Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

The Fifth Edition Announcement - What do you think of their stated intentions?


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

151 to 200 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Werecorpse wrote:

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 completly BUT I fear that if 5e is different from 4e it will have some 4e devotiees left high and dry much like happend to 3.5 players when 4e came out. At leat 3.5 had 3rd party support somthing much less prevelent for 4e.

There are no "perfect" answers but I hope it helps draw players to RPG and makes the industry stronger no matter what it's form.


Based on what we've heard from independent observers (if reporters in the industry can be considered independent), WotC's intent is to provide an amalgam of all editions of the past. This isn't just tacking on a layer of rules to make everything fit, it's a real change.

Mearls was quoted as saying "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." (italics added for emphasis)

That implies that this won't just be a re-vamp of 4e. Why would you have to "explore ideas" about tools for conversion if it was just going to be an "evolutionary step"?

I'm prepared to take WotC at their word on this one. If I'm wrong, at least I will have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not D&D Next, it's 5E. No matter what WotC Brand Management says.

Calling it D&D Next is just as right as calling it 5e thank you very much, at the very least D&D Next is a term being used by WotC - sorry if that offends your sensibilities to the point that you feel the need to "correct" me.

I am using D&D Next as a placeholder for whatever it finally gets called, as I get the feeling that WotC won't call it 5th Edition - just like Mongoose RuneQuest was never called RQ4e and Mongoose RuneQuest II was never called RQ5e, maybe the next iteration of D&D is not going to be called 5e.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:
The truth is that at this point Paizo simply has a better game -- and not just in terms of crunchy games-mechanics.

This is very debateable and definately not a "truth". Pathfinder is likely more popular, but more popular does not necessarily mean better.

Captain Marsh wrote:
Whatever you think of the PF vs. 4e debate, the Adventure Path concept is a generation ahead of anything WOTC is doing in storytelling terms.

This I can maybe agree with, but that is one thing that bugs me about Pathfinder (among many :) when people ask to "Sell me on the Pathfinder RPG" it is often not the rules that people use as a basis for selling someone on it, its the adventures and setting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I pretty much agree with Dark Mistress here. 3PP and the OGL will be very important to me.

The OGL is a complete non-issue to me. The fact that Ars Magica, White Wolf Storyteller, Warhammar, Amber Diceless, and every other game system other than D20 including pre 3.0 D&D were completely closed didn't stop me in an instant from purchasing them.

It's interesting that 5.0 seems to be taking on a more GURPS like approach. The execution is what I'm mainly curious about.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not D&D Next, it's 5E. No matter what WotC Brand Management says.

Calling it D&D Next is just as right as calling it 5e thank you very much, at the very least D&D Next is a term being used by WotC - sorry if that offends your sensibilities to the point that you feel the need to "correct" me.

I am using D&D Next as a placeholder for whatever it finally gets called, as I get the feeling that WotC won't call it 5th Edition - just like Mongoose RuneQuest was never called RQ4e and Mongoose RuneQuest II was never called RQ5e, maybe the next iteration of D&D is not going to be called 5e.

And Pathfinder is 3.5. :)

Yeah, that was on purpose, you know me.


I'd like to see more AD&D style artwork. Not the quality of the artists craftsmanship, but in regard to the buildings and clothes depicted in the pictures. Eberron is fun and Golarion has its fans, but gneric rulebooks for a fantasy game don't have to look like late 18th century.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

And Pathfinder is 3.5. :)

Yeah, that was on purpose, you know me.

Yes, unfortunately I do! :)


Yora wrote:
I'd like to see more AD&D style artwork. Not the quality of the artists craftsmanship, but in regard to the buildings and clothes depicted in the pictures. Eberron is fun and Golarion has its fans, but gneric rulebooks for a fantasy game don't have to look like late 18th century.

I remember back when 2e came out, I rejected it almost out of hand, because of the way it looked, from the artwork to the font size. But I bought it, anyway, because it was (A)D&D. I intend to buy 5E just like I bought 4E. I'm just hoping I'll actually play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff6016 wrote:

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.

Dnd did survive, it got on a life raft and was picked up by a cruise ship called Pathfinder, and when WoTC finishes devaluing its stock completely Hasbro can sell the official DnD title to Paizo.


I think Xzibit easily puts it all into the proper perspective.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Penny Arcade says it's 5E. Your arguments are invalid.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rat_ bastard wrote:

I would say they completely cut and pasted their 4th edition press releases except for one thing that gives me the slimmest glimmer of hope:

Quote:
Monte Cooke

Given that he's responsible for the concept of system mastery, trap options, and some of the worse aspects of d20, his inclusion is one of the things that makes me think 5e won't be for me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I don't think of Pathfinder as Dungeons and Dragons. It's one of the things I like about it.

Pathfinder is not the only game that uses the D20 as a set of rules to mine from.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not thrilled to see people from the 4e design team on board. I think it is the worst edition of D&D to come along, and the design team's attitude toward players of previous editions didn't sit well with me either.

I'll keep an eye on 5e, however. If they release something great, then I'll buy it. Short of that, I'll stick with Pathfinder and the other games I play. D&D no longer has the brand loyalty/connection it did for me prior to 4e, so I don't have any kind of emotional investment in liking 5e when it comes out.

The stated intentions are a bit worrisome, just because I think they'll be extremely difficult to pull off. There are some fundamental reasons why some like or dislike 4e as compared to previous editions. Trying to "marry" those differences into a single system that appeals to both groups is more likely to alienate both groups.

But my curiosity is aroused, and as I said above I'll be keeping an eye on 5e.


Steerpike7 wrote:
The stated intentions are a bit worrisome, just because I think they'll be extremely difficult to pull off. There are some fundamental reasons why some like or dislike 4e as compared to previous editions. Trying to "marry" those differences into a single system that appeals to both groups is more likely to alienate both groups.

I don't think they plan to "marry" anything. I think a modular system is being developed, where you can use whichever elements you wish in your game. The result will probably have powers, rituals, spells, skills, feats, and who knows what else they might dredge up from the older editions? A mix-and-match rules system might also be in the offing (for example, you might or might not use Attacks of Opportunity - it would be written in such a way that it could be excluded as a unit).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Based on what we've heard from independent observers (if reporters in the industry can be considered independent), WotC's intent is to provide an amalgam of all editions of the past. This isn't just tacking on a layer of rules to make everything fit, it's a real change.

Mearls was quoted as saying "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." (italics added for emphasis)

That implies that this won't just be a re-vamp of 4e. Why would you have to "explore ideas" about tools for conversion if it was just going to be an "evolutionary step"?

I'm prepared to take WotC at their word on this one. If I'm wrong, at least I will have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Even as an evolutionary step there would still be changes. You needed to convert characters in every iteration of D&D 1st -2nd, 2nd-3rd, 3.0-3.5.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


I don't think they plan to "marry" anything. I think a modular system is being developed, where you can use whichever elements you wish in your game. The result will probably have powers, rituals, spells, skills, feats, and who knows what else they might dredge up from the older editions? A mix-and-match rules system might also be in the offing (for example, you might or might not use Attacks of Opportunity - it would be written in such a way that it could be excluded as a unit).

True, but from some of the quotes I've seen it gave the impression that people wanting to use these various aspects can all be sitting at the same table playing together. Given the mechanical differences, and even differing design philosophies and assumptions underlying the various editions, I think this will be very difficult to pull off.

I'd like to see something that is highly adaptable, and that allows for a framework around which a group can build their game. If they include things like the powers system from 4e, a lot of the people they are trying to entice back will be put off. If they don't include them, 4e fans may be put off. If they have a system where some players at the table use them and others do not...well, I think it will be difficult to make that work well.

Guess we won't really have a good idea until more info comes out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

VR Day (Victory in Roleplaying) draws closer sooner than expected!

Last week I refered to a recent article by Mearls and Dance about 4e as seeming like they were in a bunker moving markers for armies that no longer exist around a map. Seems I was more on the money than I guessed. ;-)

They are, as I said, in a thorny situation - half their customers seem to have left them, some more bitterly than others for sure. Getting them to come back will require some kind of reversal of the core ideas of 4e I'd imagine, if they don't somehow show it's not just going to be an extension of 4e ... why bother?

Love the way Scott tries upthread to claim players of 4e as more imaginative than others btw, that's hilarious. Scott - Mike Mearls himself stated this month that 4e may have failed (in his opinion) because it was specifically designed for the less imaginative players and GMs. It was such a blunt thing for him to say it surprised even myself.

Anyway, no matter how you paint it Scott, surely you're not still trying to say 4e was a success? Whether you like the rules system or not, that it has been a cataclysmic failure for WOTC is surely undeniable now? You can argue the reasons why it's been a failure, but not that it is a failure.


I think even a modular game would require everyone involved to know which parts are in use. I imagine it would be a DM's decision, since he would set up the game. Kind of like house ruling things.

And if they included the power system in a modular format, you could simply not use that part.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Based on what we've heard from independent observers (if reporters in the industry can be considered independent), WotC's intent is to provide an amalgam of all editions of the past. This isn't just tacking on a layer of rules to make everything fit, it's a real change.

Mearls was quoted as saying "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." (italics added for emphasis)

That implies that this won't just be a re-vamp of 4e. Why would you have to "explore ideas" about tools for conversion if it was just going to be an "evolutionary step"?

I'm prepared to take WotC at their word on this one. If I'm wrong, at least I will have given them the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, I'm not doctrinal about not buying WOTC products. I've only stopped buying them as they have held no interest or use for me during the happily soon to be passed 4e-Dark Age. If they produce stuff I actually would want to mine and use, as they used to, I'll start buying it again.

This isn't religion or politics, it's business. Produce what I want to buy and I'll buy it.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I think even a modular game would require everyone involved to know which parts are in use. I imagine it would be a DM's decision, since he would set up the game. Kind of like house ruling things.

And if they included the power system in a modular format, you could simply not use that part.

True as well, but I still don't think this will be easy to pull off in a way that appeals to everyone. You've still got to bridge the gap between underlying design philosophies. Are people who prefer Pathfinder or 3.X going to buy a whole new edition from WotC, just to use primarily the modular parts that come from 3.X? Just to get maybe a few modular pieces of 4e they can throw into their game? I doubt it. I don't think it is good from a marketing standpoint to go into it to release core books with the idea that large portions of them won't be applicable to a given group. I suppose they have two problems: 1) making this modular idea actually work; and 2) convincing people from both camps that they should by the new modular version that replicates the game they are already enjoying in a new edition, rather than simply continuing to play their existing game.

Lantern Lodge

The announcement came sooner than I thought which lends credence to the idea that in fact WOTC's fortunes have fallen off the proverbial cliff. Announcing a massive playtest in advance is a smart move and one could argue it might be their only move. WOTC's current product list and the previous years cancellation announcement is almost prima facie evidence that 4e sales have dropped to a near trickle and there is no reason to hold the development in secret since sales are below acceptable numbers so if people aren't buying then you are not losing anything and the big announcement has a tendency to spark interest which WOTC is in desperate of right now.

I'm a sucker for playtesting just about anything. I fondly remember downloading Pathfinder Alpha & Beta pdf's. I have signed up to test 5e. I'm always looking for ideas to add, subtract, modifiy or enhance my games and more ideas is generally a good thing.

The announcement to me speaks volumes in that they essentially admit by default that 4e was NOT the "majority's" cup of tea and we desperately need to do something to re-spark interest. I do give any company a certain amount of respect when they come out and say "oops, we made a mistake" and we are going to try and fix it.


Steerpike7 wrote:
I suppose they have two problems: 1) making this modular idea actually work; and 2) convincing people from both camps that they should by the new modular version that replicates the game they are already enjoying in a new edition, rather than simply continuing to play their existing game.

That might be the reason for the open playtest; word of mouth is a marketing tool that can work miracles, and you really don't have to pay for it. :)


WhiteTiger wrote:


The announcement to me speaks volumes in that they essentially admit by default that 4e was NOT the "majority's" cup of tea and we desperately need to do something to re-spark interest. I do give any company a certain amount of respect when they come out and say "oops, we made a mistake" and we are going to try and fix it.

Yes, I think this is the case. I think 4e failed to meet WotC's expectations. It is one thing to look at the numbers and say "Well, it is second behind Pathfinder." But you have to keep things in context. If I self-publish a book and sell 10,000 copies of it, that's a runaway success. If Stephen King sells 10,000 copies of a book, he tanked. The sales figures for 4e, and whether it is in second place or what have you, is not important. The fact that the edition cost them 1st place is a huge failure and has to be cause for concern. The statements surrounding the announcement of 5e are clearly meant to address that concern head on.

I think they'll have to abandon a lot of the underlying philosophy of 4e to adequately address the concerns, but we'll see. Maybe WotC will surprise me.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Laeknir wrote:

Of course, it's all unicorns and rainbows now. Can they deliver? That's the real question.

I sort of expected a more negative reaction (or any negative reaction at all, really). The conventional wisdom seemed to be that an edition announcement would be seen as a money grab, but apparently that's not the case.

Well, the people that didn't like 4E don't have much to be negative about. They either have Pathfinder and don't care or just want to see 4E die and be replaced by something that is more like the D&D they know and love (plus saying "I told you so." feels good). I would expect a lot of 4E fans to be at least a little upset.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
In my opinion, HASBRO should get out of the roleplaying game business altogether. Turning D&D from the iconic pre-eminent game it once was to the 4E failure it has become is a monument to their corporation's ignorance about roleplaying games and its insensitivity to the role-playing community.
I can assure you, the people in charge of 4e were neither ignorant of roleplaying games or insensitive to its community. I daresay they have a good deal more credibility speaking about RPGs than you do.

There is no doubt that their pre-4E "marketing" was highly insensitive to a good deal of gamers, particularly those that liked 3.5. If you are basing their credibility on producing RPG's on the "success" that 4E was, then they have very little.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post that was needlessly incendiary.


Rockheimr wrote:
Love the way Scott tries upthread to claim players of 4e as more imaginative than others btw, that's hilarious.

I'll just wait here while you point me to where in this thread I've said that.

Quote:
Anyway, no matter how you paint it Scott, surely you're not still trying to say 4e was a success?

Let's, just for the moment, imagine that I am. How would you show that I'm wrong? What standards have you set aside to determine the game's success or failure, and how do you justify those standards? And, finally, how reliable is your assertion that 4e has not met those standards?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

I removed another one.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well, the people that didn't like 4E don't have much to be negative about. They either have Pathfinder and don't care or just want to see 4E die and be replaced by something that is more like the D&D they know and love (plus saying "I told you so." feels good). I would expect a lot of 4E fans to be at least a little upset.

See, this is the conventional wisdom I was talking about. If it were true that gamers are just gamers and they all think alike, but just have different preferences, then what you describe is exactly what we'd see.

But we're not seeing that.

What we're seeing is 4e fans who are optimistic and excited, to varying degrees, and pretty much no 4e fans claiming that WotC shot their puppy. In fact, the strongest anti-WotC sentiments over the past few days have come from Pathfinder players, or specifically the anti-4e crowd.

So, contrary to what you would imagine to be the case, apparently the people that didn't like 4e still have plenty to be negative about. Meanwhile, the 4e fans are looking forward to 5e.

Go figure.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steerpike7 wrote:
WhiteTiger wrote:


The announcement to me speaks volumes in that they essentially admit by default that 4e was NOT the "majority's" cup of tea and we desperately need to do something to re-spark interest. I do give any company a certain amount of respect when they come out and say "oops, we made a mistake" and we are going to try and fix it.

Yes, I think this is the case. I think 4e failed to meet WotC's expectations. It is one thing to look at the numbers and say "Well, it is second behind Pathfinder." But you have to keep things in context. If I self-publish a book and sell 10,000 copies of it, that's a runaway success. If Stephen King sells 10,000 copies of a book, he tanked. The sales figures for 4e, and whether it is in second place or what have you, is not important. The fact that the edition cost them 1st place is a huge failure and has to be cause for concern. The statements surrounding the announcement of 5e are clearly meant to address that concern head on.

I think they'll have to abandon a lot of the underlying philosophy of 4e to adequately address the concerns, but we'll see. Maybe WotC will surprise me.

It's an even worse failure when you consider the respective advertising budgets of WotC and Paizo, not to mention the brand recognition. It's not the worst failure in Dungeons and Dragons history--the gold standard for that will have to go to the first Dungeons and Dragons movie--but books to books and edition to edition? Nothing is more polarizing among fans and has more people who hate it than love it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the anti-WotC crowd is that way regardless of their preferred game. It's possible, if only just, that 5E might change their minds. But if it doesn't, WotC really hasn't lost anything.

As far as negativity goes, I think it's pretty stupid to be negative about something that hasn't happened yet. At least wait to see what WotC does before you go off on it, people.

I, for one, am looking forward to it. And I honestly hope they win me back.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


It's an even worse failure when you consider the respective advertising budgets of WotC and Paizo, not to mention the brand recognition.

Yep. They squandered a lot of goodwill and market share with 4e. I'm sure WotC has realized this for some time, though it is only with the announcement of 5e that people at WotC are making statements in this direction. Given the relative market power between Paizo and WotC, it wouldn't have been much of a contest if WotC had a game that more people wanted to play. Instead, it looks like the market favors the Pathfinder system (at least as between 4e and Pathfinder), and WotC is trying to figure out how to regain market dominance. I think hanging on to a substantial portion of 4e in any form would be a good way to ensure that they fail to do so.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I think the anti-WotC crowd is that way regardless of their preferred game. It's possible, if only just, that 5E might change their minds. But if it doesn't, WotC really hasn't lost anything.

As far as negativity goes, I think it's pretty stupid to be negative about something that hasn't happened yet. At least wait to see what WotC does before you go off on it, people.

I, for one, am looking forward to it. And I honestly hope they win me back.

Not so, at least in my case. I'm not anti-WotC, but I do think 4e is awful. What WotC did with 4e was make me indifferent to them. Prior to 4e, I had an emotional connection to the D&D brand. I'd been playing it a long time. Now, I don't have that connection. If 5e is very good, I will buy it and play it. But if it tanks, I won't give it a second thought. I'm just not invested in the brand like I was before.

I hope 5e is a good game, does well, and draws even more people into the hobby. If it is only a minor improvement over 4e, I'll stick with the games I play now.


From upthread - "Not so. The sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person excited about where the hobby will go next. That doesn't mean that the sort of person who likes Pathfinder cannot also be excited. It just means that I don't think there are a huge number of 4e players who are going to take the stance of "I'm done with the edition treadmill, I don't care what 5e is like."

That sounds like a description from you Scott of 4e players as being more imaginative generally to me.

>>>Anyway, no matter how you paint it Scott, surely you're not still trying to say 4e was a success?

Let's, just for the moment, imagine that I am. How would you show that I'm wrong? What standards have you set aside to determine the game's success or failure, and how do you justify those standards? And, finally, how reliable is your assertion that 4e has not met those standards?<<<

Well, it's rude to answer a question with another question, but for the sake of argument ... I'd say a game that halves your prior customer base would certainly classify as a 'cataclysmic failure' by any sane standard.

Sales figures are the ultimate decider, now we can quibble and guess to some degree as to exact percentage of D&D's sales drop-off - tbh if was only a 25% drop - which doesn't seem to be the case - that would be a pretty awful failure. The new edition was meant to increase sales ... not slash them in half.

Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not? Simple question really.

Btw, if you're not a politician you should consider the job, I've rarely seen someone defend a lost cause so valiantly. ;-)


Steerpike7 wrote:
Not so, at least in my case. I'm not anti-WotC, but I do think 4e is awful.

I don't think it's awful. I think a group of very talented game designers came up with a well-balanced, playable game, that isn't for me. But that doesn't mean that they're going to do it again.

Especially since they've pretty much been replaced. :)

People need to give WotC a chance. If WotC screws up, fine. Then people can say whatever. But they haven't even shown us what they have to offer yet. Wait just a few weeks, and the playtest will give us an idea.


Rockheimr wrote:


Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not?

I'd say it was objectively a failure, so does it matter if a given individual accepts it? Clearly Hasbro/WotC isn't happy with how it performed.

Other companies in the industry would be happy with the 4e numbers, but WotC isn't most other companies. They charged into 4e with the pre-eminent brand in the industry and the lion's share of the market. They are limping out of it with a fraction of their previous fan base, damage to the goodwill of the brand among many of the lost fans, and having lost their number one position in the market to a third-party licensee.

If you're running any business and you look at the before and after picture, you're not happy. It was a failure. That doesn't have to be a comment on the game itself (good product can fail), but in this case I think the bad product was a substantial part of the failure.

How long was D&D the number one brand in the industry prior to 4e? A little shy of 30 years?


Rockheimr wrote:

From upthread - "Not so. The sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person excited about where the hobby will go next. That doesn't mean that the sort of person who likes Pathfinder cannot also be excited. It just means that I don't think there are a huge number of 4e players who are going to take the stance of "I'm done with the edition treadmill, I don't care what 5e is like."

That sounds like a description from you Scott of 4e players as being more imaginative generally to me.

If that's what you think that said, I really cannot help you.

Quote:
Well, it's rude to answer a question with another question,

Oh good lord.

Quote:
but for the sake of argument ... I'd say a game that halves your prior customer base would certainly classify as a 'cataclysmic failure' by any sane standard.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize it had halved their prior customer base. Fascinating.

Quote:
Sales figures are the ultimate decider, now we can quibble and guess to some degree as to exact percentage of D&D's sales drop-off - tbh if was only a 25% drop - which doesn't seem to be the case - that would be a pretty awful failure. The new edition was meant to increase sales ... not slash them in half.

So, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the hobby gaming industry as a whole shrunk 25% as well. What would that tell you?

Quote:
Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not? Simple question really.

Beware the sort of person who insists that questions are simple.

Quote:
Btw, if you're not a politician you should consider the job, I've rarely seen someone defend a lost cause so valiantly. ;-)

How very kind of you to say.


Scott Betts wrote:

What we're seeing is 4e fans who are optimistic and excited, to varying degrees, and pretty much no 4e fans claiming that WotC shot their puppy. In fact, the strongest anti-WotC sentiments over the past few days have come from Pathfinder players, or specifically the anti-4e crowd.

So, contrary to what you would imagine to be the case, apparently the people that didn't like 4e still have plenty to be negative about. Meanwhile, the 4e fans are looking forward to 5e.

Go figure.

Paizo fans have hated WotC since they discontinued the magazines, and nothing WotC can do will change that. All of the pissing and moaning about rules and editions is just an excuse and a rationalization for that underlying irrational hate.


Sebastrd wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

What we're seeing is 4e fans who are optimistic and excited, to varying degrees, and pretty much no 4e fans claiming that WotC shot their puppy. In fact, the strongest anti-WotC sentiments over the past few days have come from Pathfinder players, or specifically the anti-4e crowd.

So, contrary to what you would imagine to be the case, apparently the people that didn't like 4e still have plenty to be negative about. Meanwhile, the 4e fans are looking forward to 5e.

Go figure.

Paizo fans have hated WotC since they discontinued the magazines, and nothing WotC can do will change that. All of the pissing and moaning about rules and editions is just an excuse and a rationalization for that underlying irrational hate.

Some of them, certainly. I think there are a number of issues at play, many of them deeper than that, though.


Sebastrd wrote:
Paizo fans have hated WotC since they discontinued the magazines, and nothing WotC can do will change that. All of the pissing and moaning about rules and editions is just an excuse and a rationalization for that underlying irrational hate.

Do you often encounter rational hate?

Just a question...

:D

Dark Archive

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
carmachu wrote:
I suspect that while WOTC will try to use the Paizo fan feedback system, they will implement it badly due to the corporate nature of Hasbro.
I'm almost certain that Hasbro will have little to nothing to do with hwo fan feedback is handled. Wizards of the Coast is in charge of this project. I don't think your friend knows what he is talking about.

You might want to note this paragraph in [url: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons]Greg Tito's article over at the Escapist:[/url]

Quote:
Previous editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
The article does note that they'll be trying to get away from that this next time, but previously, yes, they did ignore all the feedback they got which doesn't inspire much confidence.

That's pretty sickening information. I suspected that the 4E "playtesting" was just for show, and now it is confirmed. It makes you think of what 4E could have been if they had actually listened to playtester feedback. It might have been a decent game to play. It might have felt like D&D, and it might have been commercially successful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastrd wrote:
Paizo fans have hated WotC since they discontinued the magazines, and nothing WotC can do will change that. All of the pissing and moaning about rules and editions is just an excuse and a rationalization for that underlying irrational hate.

This is a major misunderstanding of why some RPG gamers despise WotC. I play with two gaming groups, one is a 4e group, the other is a PF group. There is no doubt about what my PF group hates about WotC. Here's the short list:

1. 4e is not D&D. It doesn't FEEL like D&D. The game designers sacrificed the soul of the game in a hopeless quest for the holy grail of "class balance."

2. WotC miniatures marketing was based on the collectible card game model. Buy product unseen for mega-bucks and hope for something good. That might work for a $5 pack of cards, but for a $40 box of plastic figurines, when you feel screwed you feel screwed.

3. ACTUAL collectible cards for the game. If the derision heaped upon WotC for their sins were not already enough, with the announcement of cards you played on your turn, well that just further cemented in their minds the idea that WotC was nothing but a money-grubbing greed-monkey. (Yes, I know Paizo has also marketed cards, I didn't say this was rational).

4. Endless errata. As a 4e player I myself was frequently frustrated when my characters powers, items or feats suddenly no longer did what they did the day before. Errata is a good thing, unless it is such a ceaseless flood that you reach the conclusion that the REASON for the endless errata is essentially design incompetence in the first place.

5. 4e revisions. Every time WotC announced some product or game redesign that was clearly intended to reach out to the alienated players who now play Pathfinder, the reaction was not "Oh, well, maybe WotC is OK then." The reaction was "Hah! So now even THOSE idiots are realizing they screwed things up. Too little too late dudes."

Top all of this off with Paizo's generally brilliant marketing scheme, high quality product and adherance to the RPG roots of D&D... well, it's no surprise to me that WotC is now scrambling madly to regain lost market share.


Scott Betts wrote:
Rockheimr wrote:

From upthread - "Not so. The sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person excited about where the hobby will go next. That doesn't mean that the sort of person who likes Pathfinder cannot also be excited. It just means that I don't think there are a huge number of 4e players who are going to take the stance of "I'm done with the edition treadmill, I don't care what 5e is like."

That sounds like a description from you Scott of 4e players as being more imaginative generally to me.

If that's what you think that said, I really cannot help you.

Quote:
Well, it's rude to answer a question with another question,

Oh good lord.

Quote:
but for the sake of argument ... I'd say a game that halves your prior customer base would certainly classify as a 'cataclysmic failure' by any sane standard.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize it had halved their prior customer base. Fascinating.

Quote:
Sales figures are the ultimate decider, now we can quibble and guess to some degree as to exact percentage of D&D's sales drop-off - tbh if was only a 25% drop - which doesn't seem to be the case - that would be a pretty awful failure. The new edition was meant to increase sales ... not slash them in half.

So, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the hobby gaming industry as a whole shrunk 25% as well. What would that tell you?

Quote:
Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not? Simple question really.

Beware the sort of person who insists that questions are simple.

Quote:
Btw, if you're not a politician you should consider the job, I've rarely seen someone defend a lost cause so valiantly. ;-)
How very kind of you to say.

Paizo's sales conservatively are either close too, or matching 4e's, or in some internet sales poles actually exceeding them, clearly showing that Paizo has taken a large percentage of WOTC's former customers away from them, and that 4e didn't bring in the large numbers of new gamers WOTC hoped it would (by targeting the WOW audience). Showing WOTC's D&D sales declined not because of some general market decline, but because Paizo out competed them.

If you have some evidence for a general market decline matching the reported 40-50% drop in WOTC D&D sales please share it with us.

As to my question, which you still haven't answered, it's only complicated if you make it so. A yes or no answer would do.


Sebastrd wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

What we're seeing is 4e fans who are optimistic and excited, to varying degrees, and pretty much no 4e fans claiming that WotC shot their puppy. In fact, the strongest anti-WotC sentiments over the past few days have come from Pathfinder players, or specifically the anti-4e crowd.

So, contrary to what you would imagine to be the case, apparently the people that didn't like 4e still have plenty to be negative about. Meanwhile, the 4e fans are looking forward to 5e.

Go figure.

Paizo fans have hated WotC since they discontinued the magazines, and nothing WotC can do will change that. All of the pissing and moaning about rules and editions is just an excuse and a rationalization for that underlying irrational hate.

If you're correct, which I don't think you are, then it would be fantastic news for WOTC, as it would mean they could solve all their problems by something so simple and relatively cheap as publishing 2 monthly magazines again and all their lost customers would presumably return to them.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I beg to differ, my hatred is very rational.


Steerpike7 wrote:
Rockheimr wrote:


Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not?

I'd say it was objectively a failure, so does it matter if a given individual accepts it? Clearly Hasbro/WotC isn't happy with how it performed.

Other companies in the industry would be happy with the 4e numbers, but WotC isn't most other companies. They charged into 4e with the pre-eminent brand in the industry and the lion's share of the market. They are limping out of it with a fraction of their previous fan base, damage to the goodwill of the brand among many of the lost fans, and having lost their number one position in the market to a third-party licensee.

If you're running any business and you look at the before and after picture, you're not happy. It was a failure. That doesn't have to be a comment on the game itself (good product can fail), but in this case I think the bad product was a substantial part of the failure.

How long was D&D the number one brand in the industry prior to 4e? A little shy of 30 years?

Oh I agree, I too think it was a failure. Objectively now.

As apparently do WOTC.

Hey, let's be clear, if 4e had doubled WOTC's D&D sales by drawing in the hoped for WOW-rush as planned, I'd be the first to grudgingly concede it was a great success for WOTC. I would naturally add the success saddened me, as I think the edition was an enormous step in the wrong direction and I certainly wouldn't play it, however I would accept I was clearly in a dying minority and it had obviously been the right commercial decision to take.

I'm pleased other players made the same choices about the options they had as I did. It means I can still continue to expect the sort of rpg books I love - both from Paizo ... and who knows, if they make the right decisions about 5e, maybe one day in after a coupla years WOTC again.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
That's pretty sickening information. I suspected that the 4E "playtesting" was just for show, and now it is confirmed. It makes you think of what 4E could have been if they had actually listened to playtester feedback. It might have been a decent game to play. It might have felt like D&D, and it might have been commercially successful.

As another anecdote to add to the non-data, I was part of a playtest group as well and we felt our input was largely not implemented. Some minor balance things we noticed were changed, but our group routinely submitted 40-50 page playtest reports with very involved suggestions of what why we felt that this game was "not D&D." That stuff was not used. It's actually kind of nice to hear that our group was not the only group to submit feedback of that nature.

As far as the promises, I've learned never to trust any offical statement from WotC. They've been playing with the truth since the early Magic days. I remember getting the impression that the Unlimited set would be in print forever (thus the name). They probably didn't specifically say that, but I don't have time to comb through the press releases for doublespeak. This is more a condemnation of marketing lingo than of the game designers though.

But I will freely admit that I am bitter about the discontinuation of the print magazines.

151 to 200 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / The Fifth Edition Announcement - What do you think of their stated intentions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.