Saw a disturbing message on official D&D forums today...


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Essentials isn't 4.5. Essentials and 3.5 are nowhere similar in the slightest.

The incompatibility of 3.0 and 3.5 gets exaggerated beyond all reason. What 3.0 -> 3.5 did mean (for WotC, as opposed to D20 licensees) was a ton of content got reissued, different enough to get people to buy it again. Both addressed design issues that had become apparent since the edition came out. Both made large alterations to the game's base classes (DDE to more of them in fact), even though if you wished you could still play the old classes without anything breaking in-system. That's sounding an awful lot like essentials to me. Likewise, both arrived very early in their edition's life cycle. Really. 3.5 and DDE have more in common than they have dissimilar, in terms of being mid-edition releases. Both have a lot more in common with each other than with 2E's Skills and Powers revamp, or even 1E's Unearthed Arcana.

Essentially, claiming they are "nowhere similar" is really disingenuous, and really just parroting the bruised reaction of a marketplace that held up Wizard's claim they wouldn't do 3.5 again as some sort of trophy and then got burned by a company (shockingly) doing much the same thing again, if better handled.

Where they have the biggest differences are that DDE was aggressively marketed as NOT being a rules changeover, even though it was, and the compatibility of 3.5E with 3E was downplayed, particular in Organized Play, whereas DDE's being billed as completely compatible even though it's sitting on top of a rules system that's been so altered since release that you can't play it official-style without 50+ pages of errata or an online tool. My point with that last sentence? If you want to play official 4E, as in sanctioned for Organized Play, you already couldn't play it with your released books before DDE even came out. Which is itself comparable to the RPGA's forced 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion, just coming about in a different fashion.

The effect of 3.5E on D20 is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and 4E's not in a comparable situation with licensees, so it won't happen.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blueluck wrote:
Paizo to publish a version of D&D 4th edition, but I would love for them to publish a Pathfinder 2nd Edition. In the sense that Pathfinder is version 3.75, that could have been what they were referring to.

Why? why would we need a 2nd edition game? And Pathfinder isn't D+D 3.75, it's Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Why? why would we need a 2nd edition game?

Why did we need all the changes in Pathfinder?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why did we need all the changes in Pathfinder?

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but so that Paizo would have rulebooks in print to support their setting material. And if you're going to reprint a game, why not revamp it while you're at it? Value added!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

No, I was being serious. A Pathfinder 2nd edition would be needed for the exact same reasons the Pathfinder changes from 3.5 were needed.


I follow Jason Bulmahn on Facebook.

His current focus projects appear to be;

1> Introductory book/game to Pathfinder.
2> An Oriental Expansion book with Ninja and Samurai.
3> A magic expansion with alternative rules for some new mage classes.

There are no plans to change the fundamental rules of a brand that is finally growing to the point that is selling as well as the WotC brand.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

TriOmegaZero wrote:
No, I was being serious. A Pathfinder 2nd edition would be needed for the exact same reasons the Pathfinder changes from 3.5 were needed.

I'd be down for it in another 5 years or so. I like new editions of my favorite game.

Unless I don't. Then I like different new editions of my favorite game by different publishers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh, I agree on the timeline thing. I just believe that while the ruleset will never be perfect, that is no excuse to leave it alone.


poisonarms wrote:

On the official WotC forums for D&D today, I saw a thread about 5th edition speculation and someone had this to say...

"I think I will put it this way. There is a better chance that Pathfinder will change over to 4th edition version sooner than the release of 5th edition."

!!!!

Tell me this will never happen, Paizo! Tell me everything is going to be alright!

I am sorry, Poisonarms, but I can't tell you that it will be all right. For most people on this world, it is definately not all right. In fact, it is pretty bad now, and it will only get worse. I am sorry...


ProfessorCirno wrote:

It's pretty much impossible.

Also 4e and Pathfinder are both great games.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!! Half that post is wrong and the other half is incorrect! Plus the half that was just made up by you and you've got 3 halves!!! Stop trying to fool us with your 3 1/2 statements!!!

*pulls tinfoil tighter*

The Exchange

<yawn>


Jadeite wrote:

Heroes of the Fallen Land and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom are great additions to the existing Player's Handbooks.

Monster Vault on the other hand is a great replacement for Monster Manual I.
Still, the Essential books are fully compatible with classic 4E, which is rather different from 3.0 and 3.5.

I'll pretty much agree with this statement. Of all the 4E books currently in print Monster Manual I is really the only book that is seriously showing its age having been essentially left behind by the errata. While it still technically works the monsters in it are simply too weak - they always where really, except maybe in a game with nothing but the first three books and, worse yet the design philosophy at the core of Monster Manual I was basically flawed. The monsters, especially the higher level ones and anything resembling a lieutenant or boss monster was overly simplistic. Starting from Monster Manual II and especially Monster Manual III we see monsters that not only are better balanced in their core statistics but are better designed on every level with a much clearer understanding that mook type monsters need to be simpler but that its important to have interesting and dynamic abilities attached to liutenant type monsters and boss type monsters need both more interesting and dynamic abilities but also must have a fairly significant number of powers, including ones for every type of action to keep them engaging. In particular a boss type monster, in 4E generally lasts about 8 rounds of combat and you want the monster doing something new and interesting on about 5 of those rounds in order to provide what amounts to the most 'fun' for your players who are facing this monster.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Jadeite wrote:

Heroes of the Fallen Land and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom are great additions to the existing Player's Handbooks.

Monster Vault on the other hand is a great replacement for Monster Manual I.
Still, the Essential books are fully compatible with classic 4E, which is rather different from 3.0 and 3.5.
I'll pretty much agree with this statement. Of all the 4E books currently in print Monster Manual I is really the only book that is seriously showing its age having been essentially left behind by the errata. While it still technically works the monsters in it are simply too weak - they always where really, except maybe in a game with nothing but the first three books and, worse yet the design philosophy at the core of Monster Manual I was basically flawed. The monsters, especially the higher level ones and anything resembling a lieutenant or boss monster was overly simplistic. Starting from Monster Manual II and especially Monster Manual III we see monsters that not only are better balanced in their core statistics but are better designed on every level with a much clearer understanding that mook type monsters need to be simpler but that its important to have interesting and dynamic abilities attached to liutenant type monsters and boss type monsters need both more interesting and dynamic abilities but also must have a fairly significant number of powers, including ones for every type of action to keep them engaging. In particular a boss type monster, in 4E generally lasts about 8 rounds of combat and you want the monster doing something new and interesting on about 5 of those rounds in order to provide what amounts to the most 'fun' for your players who are facing this monster.

Gotta agree, number 2 reason that made my friends stop playing 4E: Monsters from the first Monster Manual.

*They were plain, boring and tedious at the same time.
*Most of them didn't allow the PCs to show the few special abilities (or weakness) that make them different from other PCs.
*Almost all of them had what one of the designers proudly defined in a Dragon Magazine as "gotchaness": You charge against an archer-like mob, drawing AoOs, using your special abilities for extra movement... just to realize that the monster has got special abilities that make him as deadly in melee or close range as it is in far range, also known as "plans and tactics aren't worth your effort, just kill the nearest enemy".


Russ Taylor wrote:
Both made large alterations to the game's base classes (DDE to more of them in fact), even though if you wished you could still play the old classes without anything breaking in-system.

Uh, what?

3.5 literally changed the classes entirely.

Essentials added new classes.

If Essentials is a whole new edition, then so is the APG. Oh man, that came early in Pathfinder's age too! The signs just add up!

Quote:
Essentially, claiming they are "nowhere similar" is really disingenuous, and really just parroting the bruised reaction of a marketplace that held up Wizard's claim they wouldn't do 3.5 again as some sort of trophy and then got burned by a company (shockingly) doing much the same thing again, if better handled.

No, the problem is that people werehowling that 4.5 was "Just around the corner" since day 2 of 4e, and thus any book with a new and fresh set of rules was going to be announced as such.

Quote:
Where they have the biggest differences are that DDE was aggressively marketed as NOT being a rules changeover, even though it was, and the compatibility of 3.5E with 3E was downplayed, particular in Organized Play, whereas DDE's being billed as completely compatible even though it's sitting on top of a rules system that's been so altered since release that you can't play it official-style without 50+ pages of errata or an online tool. My point with that last sentence? If you want to play official 4E, as in sanctioned for Organized Play, you already couldn't play it with your released books before DDE even came out. Which is itself comparable to the RPGA's forced 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion, just coming about in a different fashion.

Name the rules change over.

Go.

I'm serious, name te rules in 4e that were changed. Here, name ten of them. That's not hard. I mean hell, just naming the twelve classes makes for twelve changes in 3.5.

There, that's my homework assignment for you. Name the changes in 4E that cause it to be another half-edition. I expect it on my internets by your next post.

Edit: Right, not all twelve classes changed only like nine or ten of them, we can add "most spells, weapon size rules, item materials" to replace them.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

It'd probably be best if you dial up the politeness of your tone if you want any further responses.

Go to:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf
123 pages of rules changes. So a lot more than the 50+ pages I guessed at.

23 of that's just in the PH. 12 more in the MM and DMG.

There's lots of rules systems revamped in that file. I'm not planning to go through that in detail, but I highlight some below. That comes back to what I said about not being able to play official 4E through the original 4E books (or indeed most any 4E book, as they're all loaded with game-affecting errata). It's a problem if you want to play LFR, and was a problem before D&D Essentials game out. Even things as basic to the game as conditions (a core element of 4E if there's any) have considerable changes between the original books and the game as it stands today.

Now as for class: you can play a 3.0 class just fine in 3.5E. There's nothing that substantive that changed beyond some skill shuffling. In 4E, wizards just flipped positions on telling you whether or not you could play with the old class rules or not. They still revised many of the core classes, something people complained a bunch about when it was done in 3.5E. I don't see a huge distinction between 3.0 and 3.5E having two different bards, and 4E and DDE having two different wizards, except that one system tells you it's ok to play with both in the same game.

Spells: I can't believe any 4E fan would complain about the 3.5E changes to spells, given how much of the 4E errata is changes to powers :)

Many more than 10 rules changed since 4E release:
Stealth
Skill challenges
Conditions (looks like 10 of them)
Racial stat bonuses
Charging (and quite a reversal that one was)
Every class's powers
Feats
Magic item changes all over the place
How damage types combine (major implications on builds)
Forced movement rules
Flight
Mounted combat
Damage by level targets and DC by level targets

Note that the powers, feat, and magic item changes aren't just fixing errors, they're often significant changes in game balance.

I'm not counting in that any of the optional changes, like using the improved monsters or more interesting versions of the classes.

I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books. That doesn't sound that different from the complaints about what 3.5E did to 3E ("I can't use my old products without work"), and it didn't even take D&D Essentials to cause it. The Essentials rules compendium does codify all these changes - for now - in a printed source, hence it's the equivalent of the .5 rules version (changes incorporated).

Marketing spin is marketing spin. 4E's undergone substantive changes across the whole spectrum of the game since release. In my opinion, the scope of errata plus the revised core material means the game's actually changed more from original printing than 3.0 did going to 3.5E, but that's just my opinion. Sure, you can still use an original printing MM, but in 3.5E, you could use the MM2 and FF just fine too, even without the small update documents. The biggest thing that would trip you up is probably DR, and that's simple to roll with.

But don't hand me 123 pages of rules pdates and tell me that hasn't made my printed books a pain to use, or that those aren't meaningful changes.

Dark Archive

But most of those changes were done long before the Essentials were released. And those documents are errata, not conversion guides.
Back in the 3.5 days, people complained that WotC didn't try to fix the game. Now people are complaining that they do ...
And one of the main reasons the errata is that long is that they reprint whole paragraphs in those document instead of just telling you what words to replace.

Dark Archive

poisonarms wrote:

On the official WotC forums for D&D today, I saw a thread about 5th edition speculation and someone had this to say...

"I think I will put it this way. There is a better chance that Pathfinder will change over to 4th edition version sooner than the release of 5th edition."

!!!!

Tell me this will never happen, Paizo! Tell me everything is going to be alright!

Why would Paizo want to do that?


Jadeite wrote:
But most of those changes were done long before the Essentials were released. And those documents are errata, not conversion guides.

Well, the argument is that the accumulated changes by the time Essentials came out was equivalent to a new edition. And there is something of truth there - one can't deny that changes have been made. But from what I've seen, both reading over the changes and regularly playing the game, they simply aren't as significant (for the most part) as even a handful of the changes in the 3.5 transition.

Here's the thing - 123 pages does sound like a lot. But keep in mind the format for errata these days is designed for readability and understanding - they both list the change itself, along with an explanation for it, along with a full reprinting of the power. Trim out those redundant elements and portray just the change - the same way they used to do it - and the size goes down significantly. Total errata down to 64 pages. PHB errata down to 12 pages.

If you also remove the changes that are simple typo corrections or the like, and the PHB Errata drops to just under 10 pages. Total errata comes in under 50 pages.

50 pages is still significant - but spread over around 30 books and 30 issues of the magazines? Over 10,000 pages of content?

In sheer quantity, compared to what is out there, I don't think it is especially overwhelming.

So the question becomes, have the changes been significant enough to completely change the game. Russ lists the biggest rules changes that come to mind:

Russ Taylor wrote:

Stealth

Skill challenges
Conditions (looks like 10 of them)
Racial stat bonuses
Charging (and quite a reversal that one was)
Every class's powers
Feats
Magic item changes all over the place
How damage types combine (major implications on builds)
Forced movement rules
Flight
Mounted combat
Damage by level targets and DC by level targets

Of the above... 3, maybe 4, are truly significant changes.

Skill challenges, yes, have been adjusted. Same with DC by level numbers. But both of these have little effect on the players of the game - it almost entirely deals with some math going on behind the scene.

Magic item changes are the most fundamental change to the game. Removal of crafting ability does affect players. Much of this, again, does take place behind the scenes - but yeah, there is something of a design change going on here.

Stealth. Perhaps the only regularly referenced rule that saw serious revision - and much of that pretty much right at the start of the game.

What else?

Conditions, forced movement, damage types? These did not change in any fundamental way - they cleared up the language and had some minor clarifications that mainly just left things the way most people assumed it worked anyway.

Mounted combat and flight? Slightly more significant changes... made to areas of the rules that really don't come up that often. And, again, the changes were not that big.

Charging? 'Quite a reversal'? How so? Oh, so now you can charge to adjacent squares with your reach weapon. Really not that huge a deal.

The real question is what changes occured that actually mattered to the characters themselves. When 3.5 happened, you potentially had to make significant and fundamental changes to your character. Class features were altered. Skills vanishes or got folded into other skills. You gained or lost skill points, armor proficiencies. And spells went through all sorts of changes, including levels they were at and the full details of the spells themselves.

So, what compares to that? You mention racial ability scores, feats, and powers.

The ability score changes don't remove any options for anyone - all characters remain valid. They are the equivalent of trading in one racial power for a new one - options we've seen in many other players. I seem to recall Pathfinder offering something along those lines in its APG.

Feat changes. More significant, especially with Essentials. But most changes tend to be tweaks - not the sort of change that can affect entire builds. Not usually, at least - there may be some here, but they are few and far between.

And, finally, powers. Many powers have been changed. But again - how significant are those changes? How much does it change a character if I don't get to add my str bonus to one encounter power, or if another one lets me shift a few extra squares? Yes, it is a change.

Yet... compare it to spells.

You did so, in fact: "Spells: I can't believe any 4E fan would complain about the 3.5E changes to spells, given how much of the 4E errata is changes to powers :)"

But keep in mind - each class in 4E has its own list of powers. Changing one power affects one occasional character of a single class. Changing a spell can affect every class that has that spell on its spell list. Especially for the most popular spells.

More than that, those changes could fundamentally alter builds and even the party as a whole. Haste changes from giving extra spells to being a party buff. Bull's Strength and the like have duration trimmed down, potentially changing entire styles of adventuring.

I can't think of a change to a single power - I can't think of changes to two dozen powers - that have as much impact on 4E characters as the changes to Haste or the stat buff spells.

Show up at a 4E event with your completely PHB1 character - one that has undergone the most substantial changes, say, a Tiefling Rogue all about Stealth. If the others even notice any difference, they'll maybe point out 2 or 3 powers for you to change (which can be done on the spot) and a quick explanation of the new stealth rules. Done.

Show up at a 3.5 event with a 3.0 character, and you could find everything about your character altered. Your animal companions gone or changed. Different skills to use. Your most important spells working completely differently. Stuff that requires substantial time to sit down and truly recreate your character.

That, for me, is the big difference.

Like I said - I'm not going to complain that the game hasn't had any changes at all since launch. But... what, maybe 90% of the PHB remains unchanged? Of what has changed, maybe half of it actually require a change made to a build or character? That isn't obsolete at all. Even if the changes affect you, DDI certainly isn't "enforced" given that the errata is available for free.

Now, all that said... if the errata is substantial enough to bother someone, thats entirely fair. I like that WotC works to fix the game, but I'd also be happy if they got things right from the start. For some people, that isn't too their taste, and that's a completely reasonable decision to make.

But it really is comparing apples to oranges to compare this to 3.5. Essentials required virtually no changes to existing characters. No books have ever been required to keep up with the errata or count as playing the 'current' edition. The changes are there, and almost universally consist of minor adjustments to the game that fine-tune it for balance.

Changes that affect fundamental elements of the game... exist, sure. Magic Items, Monster math. But they take place pretty much entirely behind the DM's screen and are relatively simple to incorporate (or not) into a game.

Feel free to not like the changes yourself. But I think it is poor form to dismiss those of us who have looked all this over and found few substantial changes by saying we are being "disingenuous, and really just parroting the bruised reaction of a marketplace."

To me, the errata 4E has undergone, and the change that 3.5 involved, are different in every way that matters. Method of release, effect on the game, ramifications for the system, impact on consumers. For me, yes, 3.5 and Essentials are "nowhere similar" at all.

Scarab Sages

WotC4E version of DnD: It wouldn't surprise me if they updated. Only thing I like about 4E is that the edition does pull in more gamers into our hobby, and yes, I do respect that fact.

Pathfinder: It's the true 4E, IMO. Why? Pathfinder still carries the DnD feel when playing; whereas, WotC4E does not. Will Pathfinder come out with a newer edition? You bet! Soon? No!

Note: Before anyone hallucinates some flames coming from my post, and to make absolutely clear, that was neither my intent, nor are they my feelings about the aforementioned edition. Just a personal observation from personal experience.

Personal dream of mine: May Paizo obtain ownership of WotC one day. I trust Paizo to handle it right, for I truly believe that Paizo listens and truly cares about its customers. There track record proves it time and time again.

Mighty Thoth has left his mental signature.


Russ Taylor wrote:

It'd probably be best if you dial up the politeness of your tone if you want any further responses.

Go to:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf
123 pages of rules changes. So a lot more than the 50+ pages I guessed at.

23 of that's just in the PH. 12 more in the MM and DMG.

There's lots of rules systems revamped in that file. I'm not planning to go through that in detail, but I highlight some below. That comes back to what I said about not being able to play official 4E through the original 4E books (or indeed most any 4E book, as they're all loaded with game-affecting errata). It's a problem if you want to play LFR, and was a problem before D&D Essentials game out. Even things as basic to the game as conditions (a core element of 4E if there's any) have considerable changes between the original books and the game as it stands today.
[/quite]
...and when they release the next wave of rebalancing errata in a couple of months will we then be on 4.6? Do we move to 4.7 when another wave comes out after that? If one wants to say that we are on a new version of the game every time WotC puts out errata then we are not on 4.5 but instead on 4.73 or some such. Actual errata specifically in Essentials was comparatively minor when held up against the errata that had come before.

Russ Taylor wrote:


Now as for class: you can play a 3.0 class just fine in 3.5E. There's nothing that substantive that changed beyond some skill shuffling. In 4E, wizards just flipped positions on telling you whether or not you could play with the old class rules or not. They still revised many of the core classes, something people complained a bunch about when it was done in 3.5E. I don't see a huge distinction between 3.0 and 3.5E having two different bards, and 4E and DDE having two different wizards, except that one system tells you it's ok to play with both in the same game.

Except that they are not revisions...they are completely different builds. The Slayer from Essentials plays nothing like the Fighter from PHBI and its not meant to. Bring both to the table and you'll have a party with access to different skill sets same as if you bring a fighter and a barbarian to the table.

Its this element that is meant to entice veterans who already own the PHBI to pick up the Essentials class books - you get a whole slew of new classes that play differently then the ones you already have at the table and yet are balanced to play along side them. For the veteran 4E player these are books full of new and unique classes all specifically designed to have a 'classic D&D' look and feel.

Russ Taylor wrote:


Spells: I can't believe any 4E fan would complain about the 3.5E changes to spells, given how much of the 4E errata is changes to powers :)

Its not something one usually notices unless you spend your time on the Character Optimization boards. Generally a power receives rebalancing errata within a few months of release. Few characters would have gotten around to actually picking up the power before the Character Op guys had shown it was broken and WotC implemented a fix. Since we build our characters using the DDI the process is seamless. We don't complain because we rarely notice except maybe on some meta level where you recognize that the game remains very well balanced even though there are dozens of splat books.

Russ Taylor wrote:


I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books.

Actually it does - the compendium contains the master rules set including the current version of how stealth and such work.

Otherwise you comment on the DDI but I think you underestimate how wide spread its use is among hard core 4E players. Sure you can manage without it but there is a reason the vast majority of hard core 4E players use the DDI. Its the DDI that allows the system to implement rule changes, 90% of which effect the character, so seamlessly since all changes happen automatically when you next print out your character (which generally everyone does whenever they gain a level)

This is the probably the core reason the majority of 4E players are not at all unhappy with Essentials - my subscription fee just came with a plethora of new free content. Its like getting 6 months of 50% larger Paizo APs for the standard subscription price. Its this element more then any other that results in 4E players being happy with Essentials - its nothing but win even if I choose not to buy the new books since I get all these unique new classes one way or the other.

Now if one wants to actually look at a WotC f*&! up check out how they implemented the 'in the clouds' character builder.

Liberty's Edge

There is only 3 ways I can see paizo making a change like that.

1 If WotC makes vast changes to the ogl or get rid of it.

2 WotC gets rid of the ogl

3 WotC moves to 5e.

I can see paizo not wanting to stay with the ogl if it forces them to use a rule set that WotC has taken two steps away from if they go to 5e

If that happened the good news is that it can be more backwards compatible than 3e and 4e.


ForgottenRider wrote:

There is only 3 ways I can see paizo making a change like that.

1 If WotC makes vast changes to the ogl or get rid of it.

2 WotC gets rid of the ogl

3 WotC moves to 5e.

I can see paizo not wanting to stay with the ogl if it forces them to use a rule set that WotC has taken two steps away from if they go to 5e

If that happened the good news is that it can be more backwards compatible than 3e and 4e.

I find it more likely that Hasbro decides that the DnD is more profitable if sold off to another company. They decide that they have no real desire to fund intellectual property that doesn't return as high a profit margin compared to the cost of salaried writers and other staff support compared to a CCG.

Hasbro, rather than go with a 5e to revitalize the brand, shops out the intellectual property rights to an electronic company. Hasbro then sub-contracts a few writers to keep producing stories for the brand which keeps it going.

The game division is mostly wrapped up. Further game development and design is consigned to private individuals producing PDFs with a licensing fee for the intellectual property name.

I mean, right now, the biggest value of DnD is not the game mechanics that Hasbro owns but the stories, characters, and worlds that have the DnD brand on them. Many of those have brand recognition which a company like Paizo continues to lack (though Paizo is building their own world with more and more stories and characters to get some brand recognition).

Liberty's Edge

ForgottenRider wrote:

There is only 3 ways I can see paizo making a change like that.

1 If WotC makes vast changes to the ogl or get rid of it.

2 WotC gets rid of the ogl

3 WotC moves to 5e.

I can see paizo not wanting to stay with the ogl if it forces them to use a rule set that WotC has taken two steps away from if they go to 5e

If that happened the good news is that it can be more backwards compatible than 3e and 4e.

Ok.

And this has already been stated in this thread several times.

The OGL isn't going anywhere. WotC cannot, hold on, cannot revoke it. Period. Not even an issue.

And, if WotC goes to 5e, this does exactly what to Paizo's business model?


houstonderek wrote:

The OGL isn't going anywhere. WotC cannot, hold on, cannot revoke it. Period. Not even an issue.

And, if WotC goes to 5e, this does exactly what to Paizo's business model?

I think this is very relevant - it seems to me Paizo can pay less and less attention to "what Wizards are doing" provided their own customer base is building, which it seems to be. Obviously being forced to 'go it alone' when they stopped producing magazines and started producing Pathfinder would have been a nervous time but they have handled that with their customary aplomb. The success or otherwise of 4th edition seems to me to be less and less relevant to Pathfinder's success - as an enthusiastic customer of both, I hardly even consider them competitors - they are of course in the same industry, but the products they provide are as different as Toons vs Spacemaster, in my view.

I think a much more relevant issue for Pathfinder going forward is a potential shift in their client base:

Pre-rules release I think a significant proportion of their audience were people who like buying lots of adventures. The APs are their flagship line and were the core around which their business was built. Given the reception the rules release received, Paizo's extremely generous pricing of the PDF version, their continued customer service record and some new disgruntled customers at WoTC with the abolition of the offline Character Builder updates - it seems likely to me that this customer base will shift somewhat away from those of us who amass more adventures and sourcebooks than we can ever possibly use and towards the more play-focussed customers. It may well translate into an increased demand/popularity for their player companions and a proportional decline in 'Adventure Path Enthusiasm'. Such a shift might result in a change of focus (or hopefully simply an expansion of that area) - it's no good providing what people used to want if you want to remain at the cutting edge, imo.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
Whenever 5th edition comes out, it won't be called that. So watch for "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" or something similar, just like D&D Essentials was 4th edition's .5 version.

I get the feeling that is exactly what will happen. I think they'll keep 4e alive, in some form, for the people who like it and that the new AD&D (5e) will try to recapture the lost fans from Paizo and other companies.

Of course they'll likely just screw it up and get everyone PO'd because they'll hype something they can't deliver or they'll badmouth 4e, or require some kind of subscription or something just as ridiculously empty headed.

The Exchange

Steve Geddes wrote:


It may well translate into an increased demand/popularity for their player companions and a proportional decline in 'Adventure Path Enthusiasm'. Such a shift might result in a change of focus (or hopefully simply an expansion of that area) - it's no good providing what people used to want if you want to remain at the cutting edge, imo.

Honestly if it wasn't for the discount that subscribing to the AP gives I wouldn't buy them. Sure they are good reads and I get a few ideas from them, but honestly I'd rather get the discount on the Campaign Setting or Player Companion subscriptions. Those I find more useful.

Given the S&H charged by Paizo it is still cheaper to buy from Amazon even with the discount, but getting the discount eases the pain a bit. Plus I really do want to directly support my favorite RPG company and get product when it comes out. But if it wasn't for the discount I would have to buy nearly all my printed material from Amazon or pay the higher Paizo price and buy less.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

The OGL isn't going anywhere. WotC cannot, hold on, cannot revoke it. Period. Not even an issue.

And, if WotC goes to 5e, this does exactly what to Paizo's business model?

I think this is very relevant - it seems to me Paizo can pay less and less attention to "what Wizards are doing" provided their own customer base is building, which it seems to be. Obviously being forced to 'go it alone' when they stopped producing magazines and started producing Pathfinder would have been a nervous time but they have handled that with their customary aplomb. The success or otherwise of 4th edition seems to me to be less and less relevant to Pathfinder's success - as an enthusiastic customer of both, I hardly even consider them competitors - they are of course in the same industry, but the products they provide are as different as Toons vs Spacemaster, in my view.

I think a much more relevant issue for Pathfinder going forward is a potential shift in their client base:

Pre-rules release I think a significant proportion of their audience were people who like buying lots of adventures. The APs are their flagship line and were the core around which their business was built. Given the reception the rules release received, Paizo's extremely generous pricing of the PDF version, their continued customer service record and some new disgruntled customers at WoTC with the abolition of the offline Character Builder updates - it seems likely to me that this customer base will shift somewhat away from those of us who amass more adventures and sourcebooks than we can ever possibly use and towards the more play-focussed customers. It may well translate into an increased demand/popularity for their player companions and a proportional decline in 'Adventure Path Enthusiasm'. Such a shift might result in a change of focus (or hopefully simply an expansion of that area) - it's no good providing what people used to want if you want to remain at the cutting edge, imo.

I'll say this: whatever problems I might have with the mechanics of the Pathfinder RPG, I can say nothing negative about how Paizo does business.

Lisa and Vic know how to surround themselves with really good people, and definitely bend over backward to stay as transparent as they can as to the hows and whys of their decisions. I cannot think of another company that is as involved, top to bottom, with interacting with their customers on a personal level.

Even if it's in a bit of a black sheep capacity, I feel like I'm part of a family here, and not just $$$.


houstonderek wrote:

I'll say this: whatever problems I might have with the mechanics of the Pathfinder RPG, I can say nothing negative about how Paizo does business.

Lisa and Vic know how to surround themselves with really good people, and definitely bend over backward to stay as transparent as they can as to the hows and whys of their decisions. I cannot think of another company that is as involved, top to bottom, with interacting with their customers on a personal level.

I agree completely, plus they so consistently make good decisions. I've lost count of the number of products which have far exceeded my expectations. There've been a grand total of two disappointments out of their entire product line.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Jadeite wrote:
But most of those changes were done long before the Essentials were released. And those documents are errata, not conversion guides.

Which I say all throughout my posts (plural, not singular). Though I don't necessarily agree on "most" except in the context of the system changes, due to the class and monster revisions in DDE.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Charging's quite a change because in 4E, you could veer your charge to avoid intervening monsters (think half a diamond shape), because all that mattered was you take any least-cost path, and 4E has diagonal math issues. Verified that's how the rule was supposed to work with Andy Collins himself, in person, because it was such a bizarre way to handle charging.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

I said:
I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books.

Another poster said:
Actually it does - the compendium contains the master rules set including the current version of how stealth and such work.

How does what's in the compendium help my original printing of the core rulebooks? We're talking the original 3 books being obsoleted by the volume of errata here.

Saying "use the compendium" is like saying "use the 3.5E core rulebooks". If you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game, you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game. Since I don't play much 4E, the easiest option for me is to play no 4E going forward, since I only play OP in 4E, where rules updates are mandatory. If I *did* play a lot, no big deal to buy more books. I played a lot of 3E, welcomed the fixes in 3.5E. Welcomed the changes in Pathfinder too :)

To address another point - I'm aware that DDI use is widespread. Some folks have less of a problem with paying a maintenance fee to play a pen and paper RPG than I do :)


If you are talking editions and changes then you might like this discussion thread on 'What would you do if you ran the Zoo'.

How would you re-spin DnD

Liberty's Edge

It does not take much for posters to turn into chicken little and say the sky is falling.

Having read both 4E and Essentials. They are not a new edition. I can still play 4E or Essentials. Without needing one or the other. Nor does material from eother ivalidate the other. Yes their is a lot of errata. The thing about is unless you use the CB all the errata is optional. One of my players had a power which the errata nerfed. I ignored the change. The change between 3.0 and 3.5 was somewhat imo more significant. You could use your 3.0 books in a 3.5 game yet it required a lot more work than it does with 4E and Essentials. It's noce to try and pin every bad thing about D&D on Wotc shoulders except sometimes it just not true.


Smerg wrote:

If you are talking editions and changes then you might like this discussion thread on 'What would you do if you ran the Zoo'.

How would you re-spin DnD

It isn't so much spin. As much as I hate 4e marketing and I deplore the divergence from a more simulationist (powers/effects that can be adjudicated so they interact/alter the world) options, 4e has some very solid (if a tad over blunt) mechanics. I'd like soften the descriptive text so it it didn't read all "will/encounter/daily". More importantly I'd focus on getting a narrative going. 3.0/3.5 in many ways was fluke in its player crazed, lack of setting, splat spew. I regret to say I participated in that bit of mass psychosis.

At the time Forgotten Realms was the big narrative, books, adventures, etc. Eberron was creeping second.

I don't see any kind of collective narrative in 4e or Essentials. Even the setting material they were pushing annually was too scattered with not enough adventure material. In fact if they had keep to their formulaic release strategy they would've looking at a 4th setting this year, talk about TSR minus the boxes. No, what they need is a Core setting with supporting (well writen narrative like) adventures for a "Core" setting that can be spun into books, tv shows, video games, and other pop-culture.

I'd also replace the current programing team for the supporting DDI web-apps. Silverlight? Seriously? Are they really dearly trying to cripple themselves in future markets? No, I'd look at a Mobile/Smart/Tablet development strategy. As "brand manager" I'd want you thinking D&D all the time, even while *shudder* checking Facebook.


memorax wrote:
It does not take much for posters to turn into chicken little and say the sky is falling.

Just like it does not take much to write off anything one doesn't want to hear as Internet hyperbole.

The fact is WotC is changing course quarterly, and is clearly unable to settle on a coherent direction. There is quite a bit of evidence that D&D, at least in it's current form, is on life-support. Does that mean D&D is going away? Nope. Companies and brands have been turned around before. But if you think everything is proceeding as planned, then you simply aren't paying attention.


Russ Taylor wrote:

I said:

I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books.

Another poster said:
Actually it does - the compendium contains the master rules set including the current version of how stealth and such work.

How does what's in the compendium help my original printing of the core rulebooks? We're talking the original 3 books being obsoleted by the volume of errata here.

Saying "use the compendium" is like saying "use the 3.5E core rulebooks". If you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game, you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game. Since I don't play much 4E, the easiest option for me is to play no 4E going forward, since I only play OP in 4E, where rules updates are mandatory. If I *did* play a lot, no big deal to buy more books. I played a lot of 3E, welcomed the fixes in 3.5E. Welcomed the changes in Pathfinder too :)

To address another point - I'm aware that DDI use is widespread. Some folks have less of a problem with paying a maintenance fee to play a pen and paper RPG than I do :)

My point is your saying that 3.5 and Essentials are the equivalent of each other but they aren't. If you want to argue that we are in build number 4.63 (or any number above 4.0 that is not 4.5) of 4E D&D I would agree with you.

For one Essentials does not address 90% of the errata. It only deals with 3-4 major rules changes and maybe three times that in more corner case rules. Maybe 12 pages or so of the entire errata and of that a big chunk is reprints of the stealth rules and reprints of the new DC tables for Skill Challenges and of course it all includes WotCs very verbose method of presenting the errata.

The vast majority of the errata is in character elements, mainly powers, and Essentials does not include any of the base PHBI classes - instead it uses all new classes so it does not include errata for the Fighter powers at all because the Knight and Slayer don't use Fighter powers. In effect if you want to play an updated Fighter at a convention and don't want to use the DDI your only option remains downloading the errata and fixing this yourself.

Nor are the DMG or MMI substantively changed by the release of Essentials. MMI monsters remain though other Monster books are a better choice for the current DM since quality improvements here have been significant over the life of the edition. The DMG was mostly a book of good advice and that is not reprinted by and large in Essentials though Essentials does include some advice for DMs (nothing like the scale that this was done in DMGI however).

In effect the Rules Compendium is the only book that can be said to be a reprint (errata included) and yet the actual rule changes over 4Es life cycle are not very extensive. Even beyond them not being all that extensive its an issue most people have already dealt with. The most extensive element of the rules changes in the errata came within the first six months of the release of the edition...any regular player had to deal with this already - maybe they have the reprint in DMG II or PHB II or maybe they bought the bullet and looked over the actual errata.

Actual rule changes that came out with Essentials itself where pretty minor - the big one being "Magic Items can only be bought if they are the most basic versions, so Sword +2 could be bought but not a Sword +2 Elfbane and all rules for magic items and milestones, unless they are explicitly in the text of a specific magic item, are redacted". There is also some minor change to flight and mounts.

Ultimately buying the Compendium for the rules changes is probably not a good idea. You'll end up feeling ripped off because you bought a whole book for two changed comma's. Obviously there is more too it then that but that will be the feeling. Instead you might buy the book for its good layout, all the rules in one place, and a good index. Not enough to entice me personally but I've encountered those who felt it was worth it. Obviously if your new to 4E this is where to start as well.


bugleyman wrote:
memorax wrote:
It does not take much for posters to turn into chicken little and say the sky is falling.

Just like it does not take much to write off anything one doesn't want to hear as Internet hyperbole.

The fact is WotC is changing course quarterly, and is clearly unable to settle on a coherent direction. There is quite a bit of evidence that D&D, at least in it's current form, is on life-support. Does that mean D&D is going away? Nope. Companies and brands have been turned around before. But if you think everything is proceeding as planned, then you simply aren't paying attention.

I agree with you that they seem to be changing emphasis pretty much quarterly and are having some trouble figuring out how to go forward with the brand but I'm not sure I see evidence for saying D&D is on life support.

They have issues they have to grapple with certianly. Their online model has made their books almost redundant. They discuss the idea of fluff heavy books but getting us to buy such books, while possible, probably does not involve 1-2 such books a month. They can still sell us such books and it likely can make them money (every sign I've seen indicates that Darksun was a big success) but not so many.

Crunch books are possible but they really need to scale that back very, very, significantly (one book a quarter maybe) and find ways to wow us since we have such a plethora of such content already that it is hard to keep track of it and we get this sort of thing with our DDI subscription - which at this point - is the only way we have any real hope of handling the sheer volume.

Still, they have managed to make the DDI a nearly essential part of 4E. Some very significant chunk of their player base sends them money every month. Now this is both a strength and a crisis however. At its core WotC, especially the D&D brand, was a publishing company...The DDI delivers a product that most of their users use that makes their publishing activities almost superfluous. The initial rush to gobble up 4E content and the fact that the customer base was just used to buying books likely hid this issue but, with the edition maturing, this fact can't be hidden any longer.

If you think about it releasing 5th edition - even if it was well received, does not solve their issue here. Release 5th edition and their subscriber base will want to know where the rules are on the DDI as opposed to running out to buy the books. Unless they want to loose that subscriber base - and I seriously doubt they want to give up that revenue stream, it probably won't lead to strong sales.

I think this is part of what happened with Essentials. They created a series of products that the core 4E base really did not need to buy. Rules that where more or less the same and have already been dealt with by the core - who have the rules online anyway. Plus we get a bunch of new classes, but we are drowning in classes and we get this on the DDI as well. End result is they may have picked up some old timers who like the look and feel and, maybe their marketing to neophytes at places like Target and Wal-Mart will, eventually, pay some dividends but I think they where expecting the core 4E vets to all go out and buy this just because that's what has usually happened in the past. I think the vets where happy enough to get the content on the DDI but sales where significantly less then expected. Thus we see some cancellations in the later parts of the Essentials line. Considering that the margins on Essentials books are particularly thin it was unusually important for profitability to get major mass market on these books (200,000 units moved instead of just 20,000) and I don't think that happened.

Still this misses some strengths WotC still has. The DDI for all the head aches and naval gazing its likely causing is a case of trying to figure out how to capitalize on success by a company that never has had such a success. A terrible as their implementation of an in the clouds model for content delivery was, it does make a lot of sense. If this really is immune to piracy then they are in a position to create a product that provides us with various tools for our gaming and even as they run out of new tools to give us we'll just keep forking over the dough if the library is robust enough. The result could be a model where they don't have to do all that much but maintain that library of resources and tools and we hand over our money every month for the privilege of having access to this library. Most of us would do it too...once you get used to having access to such online tools to run a campaign its very hard to stop and return to an environment that does not use such tools.

Furthermore some of their other side projects using 4E seem to be doing well enough. I suspect that Ravenloft semi-penetrated the mass market during Christmas (by which I mean Gamers bought this for their nieces and nephews) and Gamma World appears to be doing pretty well. They also have this huge back catalog of 4E books that only the hardest of the hardcore could have bought all of considering the insane rate they where coming out at. At lot of their customer base will probably react to the slower release schedule by filling out their collections with such missing books, making WotC money without incurring new publishing costs. If a company goes into crisis usually it starts to fire people. Thing is this is the first year I can remember in a long while where WotC did not fire anyone. I think they had anticipated the slow down and reduced their staff accordingly last year.

In the end I think we will see a long term major overhaul of how the D&D brand works because I think the DDI is a game changer - maybe far more then WotC ever initially realized and I think that Essentials, more then any other product, shows that this is so. They probably can never really release 5th Edition in the traditional manner. Either they give us 5th edition more or less for free with our DDI subscriptions or they lose the subscription base.

My suspicion is the DDI is WotC heroin. They can never live without it and it evolves to become the centre around which the whole D&D brand revolves. In effect I think WotC is currently in the process of morphing from what was essentially a publishing company into what is, Fundamentally, an online content provider that happens to have a reasonably robust publishing wing.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

There were in fact layoffs in May.


3.5 and Essentials are the same and different. 3.x and 4e use completely different distribution models for both new product and updates to old material, so a direct comparison is hard. On the other hand, both constitute a set point in time that people can point to and say things have changed. The depth of those changes is pretty close to being the same for both. The key difference is that because of the different distribution model, few regular 4e players really noticed the changes, whereas someone who played when the game first came out, and than tried to come back had a lot of errata to adjust to. Even if the pure errata is only 50 pages or so, that is still a lot of little changes that add up real quick. It is just like going from 3.5 to Pathfinder; the main outline is the same, but a lot of significant details have been changed. The only difference with Essentials is that instead of making them all at once, it stands out as the compilation of several years of the errata pile slowly growing.

Overall, I just don't think that either WOTC or Hasbro has any idea of what they can reasonably expect from 4e in the current market; this means that they are constantly trying to adjust a game that left more or less to itself would continue to do extremely well by anybody else's standards. This is causing them to experience what SOE did with the Star Wars Galaxy fiasco; in the attempt to chase new customers, they are completely ignoring old ones, and many of the old ones are slowly getting annoyed. Not enough to kill the game, but enough to counteract whatever new people are being gained.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

My suspicion is the DDI is WotC heroin. They can never live without it and it evolves to become the centre around which the whole D&D brand revolves. In effect I think WotC is currently in the process of morphing from what was essentially a publishing company into what is, Fundamentally, an online content provider that happens to have a reasonably robust publishing wing.

Which I personally believe would constitute the death of D&D as we know it -- a pencil and paper RPG. That certainly doesn't mean the the brand is going to lie fallow, but it does mean big changes.


poisonarms wrote:


Saw a disturbing message on official D&D forums today...

That's like saying "Saw a car on the road today". :D

poisonarms wrote:


On the official WotC forums for D&D today, I saw a thread about 5th edition speculation and someone had this to say...

"I think I will put it this way. There is a better chance that Pathfinder will change over to 4th edition version sooner than the release of 5th edition."

!!!!

Tell me this will never happen, Paizo! Tell me everything is going to be alright!

Relax. The guy didn't know what he was talking about. Personally, I'm almost surprised they haven't announced another edition of D&D yet. I'd give 4e a lot less than 10 years.

But that doesn't matter really.

What matters is that Paizo doesn't like 4e. Not in the way they want it to suffer and die, but in the way where they said themselves that the system doesn't let them tell the stories they want to tell. They did Pathfinder, which is a revision of 3e, because they thought that game was not done yet, not by a long shot. They won't ditch their game which is doing great to shackle themselves to someone else's game.

They also said that Pathfinder RPG First Edition will get at least 10 years before there will be a Pathfinder RPG Second Edition. So expect PFRPG2e some time 2020 or later.

So the chance of a new PF edition any time soon is almost nothing, and the chance of a PF edition that has more than a superficial resemblance to 4e is less than that.

Whether the next D&D (if there will be one) will be sooner than that I don't know, but we have Paizo's word on PF2e being a long time away. And so far, Paizo have kept their word. Unless it's "Paizo has kept its word." Then that.


Russ Taylor wrote:
There were in fact layoffs in May.

Early last year then. My point being that the lack of the usual Christmas firings probably indicates that the company is not currently bleeding money in an unanticipated manner.

Though I'd not be shocked really to see some more firings and hirings in the not to distant future. If they are, as I'm arguing, a company currently in transition from one type of model (a publishing company) to another (an online content provider) more changes in personnel will likely follow.


bugleyman wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

My suspicion is the DDI is WotC heroin. They can never live without it and it evolves to become the centre around which the whole D&D brand revolves. In effect I think WotC is currently in the process of morphing from what was essentially a publishing company into what is, Fundamentally, an online content provider that happens to have a reasonably robust publishing wing.

Which I personally believe would constitute the death of D&D as we know it -- a pencil and paper RPG. That certainly doesn't mean the the brand is going to lie fallow, but it does mean big changes.

Depends on how one defines this I suppose. For me its a case of incrementalism. Even during the 3.5 era I was keeping track of my campaign and making my adventures using a word processor, I kept track of the rules with SRDd20, had Google at my fingertips and I used PDFs heavily.

Much of this remains the same in 4E though I've grown used to having a monster editor as well.

None of this really changes the fact that I'm playing and running a table top game each week so for me the changes during actual play are not extensive.

The changes over at WotC however are larger because they changed how I consumed their media from my being a customer that would go out and buy a book if I wanted it to being a customer that sends them money every month and gets that content online and is in fact most interested in their providing not just new options but really being a customer that wants new tools - mainly because they have already given me more options then I can reasonably use.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

My suspicion is the DDI is WotC heroin. They can never live without it and it evolves to become the centre around which the whole D&D brand revolves. In effect I think WotC is currently in the process of morphing from what was essentially a publishing company into what is, Fundamentally, an online content provider that happens to have a reasonably robust publishing wing.

Which I personally believe would constitute the death of D&D as we know it -- a pencil and paper RPG. That certainly doesn't mean the the brand is going to lie fallow, but it does mean big changes.

Depends on how one defines this I suppose. For me its a case of incrementalism. Even during the 3.5 era I was keeping track of my campaign and making my adventures using a word processor, I kept track of the rules with SRDd20, had Google at my fingertips and I used PDFs heavily.

Much of this remains the same in 4E though I've grown used to having a monster editor as well.

None of this really changes the fact that I'm playing and running a table top game each week so for me the changes during actual play are not extensive.

The changes over at WotC however are larger because they changed how I consumed their media from my being a customer that would go out and buy a book if I wanted it to being a customer that sends them money every month and gets that content online and is in fact most interested in their providing not just new options but really being a customer that wants new tools - mainly because they have already given me more options then I can reasonably use.

Yes, I can see that it does depend on one's point-of-view. However, I have to wonder whether you'll indeed remain on a tabletop, or if D&D won't ultimately become a sort of human assisted computer game. If all the rules are online, and minis/tokens and map tiles make way for a digital playing environment, then the table part may disappear entirely.

I don't see "go to the store and buy book X" as being the ideal entry point for D&D much longer (if it really remains so now). I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but I don't have very much confidence in WotC being the company to successfully lead such a complex transition. Disruptive technologies often herald the rise of a new industry leader, one way or another.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
What matters is that Paizo doesn't like 4e. Not in the way they want it to suffer and die, but in the way where they said themselves that the system doesn't let them tell the stories they want to tell. They did Pathfinder, which is a revision of 3e, because they thought that game was not done yet, not by a long shot. They won't ditch their game which is doing great to shackle themselves to someone else's game.

I'm pretty sure at least part of the thought process was the fact that the timing was right for thier company which had established good branding with the magazines and the 3.5 Pathfinder modules represented an opportunity and a market for them to capitalise on. If 4E had not been the radical change that it had been, that window probably would not have been there.

Contributor

bugleyman wrote:

Yes, I can see that it does depend on one's point-of-view. However, I have to wonder whether you'll indeed remain on a tabletop, or if D&D won't ultimately become a sort of human assisted computer game. If all the rules are online, and minis/tokens and map tiles make way for a digital playing environment, then the table part may disappear entirely.

I...

Until all major cities and most hinterlands have ubiquitous universal wifi and e-reader tablets become significantly better and cheaper, a game played via online content is going to be less popular than one that can be played with a single book, a pencil, and a sheet of paper folded up in your back pocket.

Yes, PDFs get around the need for continuous wifi, but since WotC killed their PDFs, this doesn't help.

And quite honestly, even then online-based content is suboptimal. Ever had a power failure in the middle of a game? Ever seen a website get hacked (as happened to enworld yesterday by someone's malware programs) or simply become unavailable due to anything from a localized disaster (flood, heatwave, hurricane) at their hosting service to a denial-of-service attack against the next website over hosted on the same block at their ISP?

I've seen all of these happen. I do not want to have a large group of friends over then suddenly have whatever it is I'm relying on spontaneously die and all I have to go to is a tech support number where I hear some pre-recorded lie about how my call is very important to them before finally getting to a flustered call center worker who has been paid to tell me that the techs are working on the problem as fast as they can but she has no way of telling me whether I should wait fifteen minutes, fifteen hours, or fifteen days--and it will take at least fifteen minutes of exasperation before she finally breaks her script and admits what's really going on.

A book? Worst happens is that someone dumps a soda on it, and even then it can still be salvaged with quick movement and a roll of paper towel.

I've played by candlelight before. Not something that can be said about any online game.


bugleyman wrote:

Yes, I can see that it does depend on one's point-of-view. However, I have to wonder whether you'll indeed remain on a tabletop, or if D&D won't ultimately become a sort of human assisted computer game. If all the rules are online, and minis/tokens and map tiles make way for a digital playing environment, then the table part may disappear entirely.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the table disappear, at least in the near term. Fundamentally this is a social activity and we are not yet at the point where you can get together, eat pizza and crack jokes while being computer assisted. Computer assisted gaming does factor in for many because its more convenient but almost all consider it inferior to an actual meet up.

Now in the medium term I do think there is a pretty good chance that this becomes a lot more computerized. Get the 4 foot by 4 foot interactive computer table down to maybe $2000 (probably by creating one with mass market appeal by loading it down with board games and video games that work well when two people face off) and we finally have the perfect medium for our computer assisted online table top game. Maps that appear as our miniatures move - you buy special dice that it can actually read etc. If that product ever comes out and is within reach of the average middle class 40+ gamer then I'd say that we'd see a seismic shift in how table top RPGs are played. Just make sure that the computer table is able to withstand spilled Mountain Dew and that the pizza sauce will wipe right off.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the table disappear, at least in the near term. Fundamentally this is a social activity and we are not yet at the point where you can get together, eat pizza and crack jokes while being computer assisted. Computer assisted gaming does factor in for many because its more convenient but almost all consider it inferior to an actual meet up.

Now in the medium term I do think there is a pretty good chance that this becomes a lot more computerized. Get the 4 foot by 4 foot interactive computer table down to maybe $2000 (probably by creating one with mass market appeal by loading it down with board games and video games that work well when two people face off) and we finally have the perfect medium for our computer assisted online table top game. Maps that appear as our miniatures move - you buy special dice that it can actually read etc. If that product ever comes out and is within reach of the average middle class 40+ gamer then I'd say that we'd see a seismic shift in how table top RPGs are played. Just make sure that the computer table is able to withstand spilled Mountain Dew and that the pizza sauce will wipe right off.

I guess we'll see, won't we?

The point that led me to post, however, stands: It is not business as usual for D&D over at WotC, nor are those who point that out reasonably dismissed as just more Internet hyperbole.

Key word being "reasonably."


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the table disappear, at least in the near term. Fundamentally this is a social activity and we are not yet at the point where you can get together, eat pizza and crack jokes while being computer assisted. Computer assisted gaming does factor in for many because its more convenient but almost all consider it inferior to an actual meet up.

The tabletop will never go completely away for two reasons. One the social aspect that you pointed out is a big reason many people play, and even if the tabletop becomes electronic rather than wood, it's still tabletop playing. The second reason is that especially in the middle of the country where people are more spread out, the places that electronics can reasonably be expected to go and still fully function is never going to equal the number of places that people can gather at; I don't care how good a wi-fi network you have, it will never reach a campsite in the middle of nowhere that people head to to get together, have some drinks, and in general seek a good time with their fellows. PDF's may still be used, but doing anything online from places like that is not going to regularly happen. WOTC, and/or Hasbro, does not seem to grasp the first reason overly well, and doesn't even know the second one exists.

Contributor

sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the table disappear, at least in the near term. Fundamentally this is a social activity and we are not yet at the point where you can get together, eat pizza and crack jokes while being computer assisted. Computer assisted gaming does factor in for many because its more convenient but almost all consider it inferior to an actual meet up.
The tabletop will never go completely away for two reasons. One the social aspect that you pointed out is a big reason many people play, and even if the tabletop becomes electronic rather than wood, it's still tabletop playing. The second reason is that especially in the middle of the country where people are more spread out, the places that electronics can reasonably be expected to go and still fully function is never going to equal the number of places that people can gather at; I don't care how good a wi-fi network you have, it will never reach a campsite in the middle of nowhere that people head to to get together, have some drinks, and in general seek a good time with their fellows. PDF's may still be used, but doing anything online from places like that is not going to regularly happen. WOTC, and/or Hasbro, does not seem to grasp the first reason overly well, and doesn't even know the second one exists.

They honestly should, as it's been the business model for board games since they began and card games likewise.

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Saw a disturbing message on official D&D forums today... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.