|
what are your thoughts ? i share mine on my video blog...
how will it affect Paizo and other RPG games ?
Go to My Video
I agree that Monte Cook leaving doesn't bode well.
However, I still have hopes for 5E, because Pathfinder really doesn't do it for me (especially at higher levels). If not, there is always Savage Worlds or C&C.
I took the title to mean "Fated for greatness, or Doomed to fail". So with that presumption, I'll move on.
I listened to your video and while I respect you view on the editions, I don't really agree with them. As your basing this question on the news of Monte leaving, I think it's jumping the gun a bit.
Firstly, because Monte has been working on the rules for D&D:Next for the past 7+ months (that we can speculate) AND that they're (WotC) coming into the playtest phase, then most of the leg work has been done. Monte's name will be associated with this product even if he's left before publication because us fans know better. D&D:Next will be most of his and other Devs work and he even mentioned that his problem wasn't with them, by that association not the rules of the game either, but with corporate/buisness stuff (para phrasing here). So by the rules side of the game alone, I don't think his leaving will doom the coming of D&D:Next.
Second, while Monte is lauded as a great developer who's worked on a TON of 3E and previous editions stuff there are probably just as many anti-Monte people out there as well. His Ivory Tower article is something that's brought up time and time again (and for good reason)....because I think he still holds true to those aspects. System Mastery, super Magic and mundanes remaining.....mundane, and a host of other questionable gaming design thoughts makes many feel that he just likes playing in the past. And if D&D is a game designed to bring us all together and allow us the freedom to play any style of game or campaign that we've seen in the past, well that doesn't bode well for people who enjoy 4E style games.
Alternatively, we'll ALL have to wait for the playtest before we start ranting about if it's DOOM or FATED for greatness. I personally hope that it does great, because while I LOVE 4E and enjoy 3.5 and Pathfinder, I need something new and innovative for me to buy it and not think to myself "Gee, I could get a better game by playing something I'm already familiar with instead of this system."
As for PR reasons, *meh* I think people put WAY too much stock into that aspect of the game. We're all geeks, we're all gamers, and we all enjoy pretending to slay dragons and save elven princesses, and use diplomatic ways to stave off Wars. The only problems we do have is how we go about those tasks.
|
|
I agree with all of you on some aspects...
I don't think Monte cook is the nail int he coffin so to speak. But it speaks volumes when a lead designer walks away from a nearly finished product!
@Diffan- His Ivory Tower article is a fine example of why most folks either love Monte Cook or cant stand him.I feel a similar way in that regards. 4e is not the same as 1e, it wasn't meant to be..
That being said I hope D&D does well.I would love nothing more to see a version that brings all gamers together.But alas we must wait and see....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doom.
Tell me why you should buy yet another version of the wizard and fighter, illithid and vorpal sword when Paizo is miles away at the gunslinger and inner sea beastiary?
Why should 4e players, who want a tactical uber balanced game, play a game that doesn't fit their preferences? Modularity won't satisffy them. When options are there, optimizers want them. This will create tension at the table and make them cry.
Unless WotC chooses to expend the OGL and actually challenge Paizo on it's turf 5e will fail and this time the D&D brand name will be shelved (well maybe not novels and board games).
Unless you Pathfinder fans tell me you want, no, need 5e.
Why should 4e players, who want a tactical uber balanced game, play a game that doesn't fit their preferences?.
I'm a 4E player and the balance and/or tacticalness has nothing to do with that preference.
I want quick prep and am most interested by 5E's aim for the ability to play D&D in an hour. If they achieve that, I'll probably play it, even if they continue their focus on digital product (my main source of trepidation).
Why should 4e players, who want a tactical uber balanced game, play a game that doesn't fit their preferences?.I'm a 4E player and the balance and/or tacticalness has nothing to do with that preference.
I want quick prep and am most interested by 5E's aim for the ability to play D&D in an hour. If they achieve that, I'll probably play it, even if they continue their focus on digital product (my main source of trepidation).
Interesting point of view.
I come from the tradition of gaming sessions that last 8+ hours, so the idea of 1 hours games and minimal prep time are alien.
It is certainly a valid point and I remember that 2e combat prep time was a breeze, 4e trying to recapture that again.
I am not sure that would be enough for 5e. Unless the gaming community really splits into two groups, the McGame (fast food reference) vs. the Ivory Tower game, and WotC focuses on the McGame.
I'd love to be able to play for 8 hours. Sadly, our group has other priorities now (we all work reasonably "life intruding" jobs and everyone but me has kids). I'm the only one who can regularly make time between sessions and they typically last three hours or so. :(
Speed of progression and ease of use are a must, for us.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doom.
Monte leaving only increases my previous hunch 5e will not reverse the damage done to WOTC's customer base by 4e. People who love 4e will, I suspect, cry 5e 'goes backwards' (4vengers are very doctrinal, they talk about 4e like a religion, or philosophical movement), while the other side in the recently ended war (my side) will see too much of 4e in it.
There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.
Mind you, I'm not bothered, 5e's success or not makes no odds to me one way or t'other tbh.
(My game of choice these last few years has firmly been BRP. Though I buy and respect Paizo's PF products, as they are easy to convert and have that essential traditional feel.)
|
|
@ Rockheim- I do wonder though if it was the fault of WOTC or if it was the puppet-master(HASBRO). The Christmas layoff's every year cant help moral in a company atmosphere like that.
I agree i would love to see a blanket statement consisting of..
" We screwed up/ this is why...
please take us back"
But alas , I don't think we'll see that anytime soon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.
Well, 4e is being canned years ahead of schedule, so clearly someone somewhere has accepted it has failed (or at least underperformed). The question is whether that realisation came from Hasbro or from WotC themselves.
If the former - it's Hasbro's decision - we might see 5e become much more like 3e (based on product sales of 4e versus 3e and also the success of the 3e-alike PATHFINDER). 4e fans will be sacrificed because they are not numerous enough - or at least not paying enough - to be worth bothering with. Harsh? Yes. But that's Hasbro for you. They do not give a toss as long as they have the money coming in. Luckily it does sound like WotC have spent some time agonising on how to integrate 4e and 3e fans alike in the new edition. Whilst I doubt such integration or unification is possible, I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong, as the edition wars pretty much broke up my gaming group and it'd be great to be able to reform it with a new system everyone is happy with (or at least willing to compromise on).
There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.Well, 4e is being canned years ahead of schedule, so clearly someone somewhere has accepted it has failed (or at least underperformed). The question is whether that realisation came from Hasbro or from WotC themselves.
I didn't know WotC actually scheduled a date to end 4E products? What, pray tell, was that date exactly? Or, realistically, how long does a product have to be in circulation to be considered a success or a failure? 3E and by that extention v3.5 lasted approx 7 1/2 years. So if 4E lasted until say...the summer of 2014, would that make it any better THEN that they put out D&D:Next? Personally, I think 5 years is a pretty long run for a game, espically a game with so much dissentient behavior of the overall gaming community.
If the former - it's Hasbro's decision - we might see 5e become much more like 3e (based on product sales of 4e versus 3e and also the success of the 3e-alike PATHFINDER). 4e fans will be sacrificed because they are not numerous enough - or at least not paying enough - to be worth bothering with. Harsh? Yes. But that's Hasbro for you. They do not give a toss as long as they have the money coming in. Luckily it does sound like WotC have spent some time agonising on how to integrate 4e and 3e fans alike in the new edition. Whilst I doubt such integration or unification is possible, I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong, as the edition wars pretty much broke up my gaming group and it'd be great to be able to reform it with a new system everyone is happy with (or at least willing to compromise on).
I beg to differ, mainly because I don't think the Devs or management at Hasbro/WotC are that stupid. For one, they would gain absolutley nothing by going back to a 3E-style or mechanics baseline, for two reasons:
The first reason is that there is the possibility of losing nearly all of their 4E fanbase. 4E fans, myself included, know that they're wrapping up products for 4E and so we have to embrace the new concepts or write homebrew stuff ourselves (I'm all for the latter, BTW). But if we're to embrace the new concepts and design elements of D&D:Next, it'll have to be an improvement or a change to things we already know. Pathfinder, for all intents and purposes, is a refurbished v3.5 and completley free via their PF-SRD, so to make us pay for WotC's own version of that.....well that's just moronic. I'm not going to pay for a system that's extreamly similiar to one that's already free on the internet. Hells, this is the main reason I don't buy Paizo material, because the portions that are important are free and I have enough system mastery and v3.5 material to carry me through any parts they do create that I don't buy (adventure paths, not withstanding).
The second reason is that they're NOT going to recoup the losses made during the 3E to 4E jump just because they make a game similiar to what the discordant fan base used. Most of the people that have posted here and that I've heard else where are happy with Paizo and have little reason to leave, espically back to WotC. If anything, it'll hurt WotC more because they've lost their new fans and won't regain any of the old.
D&D:Next has to be fresh enough to entice the people on Paizo's side, even if it's just for the Playtest and initial sales of the CORE books WHILE maintaining aspects that the 4E fans can relate to ALL the while keeping balance and the flavor (I use that term loosely) of D&D in the process. It's a tall order, but I think with enought understanding of where older fans sit in conjunction to the rules and where 4E fans sit with the rules, they can make a good modular game.
Really, I think a lot of 3E/PF fans don't like the power system or it's streamlined implication across all the non-Essential classes. Each class, while varying widely with their powers and abilities, still have the same functions and progression. That, IMO, tends to put the idea that they play the same into their minds. Understanding that classes should have power OPTIONS that don't necessarily have to be taken will go along way with easing the sensibilities of non-4E fans. But because the option is there, it shoud please 4E fans that they have ways of customizing their characters with the effects of powers and not just basics of attack, move, rinse, repeat.
And some of the other ideas they came up with are definitely favorable such as items no longer being tied into character progression. Meaning you don't HAVE to have a +2 sword to enter this dungeon adventure or by X-level, carry Y and Z enchanted itesm or you'll die. Separating that AND keeping the modifiers/numbers on a lower scale will drastically improve the game and make it feel less like a MMO (by which I mean that MMOs numbers often scale into the hundreds at high levels, not because of play-style).
My question is - at what point do people simply tire of buying game upgrades and supplements. It seems like 5E just came about too fast to bring on consumer fervor. (That said, I hope Paizo isn't planning a Pathfinder 1.5 anytime in the foreseeable future!)
But then this sorta questions the whole of the Pathfinder community because isn't it just an upgrade/supplement of v3.5? If D&D:Next is to be profitable, it'll have to be new and exciting, NOT just a re-hash of mechanics, fantasy tropes, and clichés of their previous editions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF's success isn't just (or necessarily even primarily) due to it's rules imo, it's also due to the brilliant and prolific support materials; it's monthly AP books, it's modules, the extremely faithfully and well detailed and supported setting. I don't even use the PF rules, but I buy stacks of PF sourcebooks.
4e saw not the barest shadow of such support, I think 5e will require a change of attitude away from under-detailed and bland (imo) fluff.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the success as far as the rules go is also because Paizo doesn't have a revolving door that activates seemingly every December. Lisa doesn't hand out pink slips like they're stocking stuffers. Having consistency in the development positions, and adding fresh talent when they are in a position to grow, keeps things popping and innovative while having people in place that see the overall picture. And not putting out a splat every other day, like it seemed they came out during the 3x period, allows them to make sure things work together. Much of the time it seemed WotC put their devs in different rooms and wouldn't let them talk to one another the way cross book synergies created some amazingly exploitable cheese. It was like no one was keeping track of how all the different splat feats, spells and classes, both base and prestige, worked together.
Part of the success as far as the rules go is also because Paizo doesn't have a revolving door that activates seemingly every December. Lisa doesn't hand out pink slips like they're stocking stuffers. Having consistency in the development positions, and adding fresh talent when they are in a position to grow, keeps things popping and innovative while having people in place that see the overall picture. And not putting out a splat every other day, like it seemed they came out during the 3x period, allows them to make sure things work together. Much of the time it seemed WotC put their devs in different rooms and wouldn't let them talk to one another the way cross book synergies created some amazingly exploitable cheese. It was like no one was keeping track of how all the different splat feats, spells and classes, both base and prestige, worked together.
A good portion of "brokeness" you can use is right there in the Core books or SRD. But putting that aside, I think your right that much of the Splatbooks of 3E and v3.5 were done in such a way that the devs worked within the mindset of 1 specific book and not how this book will work with other products on a grand scale. If they had, perhaps 90% of the classes found in the "Complete" series wouldn't have sucked as hard as they do NOR would the feats have broken the game the way they did (I'm looking at you Divine Metamagic).
Yet I can't place all the blame on supplemental products, becuase thats just one piece of the overall mechanics of 3E, v3.5, and Pathfinder. At the end of the day, the sheer imbalance at mid- to high-levels of play was so great, not even the Tome of Battle could balance it out evenly. Pathfinder did some decent strides to make the rules work in favor of non-spellcasting classes but the disparity of the actual system is just too great and the spells just too powerful for that difference to get closer (espically at high levels).
And even if 4E saw a lot of rotating designers througout it's lifespan, the rules of the game remained somewhat balanced throughout the tiers of play and across the classes. While the Vampire and Binder are considered two of the worst classes in 4E, they still contribute enough in the game and at combat that it doesn't hinder other characters or the campaign. And I think that's more of mechanics thing than a specific class-by-class analysis thing. Also, 4E gave us the ability to run fully non-magical groups and function extreamly well. This is something that I think those of us who enjoy 4E will pretty much expect from D&D:Next.
|
@Diffan:
I think some of the problems with the splatbook Base Classes has to do with the 3.5 transition. A lot of the early stuff (like Complete Warrior) looks much more powerful if you look at it in the context of 3.0. I think they hadn't realized how much of a power-shift the 3.5 class changes had been.
While not entirely corrected, the later books hold up much better to the core rules.
@Diffan:
I think some of the problems with the splatbook Base Classes has to do with the 3.5 transition. A lot of the early stuff (like Complete Warrior) looks much more powerful if you look at it in the context of 3.0. I think they hadn't realized how much of a power-shift the 3.5 class changes had been.
While not entirely corrected, the later books hold up much better to the core rules.
I just don't see it. The splat books with semi-decent classes are the PHB 2 (Duskblade and possibly knight for some level dips), Tome of Battle, and Heroes of Horror (Dread Necro is pretty strong as is the Archivist), and possibly the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which I have never used, so I have no idea about those classes. The Complete books on the other hand, were pretty bad. Even ones build for v3.5 such as the Complete Divine (Spirit Shaman and Favored Soul, really?) or the Complete Adventurer (Spellthief is just bad all around unless your fighting a lot of spellcasters OR creatures with SLAs and the Ninja....well I just won't go there because their Sudden Strike feature is horrid).
Actually, the better v3.5 non-core classes come outside the Complete Series and yet they all often play second fiddle to the heavy 3 (Druid, Cleric, Wizard). Obviously YMMV and I'm speaking from a purely mechanical stand point on how these classes work at their inteded purpose when compared to others. But it's been my experience that during a level 20 progression, spellcasters often take center stage approx 7-10 levels in and on up through 20th while the DM HAS to make aspirations via magical items for the non-magical guys to stay in the same ball-park, let alone play on the field toegther.
|
|
@Diffan:
I think some of the problems with the splatbook Base Classes has to do with the 3.5 transition. A lot of the early stuff (like Complete Warrior) looks much more powerful if you look at it in the context of 3.0. I think they hadn't realized how much of a power-shift the 3.5 class changes had been.
While not entirely corrected, the later books hold up much better to the core rules.
I just don't see it. The splat books with semi-decent classes are the PHB 2 (Duskblade and possibly knight for some level dips), Tome of Battle, and Heroes of Horror (Dread Necro is pretty strong as is the Archivist), and possibly the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which I have never used, so I have no idea about those classes. The Complete books on the other hand, were pretty bad. Even ones build for v3.5 such as the Complete Divine (Spirit Shaman and Favored Soul, really?) or the Complete Adventurer (Spellthief is just bad all around unless your fighting a lot of spellcasters OR creatures with SLAs and the Ninja....well I just won't go there because their Sudden Strike feature is horrid).
Actually, the better v3.5 non-core classes come outside the Complete Series and yet they all often play second fiddle to the heavy 3 (Druid, Cleric, Wizard). Obviously YMMV and I'm speaking from a purely mechanical stand point on how these classes work at their inteded purpose when compared to others. But it's been my experience that during a level 20 progression, spellcasters often take center stage approx 7-10 levels in and on up through 20th while the DM HAS to make aspirations via magical items for the non-magical guys to stay in the same ball-park, let alone play on the field toegther.
Aren't we agreeing here? I suspect most of the Complete classes were developed during 3.0 or while 3.5 was still being edited, so they "feel" more akin in power to 3.0 base classes (while still shying away from overpowering them). As I said, the later books were more comfortable with the 3.5 system and the classes correspondingly got a boost in comparative power.
Perhaps "much more" was a bit of an overstatement. ;)
Side-note: I still do not understand why they introduced a mechanic that had the same effect as sneak attack but with a completely different operation. It just caused confusion and extra text in later books.
Doom.
Not because Monte Cook left, but even more doom now.
Truth be told, when the lead designer leaves the project midrun, somethings actually wrong. Monte is already famous for his work on 3E, being on 5E would glorify him if 5E was a sucess and would put the guy among names like Gygax and Arneson. Some people put him there already.
If he is leaving, well, all leads us to believe that 5E will not be a sucess.
It is a fact that many players were interested on 5E solely because of his presence and now those people are no longer following it.
I do have mixed feelings about 5E.
1 - It is doomed. It proposed something already impossible on itself. And if I had any hope of that happening, now that Monte is gone, its even more doomed.
2 - I hope its a 4E boardgame again. Honestly, 3E folks got pathfinder, but whats gonna happen to those 4E folks if 5E is not what they expect? Given the nature of 4E, if 5E doesnt please them, theres not a publisher that will give support to their 4E games.
3 - I dont mind if the brand dies. The game lives through Pathfinder. Many people defend that they want 5E to sucess because it is after all D&D and thats how new folks get into RPGs.
Well, if the D&D name fades, I am sure the Pathfinder name will rise and we will be there to get new folks into RPGs.
Not seen it myself, but the reviews I read from the Pathfinder Begginner Box are always more positive than those from the D&D red box.
At least it will show companies like paizo what happens to companies who mess with their brands.
Aren't we agreeing here? I suspect most of the Complete classes were developed during 3.0 or while 3.5 was still being edited, so they "feel" more akin in power to 3.0 base classes (while still shying away from overpowering them). As I said, the later books were more comfortable with the 3.5 system and the classes correspondingly got a boost in comparative power.
Perhaps "much more" was a bit of an overstatement. ;)
Side-note: I still do not understand why they introduced a mechanic that had the same effect as sneak attack but with a completely different operation. It just caused confusion and extra text in later books.
Lol, I think we are. I guess I just had a brain-fart. The Complete books came out so long ago, I sort of lumped ALL of 3E's splatbooks into one big sum instead of a year-by-year progression. But your correct, the early complete books with classes in them were under-powered intentionally because the designers didn't want them to overshadow the Core classes.
I believe it was Mike Mearls or someone who handled a lot of 3E supplements (perhaps Rich Baker? I forget) who had a big blog post about making the Complete Classes more 'on-par' with the core classes. I think he gave bumps to the Hexblade, more hexing attempts or strong mechanics or more spells or something. And a few others got the same treatment too.
The Scout's Skirmish ability is something I liked. The mechanic was simple (move 10 feet, gain a bonus to DMG) but then they took martial weapons away from him, so he could only skirmish with shortbows and simple melee weapons? It practially said "PLease make the the 'official' ranger! Pretty Please?!" And if someone wants to play Complete Adventurer Ninja, I most often just give him the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability and throw out the Sudden Strike feature, which is just weird in complexity.
I didn't know WotC actually scheduled a date to end 4E products? What, pray tell, was that date exactly? Or, realistically, how long does a product have to be in circulation to be considered a success or a failure? 3E and by that extention v3.5 lasted approx 7 1/2 years. So if 4E lasted until say...the summer of 2014, would that make it any better THEN that they put out D&D:Next? Personally, I think 5 years is a pretty long run for a game, espically a game with so much dissentient behavior of the overall gaming community.
There proably wasn't a scheduled end to the line in terms of a hard date, but likely a triggering moment when sales fell below a certain level. However, I consider it highly unlikely that after editions lasting almost a decade, or more (11 years, 11 years and 8 years for the first three editions), that WotC would choose to retire 4e after just five years (or, effectively, four, since they knew that after the announcement interest in current 4e products would effectively die off) if they had a choice. In fact, they're going to be launching a big 4e-powered MMORPG (NEVERWINTER) just a few months before 4e is retired, which presumably was not their original intention.
As for the best time for 5e/Next, I actually think it is now. I'm sure even the most ardent 4e fans would agree that, no matter the quality of the game, WotC's handling of the situation has not been optimum, and has led to a broken fanbase and the creation of their own greatest rival. Letting the current situation continue on for another two or three years wouldn't help at all. WotC taking emergency action now to try to repair the damage of the last few years is laudable, but as you say may be too little, too late.
I beg to differ, mainly because I don't think the Devs or management at Hasbro/WotC are that stupid. For one, they would gain absolutley nothing by going back to a 3E-style or mechanics baseline, for two reasons:
Oh, I agree, and I think WotC have pointed out this issue to Hasbro. The 4e fanbase may be smaller - or at least not as profitable - than the 3e one, but it is nevertheless their current market, the people currently playing the game and paying money for the books. To write them off would be a huge mistake, especially as many of the 3e fanbase has decamped to Paizo and might not return. Making a product very similar to one already in the market which has a years-long head start and alienates the customers you do have is bad business (as compared to Paizo's judgement in creating a game that continued an existing paradigm just as official support for that system was dropped).
The point I was making is that Hasbro is ultimately more concerned about the bottom dollar. I've seen their behaviour with regards to the TRANSFORMERS fanbase in recent years and it's quite an education in how ruthless a massive company can be in pursuit of money. If Hasbro thought it was more financially viable to abandon 4e and return to 3e, or a further derivative version of it, they would do so with little hesitation, no matter what complaints would be heard from WotC or the fans.
My question is - at what point do people simply tire of buying game upgrades and supplements. It seems like 5E just came about too fast to bring on consumer fervor. (That said, I hope Paizo isn't planning a Pathfinder 1.5 anytime in the foreseeable future!)
It depends on the people. Then again, I tend not to buy every last supplement released, so perhaps I'm less "wedded" to a particular edition than others may be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know WotC actually scheduled a date to end 4E products? What, pray tell, was that date exactly? Or, realistically, how long does a product have to be in circulation to be considered a success or a failure? 3E and by that extention v3.5 lasted approx 7 1/2 years. So if 4E lasted until say...the summer of 2014, would that make it any better THEN that they put out D&D:Next? Personally, I think 5 years is a pretty long run for a game, espically a game with so much dissentient behavior of the overall gaming community.There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.Well, 4e is being canned years ahead of schedule, so clearly someone somewhere has accepted it has failed (or at least underperformed). The question is whether that realisation came from Hasbro or from WotC themselves.
4e will have lasted only 3 years.
And Scott Rouse says that 4e should have lasted 8-10 years. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316069-wizards-coast-seeks-unity-new-edit ion-7.html#post5769720
2e was ended because of financial problems.
3.x was ended because it didn't bring in enough revenues. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315975-wizards-coast-dungeons-dragons-ins ider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html
5e is very much a sign that 4e wasn't a financial success or under performed. Which doesn't mean 4e wasn't a quality product. Just that not enough people bought it.
Edit: Dang, links aren't linking.
I want quick prep and am most interested by 5E's aim for the ability to play D&D in an hour. If they achieve that, I'll probably play it, even if they continue their focus on digital product (my main source of trepidation).
I'm totally not a 4e player, but back when I was on the market for an rpg, quick play time and ease of preparation were certainly 4th's biggest selling points for me. And they're even greater selling points now, since I know of quite a few people who would probably like to game but would never stand for even a 3-hour session--high school esl students, nerdy adults who don't care to become lifestyle gamers, my girlfriend, etc. I would love, love, love to be able to set up a game with these people, but it's going to have to be a game that's simple and quick.
So, monte or no monte, I have high hopes for fifth, even if it winds up including some elements that I don't like.
And Scott Rouse says that 4e should have lasted 8-10 years. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316069-wizards-coast-seeks-unity-new-edit ion-7.html#post5769720
2e was ended because of financial problems.
3.x was ended because it didn't bring in enough revenues. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315975-wizards-coast-dungeons-dragons-ins ider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html
5e is very much a sign that 4e wasn't a financial success or under performed. Which doesn't mean 4e wasn't a quality product. Just that not enough people bought it.
Edit: Dang, links aren't linking.
Linkified.
The VTT is still in the procsess, which is sad since it was something that they said was going to be in effect......like 5 years ago. However, DDI has lived up to most of it's potential with the Character Builder and Adventure Tools and it's the first time I actually used Dragon or Dungeon magazines. I knew the VTT was going to be hard to get going, so I pretty much wrote it off.
They now have the VT or Virtual Table. It's in beta. Very different from what was presented at GenCon. Not in 3d and no rules integration. It is edition neutral so you have to do a lot of stuff "manually". There doesn't seem to be a lot of enthousiasm with it.
I thought the edition neutral thing would make people happier, that way they can use whatever they like with the tool? I, myself, have no need for it but I think as technology gets better and video become more intregral with the internet, it could serve as a pretty neat tool 5 years down the road.
Depends on people, I guess.
The rules integrated would have made a lot of things simpler, like calculating damage to monsters for a Fireball or just condition tracking (lots of those in 4e).
A really advance system would have added interesting options too. Like taking into account initiative or letting someone know they can use an immediate action because X happened.
The VTT had a big potential, was the corner stone of 4e's marketing, help people make battle maps and could have changed gaming (even for people who face each other, this would have speed up combat). But they over promised and under delivered.
Greatness or mega fail? I cant and wont pass judgement before i see stuff in print and try it out. Saying categorically that one will/will not play because of x/y rumors and/or based on interweb "wisom" has never gotten me anywhere good.
While I wait for stuff in print, ill keep reading various blog post and behind the scenes studf that wotc put out.
I did not like, nor did my players, 4th ed at all so I am hoping it looks alot different from that. I also hope they have learned from the failures of the various digital endeavours and avoid that like the plague in 5th....or the very least make sure it works before anouncing it as the best thing since slices bread.
As for the modular aspects....well that can be either a big hit or a big miss, part of me is dreading it...but at the same time part of me is intrigued about it, since my group rarely uses the more esoteric rules in Pathfinder anyways despite many many attempts to teach them. So if a system can be constructed like Legos, that sounds interesting.
The whole docus on 1 hour modules seem a tad worrying to me....i am not the type of dm that has the time to write adventures for my players....and the modules they published for 4th where just horrid.
Buuuuut we love our pathfinder so 5th would have to really be awesome to catch out attention....
I did not like, nor did my players, 4th ed at all so I am hoping it looks alot different from that. I also hope they have learned from the failures of the various digital endeavours and avoid that like the plague in 5th....or the very least make sure it works before anouncing it as the best thing since slices bread.
I hear you on the digital part, hopefully they'll keep shut about future endeavors until such a time when they can produce such things in a timely manner. Saying "Hey, we'll have a Great virtual table for your games soon!" and not having one til almost 4 years later is bad. Announcements such as "Hey, we're planning on creating a virtual table in the near future, and we'll keep you posted about it's progress as it unfolds." is much better and dosen't give any the expectation of it being something within a few months. As far as 4E designs going into D&D:Next, i'm sure there will be some elements, though I can only speculate on what those were. Hopefully we'll have options to use martial maneuvers and stances or they'll actually create good examples of Skill Challenges that DON'T stink, or they'll keep the +1/2 level progression instead of a different progression with evey single class.
As for the modular aspects....well that can be either a big hit or a big miss, part of me is dreading it...but at the same time part of me is intrigued about it, since my group rarely uses the more esoteric rules in Pathfinder anyways despite many many attempts to teach them. So if a system can be constructed like Legos, that sounds interesting.
The whole docus on 1 hour modules seem a tad worrying to me....i am not the type of dm that has the time to write adventures for my players....and the modules they published for 4th where just horrid.
The modular part seems to be the big selling ticket. I've seen modular games and if it's simple with varying ways to make it work differently, then that's a BIG plus. If you want a Dark Sun campaign and want to make non-magical healing an option then make a quick plug-in rule that does that aspect. If you want technology in a fantasy game, here are some quick plug-in rules that can be added straight to your current campaign. If you want wide-scale Army and War rules to do battle on a grand scale, here's some modular rules that not only allow you to easily control armies but how your PCs actually help with these aspects. Basically they should keep the main part of the Core Rules unchanging and add stuff or take off stuff from that core aspect. If they do that, it'll be a big winner IMO.
As for the 1 hour adventures, I don't think they mean it's intended to only run 1 hour and your done. I'm sure they have ways of breaking it down to that 1-hour window if that's what your group only has time for and thus, keeping combat quick and decisive while allowing your character to explore and talk/integrate into the setting of the advntuer within that time fram. If you want to extend that to say 2, 3, 4 or 5 hours, that shouldn't be a problem either.
The only problem I have with the modular approach is the thought of a DM trying to set out rules for his game and the players saying things like "Why can't I use this race/class/power? It's right here in the rule book!"
Such an approach might well pit DM and player against each other over choices for the campaign.
I'd rather see a basic rulebook with nothing but the core rules, and the optional modules in another publication, so that the DM can pick and choose without the grief. (And that would make WotC's beancounters happy--extra revenue.)
This has always been something the DM and player had to go through. And it's a reason they're putting in Class/Race rarity, to give DMs a crutch to say "No" to things they don't like or want in their campaign. Personally, I'm the kind of DM that allows A LOT of leeway when it comes to character options. I dont like restricting anyone on their choice so long as it doesn't interfere with the others at the table OR create problems within the campaign. A DM should, at the very start of any adventure, note to the players what's acceptable and what isn't. So if a DM wants to run a campaign setting where the elven race has simply perished, then they're off the table. They don't need some guide or rule 'allowing' them to say "No".
But a DM should also consider players choices in an equally level-headed manner and with respect. If a Player wants to play a Drow because it looks cool or has something interesting with the way it works or the flavor of it, a DM should say no JUST because it's considered by many on the surface to be an "evil" race. Weight the reasons, perhaps asking for a strong background as to why he's on the surface and see how it plays out. And this process branches out to other aspects such as class, feats, themes, magical weapons, etc.
Also, I've known plenty of DMs that strictly cut off certain supplemental parts of D&D such as no Psionics, no Tome of Battle, no Unearthed Arcana, no Bards or Paladins, no Drow or any other +1 or higher Level Adjustment, no Warforged, no Assassins, and my personal favorite: No supplements that he doesn't already own himself (so if you want to use it, you can purchase it for him). While I feel these limitations are immature or unrequired based upon his ungiving attitude, they're well within his right to enact and I can accept that or leave. Mostly I thought of it as a challenge and sought out exploit the options he did allow to break his game and end encounters with a round or two. Naturally it didn't turn out well and we caught him cheating multipe times and he lost his group. But the modular aspect isn't there for players or DM's to exploit, it's there to give options to both parties to make a great game.
Not to mention that character creation time is exponentially increased with each new book added to the mix. If a character dies in the game and the party isn't going to (or can't) get him resurrected, the player is out of the action for three or four hours because he's consulting six books to put together a character.
I think the character builder was one of the few really well accepted features of 4E (I'd go so far as to say it's the reason my group prefers 4E to PF). The addition of extra books and extra options is entirely mitigated by that, in my experience - you can set it to only show you options/equipment/feats/etc that you are proficient in and eligible for, plus it lists some 'suggestions' (although they are sometimes a little odd).
It's a pain having it online only - the mainly cited negative. Nonetheless, if they continue with such an easy-to-use and well maintained tool as the current character builder, I dont think number of options is a significant issue.
I don't know why, and I could be entirely wrong, but I got the impression that they weren't going to do the online thing with 5E.
Oh. That would surprise me, since it seems like a pretty reliable stream of revenue.
if WotC finally arrive in the 21st century D&D Next might be a winner.
but fom the way the Playtest is run it appears they are still stuck on old fashined IP think.
The OGL was a great leap forward, it's a shame they ditched it together with 3.5
Paizo picked it up just fine and made Pathfinder.
"We are entering into this design with a real sense of modularity, letting people pick and choose what elements of D&D to use."
this sounds sooo much like "each element to choose and pick will be an extra book to buy"
Well, it doesn't seem (this far) to be anything other than a retro-clone done in-house. I understand that they would be hesitant to show off their cool stuff in a playtest, which would explain this, but still. If it's just the same old races, with the same old abilities (whether you call them powers or spells or fnurgs), killing the same old monsters, colour me uninterested. Let's face it, I have quite enough of those systems already. If it goes back to 3.X, that's nice, but it better have something more to offer than what I have on my shelves already. What, then?
SERIOUS SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT OF SETTINGS, mainly.
Yeah, I get it. 4th edition had Hasbro bean-counters check that FR supplements sold worse than the main setting guides, so they split them and added an adventure for shame. Then they did the same for Eberron, Dark Sun... Truly pathetic. I bought that crap once, not doing it again. Do your maths, WotC. Find a way to provide steady support for good, innovative settings, and my money is yours. Keep trying to resell rulebooks to me and you get nothing.
It may also be that I am not their target demographic. So be it.