not PFRPG but D&D3.75 that I've been running for a couple years. A statement I adamantly refute.
I don't think its a huge stretch to let a company name their own product vice letting blotters and message board trolls control the zeitgeist.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. This is a pretty common problem with people. They submit feedback on something, and when their suggested change isn't implemented, they throw up their hands and claim they were ignored. Well, maybe. But it's often the case that they weren't ignored, that their opinions were considered, but that the designers chose not to implement the suggested change based on any number of reasons (maybe the change wasn't feasible, or maybe they received feedback from many more groups that it was working fine as-is). It's easy to criticize the process from the outside (including as a tester), but that's sort of a myopic way of looking at it.
Or you know... sometimes its true.
Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
Full article is here.