Time between editons has been beaten into submission already. Why not look at other RPGs for how many editons they have gone through? Traveller is already on 5e, Hero System is on 5e, and Shadowrun which didn't have a 1st edtion until 1989 is already on a 5e. To determine if WoTC is going to fast, you have to judge them against their peers.
|
Well, the only other major RPG I play is Call of Cthulhu. And while it's on it's sixth edition, I'd be hard pressed to actually name many major differences between different editions. You can easily pick up an adventure published for 1st edition CoC and play it using the 6th edition rules, or vice versa.
Well, the only other major RPG I play is Call of Cthulhu. And while it's on it's sixth edition, I'd be hard pressed to actually name many major differences between different editions. You can easily pick up an adventure published for 1st edition CoC and play it using the 6th edition rules, or vice versa.
Does that mean they were just releasing new editions just to sell books? The changes WotC has implemented have warranted new editions.
|
|
Well, the only other major RPG I play is Call of Cthulhu. And while it's on it's sixth edition, I'd be hard pressed to actually name many major differences between different editions. You can easily pick up an adventure published for 1st edition CoC and play it using the 6th edition rules, or vice versa.Does that mean they were just releasing new editions just to sell books? The changes WotC has implemented have warranted new editions.
I doubt it, because most poeple that play CoC haven't bothered to buy new editions of the book. And they've made minor changes:
All skills now have a minimum 1% success rate.
Cthulhu was toned down from having Attack: Devours 1d6 investigators per round to simply having attacks that will almost certainly kill at least 3-4 investigators per round.
Probably some others that I haven't noticed.
Difference largely seems to be that Chaosium considers every slight reoranization, etc to be a new edition. I figure if TSR/WotC figured things like Chaosium, D&D would be on it's 10th edition or so.
Difference largely seems to be that Chaosium considers every slight reoranization, etc to be a new edition. I figure if TSR/WotC figured things like Chaosium, D&D would be on it's 10th edition or so.
So what you are saying is that WoTC is showing restraint where their peers are not?
In 2008, WotC released the fourth edition. Now, just a couple of years later, it seems those of you that play the system say they are already at the v4.5 point. I have to ask...how far can 5th edition be behind? They already have plans to release a 4th edition Rules Compendium...the equivalent 3rd edition book was pretty much the last non-campaign setting specific book released.
I predict 5th edition D&D by 2012.
Except we're not at the 4.5 point. The core rules of the game we play today are almost indistinguishable from the core rules of the game we were playing a year and a half ago. The Rules Compendium is a terrible example, too, since we already have WotC designers talking about a set of products that will come out after it does.
I'd be startled if 5th Edition hit that early.
Thoughts?I'm with you 100% on this. While updates and errata are a fact of life, sometimes (and I think this about say Windows) if the attitude is, "put out what we have as we can always fix it later".
I'm old school, for me P&P = P&P with online support. We have had intra-edition wars during a game due to "who had the latest errata" arguments. Does the DM have to right to say "I'm using the old errata (or original) rule as the new one impacts on aspect A or B of my game"? 4e requires access to D&D Insider in a lot of ways. I like D&D Insider but I hope it's not the forum WotC choose to use to fix problems that arise simply from lack of play testing (i.e. making the customers the beta-testers).
S.
I suspect it pretty much is the way errors get fixed. Truth is besides a certain amount of pre-release teaser classes and such no one does any extensive play testing for new material added to the game. Pretty much the method for catching errors is eyeballing the new material and hoping that this is good enough - which it often is but often the designer had not realized what this ability will do when its combo'd with two other abilities he had not considered. The guys on the character Op board will however eventually stumble on this killer combo.
Even beyond this play testing is not all that strong a way of catching problems because every group has a little bit of a different style of play. Some things are fine under certain styles of play but break under others - or they may be fine in many campaigns but damage the game by making certain campaigns non-viable (maybe a defensive style campaign makes certain 'consecrate' type powers to strong, the presumption could have been that players are exploring dungeons so they can't use these powers very often - but suddenly that's thrown out the window and the build breaks the campaign.
Bottom line is there is little play testing actually being done and its unlikely extensive testing would really solve things.
I'm really beginning to think the idea of an "Edition" is something WotC wants to go away.
You don't need a new "edition" if you can almost instanly update a system through the DDI.
A while im not a huge 4e fan I don't see a problem with a online/electronic version of the game. I have a huge PDF database on my home computer.
I know many 4e Fans don't like the comparison but the DDI erratta updates smell like MMO patches....which really isnt a bad thing seeing how WotC is closer to its fanbase than the big MMO companies.
I wonder what the RPG world would look like if 3.x had this kind of electronic support from its inception....
Eric.
If would defintely be easier to compare products and rules if they are all electronic and maintained in an easily accessible format. With 3.5 and RPGxplorer, I was even willing to do the work myself to maintain a database of classes and/or rules.
I just wish WOTC would find a solution to a PDF distribution. I would pay for the DDI, and have PDF as backup.
I just don't see the sense of lugging around massive rules books for a game, when netbook prices are reasonable, and it is easier to search using eletronic tools.
It's not at all fair to compare how much errata 4th edition has compared to 2nd. Editions 2 and earlier did not attempt to create a unified rules system like 4E. It was expected that each table would play the game with different interpretations and add-ins; "rulings, not rules" as the old-schoolers among us like to say. The case could probably be made either way with 3.X, but I ultimately have to lump it in with the prior editions due to WotC's hands-off approach with the OGL, Paizo handling the magazines and then all the 3PP content. They simply weren't trying to manage such a large ruleset on their own.
4th edition is distinctly definitive in its attempts to create a play style where you can drop in with any group anywhere and play the same game in almost entirely the same way. The fair comparison would be to compare WotC's errata with similar games from different publishers - Steve Jackson's GURPS, White Wolf's World of Darkness, maybe even the Champions system.
(placeholder for possible future edits)
(placeholder for possible future edits)
I'm not sure if you know this or not, but you lose the ability to edit (or delete) a post one after to post it.
(placeholder for possible future edits)I'm not sure if you know this or not, but you lose the ability to edit (or delete) a post one after to post it.
You've got roughly an hour before the edit button is removed, but you are correct.
I'm really beginning to think the idea of an "Edition" is something WotC wants to go away.
You don't need a new "edition" if you can almost instanly update a system through the DDI.
A while im not a huge 4e fan I don't see a problem with a online/electronic version of the game. I have a huge PDF database on my home computer.
I know many 4e Fans don't like the comparison but the DDI erratta updates smell like MMO patches....which really isnt a bad thing seeing how WotC is closer to its fanbase than the big MMO companies.
I wonder what the RPG world would look like if 3.x had this kind of electronic support from its inception....
Eric.
They seem to have that model available as an option but they have not really jumped on board with it. I think the core of this type of model is online rules so that the rules can be constantly updated and fixed. We don't really have that. Instead we seem to have tools that are all offshoots of the rules but the rules themselves all only exist comprehensibly in print.
That said they may go down this path - I'd certainly support them if they did as I'm bored with 'editions'. Better to take one set of rulers and constantly tweak it as well as provide support in terms of adventures and campaign settings and have us all pay for this via subscriptions.
Not so sure its best for WotCs bottom line however. If you think about it they kind of have their cake and are eating it as well in the current model. Most subscribe AND buy many of the books. Why give up the profit from the book sales?
I suppose the benefit would be in not having editions and thus making money off subscribers for longer then the books themselves remain profitable - plus some percentage of your customer base does not drop out with every edition switch.
That said not so sure how long they could keep it going...but then I doubt anyone knows the answer to that - its never been done. Maybe they really could keep many thousands of subscribers for 20+ years.
i do plan on keeping my ddi subscription as long as they keep updating the content. and i plan on buying most of the books. i also wish they would figure out the pdf thing.
i liked the original idea of having the books live on the site, with a code embeded into the book to open access to the book itself. but then, it then they would find a way to restrict the character generator sets to what you have bought. but i would like to have online access to the books. i love that i have all these dragon and dungeon magazines in my computer.
You've got roughly an hour before the edit button is removed, but you are correct.(placeholder for possible future edits)I'm not sure if you know this or not, but you lose the ability to edit (or delete) a post one after to post it.
I thought I typed "one hour after you post it." But yes that is what I meant, thank you.
I'm really beginning to think the idea of an "Edition" is something WotC wants to go away.
You don't need a new "edition" if you can almost instanly update a system through the DDI.
A while im not a huge 4e fan I don't see a problem with a online/electronic version of the game. I have a huge PDF database on my home computer.
I know many 4e Fans don't like the comparison but the DDI erratta updates smell like MMO patches....which really isnt a bad thing seeing how WotC is closer to its fanbase than the big MMO companies.
I wonder what the RPG world would look like if 3.x had this kind of electronic support from its inception....
Eric.
Sadly, I have to agree with onesickgnome - what we saw this month was not errata - errata fixes typos, corrects run on sentances, makes a few rules clarifications. What we saw this month was a "patch" - I even said so in my Friday blog.
There were sweeping rules changes which drastically affected how many feat and power combinations worked together. It was in essence a re-balancing of the classes, and that's not errata.
Sadly, I agree with more of the changes that were made - I just wish they had been made about 6-8 months ago. And I certainly hope they don't keep making changes like this - unless it keeps us from having to deal with 5E longer. If that's the case, I guess I'll suffer through more patches.
I'm really beginning to think the idea of an "Edition" is something WotC wants to go away.
You don't need a new "edition" if you can almost instanly update a system through the DDI.
A while im not a huge 4e fan I don't see a problem with a online/electronic version of the game. I have a huge PDF database on my home computer.
I know many 4e Fans don't like the comparison but the DDI erratta updates smell like MMO patches....which really isnt a bad thing seeing how WotC is closer to its fanbase than the big MMO companies.
I wonder what the RPG world would look like if 3.x had this kind of electronic support from its inception....
Eric.
Sadly, I have to agree with onesickgnome - what we saw this month was not errata - errata fixes typos, corrects run on sentances, makes a few rules clarifications. What we saw this month was a "patch" - I even said so in my Friday blog.
There were sweeping rules changes which drastically affected how many feat and power combinations worked together. It was in essence a re-balancing of the classes, and that's not errata.
Sadly, I agree with more of the changes that were made - I just wish they had been made about 6-8 months ago. And I certainly hope they don't keep making changes like this - unless it keeps us from having to deal with 5E longer. If that's the case, I guess I'll suffer through more patches.
Truth is I agree with you that its a patch - I just happen to love the fact that they have chosen to go down the route of patching the game instead of just letting the imbalances continue without addressing them ala 3rd.
I don't think it will have all that much effect on the timing of 5th - that will come about when some critical threshold of sales is eventually lost and WotC decides that there is more money to be made putting out a new edition then there is by continuing to support the old edition.
I suppose that constantly patching the game should, in theory, push that date back - as it will keep the game seeming more play balanced and polished for longer and thus less groups will become frustrated and abandon the game for something more playable. Plus there just won't be as much to 'fix' and therefore it may be harder to sell a new edition - that might make them more cautious and push the date back a bit. But I don't think that either of these will be all that significant in the grand scheme of things and in reality they'll put out a new edition when their cost benefit analysis says its time to do so.
Sadly, I have to agree with onesickgnome - what we saw this month was not errata - errata fixes typos, corrects run on sentances, makes a few rules clarifications. What we saw this month was a "patch" - I even said so in my Friday blog.
There were sweeping rules changes which drastically affected how many feat and power combinations worked together. It was in essence a re-balancing of the classes, and that's not errata.
Sadly, I agree with more of the changes that were made - I just wish they had been made about 6-8 months ago. And I certainly hope they don't keep making changes like this - unless it keeps us from having to deal with 5E longer. If that's the case, I guess I'll suffer through more patches.
Well, I downloaded the pdf a few days ago and just looked at it today. You will notice that they do not label it as errata but rather as a rules update, so I would expect more than just errata from it to begin with.
The document also includes all previous updates, so the 88 page length is somewhat deceiving. For example, if you scroll to the DMG section, there are just older updates listed and no new updates to that book at all.
|
The document also includes all previous updates, so the 88 page length is somewhat deceiving. For example, if you scroll to the DMG section, there are just older updates listed and no new updates to that book at all.Yeah, I think the amount of updates isn't quite as extreme as the 88 pages might make one think - that includes all the updates for all the books, and the format features both the change itself, the reason for it, and complete reprints of the statblocks with the new updates. You could easily condense it into a much smaller document. Even the changes for the PHB, which are the most numerous... only really come to 1-2% of the book. I hear people talking about this making the book obselete, and I really just don't see it...
I'm glad they do a running update document. I would hate to have to keep looking for older errata/updates to find previous changes. I hope they continue to do as they have done. Ideally of course such changes wouldn't be required but I guess nothing is perfect and if the changes actually improve the game so be it.
S.
|
Not so sure its best for WotCs bottom line however. If you think about it they kind of have their cake and are eating it as well in the current model. Most subscribe AND buy many of the books. Why give up the profit from the book sales?
Well, speaking as a boring accountant, if the return on capital for the electronic stuff exceeds the return on capital for the book stuff (or indeed, other activities in the Hasbro group), it makes more sense to give up books and concentrate on electronic media (or indeed vica versa). I'm not saying they are necessarily looking at it that way, or indeed that return on capital runs that way (although the electronic stuff requires a few guys in an office while the books have to be printed, shipped, and quite possibly returned if they don't sell, and are likely more capital intensive in that way), but generally speaking it is better business to invest in what gives most profit per unit of capital outlay.
|
|
Viable, yes. As viable, maybe not. Frankly, I suspect it is more complicated than I set out - I think it is really difficult to sell at the present time a tabletop RPG without books, because of the nature of the audience. But how much relative effort they might put in may change over time. The reappearance of the Red Box might actually be a way of getting attracting a newish audience that can be expected to go online for the full experience (I say this as a random idea, not because I have any knowledge of what WotC have in mind).
The content isn't really the issue, what we are talking about to some extent is how the product gets distributed. Physical books are much more expensive to distribute that pdfs or similar digital media, even if they have the same content. If you could cut that aspect out and get the same audience and take-up as they would for the books, I imagine they would do it in a heartbeat. At the moment, the books are the gateway into D&D so I don't think they can dispense with that aspect yet, but the interaction of print and electronic media is evolving rapidly as we speak (or type).