Yes, 5e is coming out any day now, just like it has been for the last couple of years. By the time it finally comes out, everyone can feel justified and claim they predicted it.
It's also interesting since Monte has worked with Paizo on Pathfinder stuff AND he has been somewhat less than glowing about WOTC and 4E ...Source on him being "less than glowing" about 4e?
I've seen this rumor in a few places. I've yet to find the actual origin as anything but "I like Monte Cook and dislike 4e, so here's what I think he thinks."
Fear the Boot podcast interview episode.. nothing specific but not overly supportive. In the main he thinks all table top games are doomed. My gues is he working on something MMOish as that has been his employment experience for the past few years. (Before I get jumped on I am not comparing 4E to a MMO - the dude has just finished working for a few video game companies).
Fear the Boot podcast interview episode.. nothing specific but not overly supportive. In the main he thinks all table top games are doomed. My guess is he working on something MMOish as that has been his employment experience for the past few years. (Before I get jumped on I am not comparing 4E to a MMO - the dude has just finished working for a few video game companies).
Are you certain we are talking about the same person? As far as I know, Monte hasn't been working on computer games. Also, he's got a website that produces encounters for 3.5/Pathfinder every weekday (DungeonADay.com) although he's been less involved in the day to day operations for the last few months.
I could be wrong, I'm not certain what his day job has been of late.
|
Fear the Boot podcast interview episode.. nothing specific but not overly supportive. In the main he thinks all table top games are doomed. My guess is he working on something MMOish as that has been his employment experience for the past few years. (Before I get jumped on I am not comparing 4E to a MMO - the dude has just finished working for a few video game companies).Are you certain we are talking about the same person? As far as I know, Monte hasn't been working on computer games. Also, he's got a website that produces encounters for 3.5/Pathfinder every weekday (DungeonADay.com) although he's been less involved in the day to day operations for the last few months.
I could be wrong, I'm not certain what his day job has been of late.
Monte's official association with DaD ended over a year ago. He kept writing the occasional blog until about January of this year, but I don't think he's done anything with them since then.
Monte's official association with DaD ended over a year ago. He kept writing the occasional blog until about January of this year, but I don't think he's done anything with them since then.
Has it been that long? Time flies. I thought he still had creative oversight and approved content. At the very least, he still owns the site. He just hired Super Genius to handle operations. Last I heard, they are still working for him.
Fear the Boot podcast interview episode.. nothing specific but not overly supportive. In the main he thinks all table top games are doomed. My guess is he working on something MMOish as that has been his employment experience for the past few years. (Before I get jumped on I am not comparing 4E to a MMO - the dude has just finished working for a few video game companies).Are you certain we are talking about the same person? As far as I know, Monte hasn't been working on computer games. Also, he's got a website that produces encounters for 3.5/Pathfinder every weekday (DungeonADay.com) although he's been less involved in the day to day operations for the last few months.
I could be wrong, I'm not certain what his day job has been of late.
My bad it was Mr Dancey..... :-( I award myself the doofus award. I mixed up my genius game designers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything [setting]-related.
Friends don't let friends say, "fluff."
Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything fluff-related.
Because we all know setting books contain no classes, feats, powers, themes, magic items, paragon paths, or epic destinies.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything fluff-related.Because we all know setting books contain no classes, feats, powers, themes, magic items, paragon paths, or epic destinies.
*adds deinol to the "People I'll Come Back To Once 5E Is Announced" list*
*adds deinol to the "People I'll Come Back To Once 5E Is Announced" list*
HA! The BBQ invitation list is so much better.
Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything [setting]-related.Friends don't let friends say, "fluff."
I once heard 'juice' proposed as an alternative (if one must have something to contrast against 'crunch') since the word 'fluff' implies 'filler' but I could never get into the habit of using it myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once heard 'juice' proposed as an alternative (if one must have something to contrast against 'crunch') since the word 'fluff' implies 'filler' but I could never get into the habit of using it myself.Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything [setting]-related.Friends don't let friends say, "fluff."
I recommend flavor. If the crunch has no flavor, it's like eating Styrofoam.
|
Yes, 5e is coming out any day now, just like it has been for the last couple of years. By the time it finally comes out, everyone can feel justified and claim they predicted it.
It's also interesting since Monte has worked with Paizo on Pathfinder stuff AND he has been somewhat less than glowing about WOTC and 4E ...Source on him being "less than glowing" about 4e?
His forward to the PFRPG core book could be read that way if you felt like it.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm just annoyed that if Monte is getting more involved with RPGs, that sounds like it's less likely that he'll get a novel/fiction career going anytime soon. I've been waiting for original fantasy books by Monte since he announced his retirement for game design!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source on him being "less than glowing" about 4e?
Well, I can't speak of his thoughts on 4e, he has however said "less than glowing" things about WotC:
"Not that I have any illusions about what would have happened had I stayed. I've no doubt that I would have been laid off. From a larger perspective than just yesterday, it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it. (And looks at least somewhat disdainfully, rather than fondly, upon its own past.) You have to stretch your definition of "old guard" to even apply to anyone there anymore. (This is likely a bottom line issue, since the longer you stay, the more you get paid.) When I was there, I worked among people like Skip Williams and Jeff Grubb--with that kind of perspective at hand, I was always the new guy. Which was fine by me. I had much to learn and always appreciated the perspective they could provide. Now, most of the people working on D&D weren't even there when I was there. That's how much turnover and change there's been. There's a real danger of losing continuity with these kinds of layoffs. Dangers involving making old mistakes and not remembering what was learned in old lessons.
It's a foolish and shortsighted management that lets people like Jonathan, Julia, and Dave go. Foolish. And a cold-hearted one that does it at Christmas. But this is not new outrage, it's old, tired outrage. This is the company that laid off Skip, and Jeff, and Sean, and other people of extraordinary talent and experience. It's par for the recent course.
Before I end this bitter ramble, let me just add that it's hard not to laugh at the shocking and perhaps pitiable ineptitude of a company that makes role playing games that would lay off Jonathan Tweet, very likely the best rpg designer, well, period.
I wish all of them the best, and have not a shred of doubt that they'll all go on to do bigger and better things."
Good.
I don't want to see 4th Ed fail, that would be bad for the industry as a whole.
I'm still not convinced of this. I think Pathfinder could take over if D&D should fall.
I have to agree. The market could easily bear 4e failing at this point.
I think a new edition is likely going to infuse 4e with older design philosophies.WOTC I beleive feels the pinch of the market share they lost when they decided a significant amount of players would just go along with their design philosophy. They counted wrong, and lost a serious amount of money because of that.
I spend quite alot on my hobby, and WOTC used to get that money. I alone do not hurt them, but there are plenty of gamers like me that are also not giving WOTC their money. I am not 'boycotting' WOTC, they just do not make products I like.
They want that market back. Problem is at this point, Pathfinder absorbed that market.
There are very few design elements of 4e that I feel were an improvement. They would have to stray significantly from the 4e design to get my business again.
That said, I respect WOTC as a design house, and if they put out a good product I would at least give it a whirl. I hardly would leave Pathfinder as my home system however.
I think Monte cook is an attempt to bring the grognards back. It has to be more effective than a nostalgic Elmore cover on a box said like they tried with essentials. That attempt was so blatant is was laughable.
I'm anxious for 5e. I know it's too soon, but I'm ready to come back "home" if the game plays right.
I think a lot of 4e players get offended or think I'm a doomsayer for talking about 5e, but for me I'm trying to talk about it in a positive light. Plain and simple; I don't like the current game, I'll come back on the next one if it's an improvement. I'm not giving up on D&D or WotC entirely.
Realistically, this is still several years off. My gut tells me there is at least an underlying prospect of that being a motivation for hiring Monte back(and the Legends and Lore series of blogs getting feedback on rules). By all means, I wish 4e at least a few more years of continued success, because really, if it fails there won't be a 5e.
Regardless of whether I play the current edition at the time, I absolutely do not wish to see the D&D brand shelved by Hasbro.
For me it is not a matter of giving up on them. It is simply a better company came along and got my business. I think the mearls L&L articles and Monte Cook, are a good indication that grognards can say to the 4e designers... told you so. Now you want our money again.
I'm not convinced WoTC are looking to recapture what they lost - rather in replacing what they lost. I think they're about evolving D&D into something new. It's nothing more than a feel: things like the boardgames and the shift to predominantly digital content for the RPG (I havent done a page count, but my clear impression is that their print output has declined savagely this year whilst their digital output has increased markedly - Dungeon adventures are now quite often twenty or more pages and all their recent 'upcoming product information' has been about new online output rather than book announcements).
I'm certainly a long time player who is becoming less interested in D&D and I don't think they would be particularly concerned by that - putting out lots of books they way I want them to is just not what they're interested in anymore, in my opinion. I think their model will prove a success if there's continued strong interest in the online model (presumably they wouldnt be persevering this long after DDI if it had failed miserably) but I am skeptical they'd be interested in moving back towards a more heavy book-publishing approach - even if their new approach fails.
I'm not really sure what to make of this. I have no illusions that WotC will stop at 4E. Game design and change are what keep the industry going, period. The question is, will the change be to my liking (if it is indeed an edition change)? I'd like to hope so.
From Mearl's L&L sessions, I definitly get the impression that he's seeking feed-back from the general audience about what they "feel" D&D is. For some, it's hack'n'slash dungeon delving. Killing Monsters, taking their loot, and leveling. For others, it's character immersion. Story and Plot play a bigger and stronger role than encounters and combat. Spells should have multiple uses and reward those who think outside the box. I guess then it's trying to figure out how to appease both while maintaining balance and design all in one. This line of thinking makes me feel a new edition is on the horizon. Possibly as early as 2013, which would be about 5 years of 4E (not a bad run IMO, same as v3.5).
I'm not really sure if Monte is the greatest person for culmination all those factions into one gaming supplement but who knows, maybe he's leared a lot since producing 3E material. If he's gone the Computer Game route, he might have an inside understanding of Character creation and Game Balance that those sorts of platforms bring to the RPG industry as a whole.
Regardless, I'm open for trying any game supplement and I'll give 5E a try if thats what the case is.
not on board with this...he'll probably be involved in the return to 1e
OSR is not Renaissance, it's Revolution baby! Long live Moldvay & Cook (other Cook, not Monte...not that I don't wish long life and success to Monte...oh, never mind)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.
Can you do it, Monte!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
That's a pretty tall order, but might be possible. I definitely agree on #1; after the fallout and ensuing edition war, I firmly believe 5e won't be called "5e." It's going to be some clever attempt at being both an entirely new edition, and be called "edition neutral."
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
No, he can't.
Chuck Norris could make it work.
The last time WotC decided "screw the old guard, let's grab all those videogame kids by making 4E appear as pen and paper World of Warcraft", well, we all know what happened.
The funny part is this is exactly what they did before 3.5 even. There was, in fact, an actual World of Warcraft 3.0 d20 game. Didn't do so hot.
|
|
The last time WotC decided "screw the old guard, let's grab all those videogame kids by making 4E appear as pen and paper World of Warcraft", well, we all know what happened.The funny part is this is exactly what they did before 3.5 even. There was, in fact, an actual World of Warcraft 3.0 d20 game. Didn't do so hot.
World of Warcraft was made by Sword & Sorcery. And at any rate, it was WoW classes and monsters using d20 rules without trying to make the rules themselves appear more videogamey.
Unfortunately for WotC, with 4E they made people think it's a "MMO game" (which it in reality isn't), and that backlashed against the old customer base which frowned upon anything remotely similar to computer game elements in their pen-n-paper RPG.
Again, 4E's marketing team should get an award of sorts for their efforts in showing all the wrong things to all the right people.
|
|
The last time WotC decided "screw the old guard, let's grab all those videogame kids by making 4E appear as pen and paper World of Warcraft", well, we all know what happened.Actually the problem was not so much with the strategy itself but the absolute failure of execution as far as the Digital angle was concerned. Also keep in mind the economy went to freefall about the same time so gamers overall were just spending a lot less.
Well, the CharBuilder was great. Not only it is (or rather was when it was still offline) an excellent tool, but it also single-handedly killed off any player-side 3PP material (and one could argue the whole 3PP material). That worked just as planned.
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the PathfindersNot only lost causes, but not exactly the best marketing strategy. What WOTC needs to focus on is what's going to bring in the young'uns. As they represent the group with the volatile buying power. They're not the ones who are going to hold back because they've spent hundreds on their present system. Grognards by definition, simply won't be buying any new systems as they hate innovation, so that's another wrong market to try to chase.
There's no going back to the 20th century folks.... accept it.
There are alot of different media competeing for the younger dollar. In the 20th century there were LOTS of high school table top gamers. That dynamic has shifted. "Kids these days" do not need to sit around a table and game, and do arithmetic when computer games do it for them.
The 'gamer nerd' of the 80's had few places to go. Often they found like minded friends around the game table. Now "kids these days" have video games where they can find friends or escape. Yes I had video games as a kid, but it was a solitary activity. The video games now can fill the same niche that a table top game filled for the 80's kid.
There was no other competition for entertainment dollars in the 80's for gamers. Now other than MMO's you have numerous high quality console games that accomodate groups, and the CCG was not a monolith in the 80's. For the instant gratification mindset of the technological youth, books are far too low tech.
I teach physics and environmental science to high school students while pursuing my doctorate. I have been doing this for a long time and I am well in touch with youth. They have the interest in fantasy/sci fi, but Table top roleplaying in GENERAL is a chore for them. Not all, but you will not find the same percentage of teens playing table top games as you did in the 80's.
They are playing games in droves, but instead of D&D, it is WoW and CoD.
The best way to get youth involved in table top I have found: Run a game for them. They do indeed love it. It is that initial barrier, of time investment that steers alot of the youth away.
Certainly SOME teens are willing to become DM's. For the vast majority of them, the computer chip is the best DM there is. When they are exposed to the human DM, I think their interest can be strong as an Ionic Bond. Getting them to invest the time to DM is the key.
Meanwhile the older gamers enjoy both video games and TTG. They have the income to spend on both, and have already invested their time in TTG.
The sure way to get younger gamers into a new TABLE TOP GAMES. Target their gamer parents. Convince their gamer parent you have the good game, and they will wean another generation of gamers. That is the missing link. You raise the kid in the gaming environment and THEN they will invest the time to DM and get friends to play.
Now if WOTC makes a game that appeals to Grognards (who are of age to have kids) those grognards will try to get their kids to play it.
I would not for instance start young kids on 4e because I do not like the game. I would however start them with Pathfinder. I have also steered some high school kids to Pathfinder over 4e. They say they like it. How? I ran a game for them in the game store. So it is not a matter of going back to 20th century. It is a matter of making a game modern, yet also appealing to Gaming PARENTS.
Again, 4E's marketing team should get an award of sorts for their efforts in showing all the wrong things to all the right people.
Not trying to derail the thread further, but I agree with this whole-heartedly. WotC made anyone who wasn't a rabid 4e fan feel like The Enemy, and drove away a lot of potential business.
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
Yeah, and it will lay eggs and give milk, too! :P
Still, for many "Pathfinders", it takes more to get them back than making a new ruleset.
|
|
I for one wish Monte Cook well. I wasn’t a big fan of Arcana Unearthed, nor the Book of Experimental might, but I liked his Ptolas campaign setting. I thought it was very well done.
As for 4.0 or 4.5 or 5.0 D&D, or essentials or whatever they are producing, I wish them luck.
I tried out Wotc’s 4th edition when it came out for a few months, found it was not my cup of tea, and then we ( me and my gaming group) decided to give Rise of the Runelords a try, and well, we moved onto pathfinder. I for one am happy with what Paizo produces for the most part so I buy Pathfinder products put out by Paizo and 3rd party publishers. I don’t buy 4.0 D&D products because I personally don’t like the system.
But all that being said, I’m sure 4.0 D&D is a good game, and there are plenty of people who like it. I think the market is probably large enough to support both games. For me Gaming is getting together with your friends and having a nice time together. Why should we be worried about what system people use?
For me it is really a non issue if Wotc is going to produce a 4.5 or a 5.0 edition of D&D. I wish them luck. Paizo at the moment is producing materiel I like to use and adventure paths I like to read.
And as I said earlier I wish Monte Cook well and good luck with his new colum.
World of Warcraft was made by Sword & Sorcery.The various Sword and Sorcery games were published under the Art Haus label, a division of White Wolf which was separate from the Storyteller lines. Had some innovative stuff on that banner, including the Sword and Stone and Scarred Lands settings.
Don't forget Ravenloft, which was a D&D setting licensed out for SS to make. Overall point being, it was a subset of the 3e rules, long before 4e came along.
They are playing games in droves, but instead of D&D, it is WoW and CoD.
The best way to get youth involved in table top I have found: Run a game for them. They do indeed love it. It is that initial barrier, of time investment that steers alot of the youth away.
Certainly SOME teens are willing to become DM's. For the vast majority of them, the computer chip is the best DM there is. When they are exposed to the human DM, I think their interest can be strong as an Ionic Bond. Getting them to invest the time to DM is the key.
Meanwhile the older gamers enjoy both video games and TTG. They have the income to spend on both, and have already invested their time in TTG.
This is an observation I also share. I am an older gamer (I am unsure if I should use the phrase grognard because the use on this board seems to be more all-encompassing than the ASL, GMT, wargame-et-al crowd that I am used to associating the term with) who splits his time between table-top and online gaming.
When I go to large conventions and do Pathfinder events, I don't see many (if any) people under 30 there. (In fact, I would be curious to know the average age.)
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
Actually, I'm liking that idea as I have loads of 4E material and magic cards :)
But, in all honesty, no. If they do produce 5E (or the equivalent there of), it won't be called 5E. Not sure if I could come up with a marketing idea as for a different rendition but it'll probably be more basic in terms of magic, powers, feats, skills, yadda-yadda. They may even throw out Feats altogether or make a sub-set of skills that are designed for character style (where your profession, perform, craft, etc.) as to keep the flavor yet not override your combat choices.
I hope, at least, they keep balance in check. 4E did a great job at doing this for the most part (before all the crazy Errata) and I hope they keep in mind that not everyone feels the need to play spellcasters (like in v3.5) to feel or be powerful.
|
|
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.I look for a new version being released somewhere between Gen Con 2012 and Gen Con 2013. WotC isn't gong to call it 5th edition, but that will be the popular name.
I think a lot of these points are contradictory. I think WotC is enthralled with social media and they are not going to connect with grognards, pathfinders and their former customers as long as they maintain this infatuation. I also think that purging the old timers leaves them with little chance of reconnecting with lost fans. Monte may be able to help with this, but I suspect that he's going to be too isolated from gamers to make this happen.
IMO, what WotC needs is to develop a robust digital game room, with 24/7 uptime, where people can log in and queue up for a session. (Similar to the WoW dungeon finder). How they incentivize the DM's to run games is one issue. I think this is the ultimate end of their push for on-line gaming. If you combine this with the short sessions D&D Encounters approach, it could be viable. Unfortunately, WotC's record is rather poor when it comes to meeting digital promises.
However, I think they burned their bridges when they came out with 4.0. One long time player of my acquaintance was told by a WotC rep during a 4e seminar that he was not the "target audience" for the game. I just don't see any scenario where WotC can recapture a substantial portion of their lost customer base.
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
That sounds simply amazing. One can hope and dream I suppose...
Why did you quote me and then remove what I said? Your post is very misleading.
|
|
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
I fear not. Points 5, 7, 8 and 9 foremost.
I play/DM a number of games spanning from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.5 Core only, to heavily houseruled PFRPG. The differences in gameplay these rulesets elicit are quite strong and clearly defined, even when taking away the house rule part from the PFRPG games and comparing it to its closest ancestor, the 3.5 books.The gap is even wider and more difficult to bridge, from a simple attitudinal standpoint - thusly taking away all those burdensome mechanical twists and turns - when putting the 3.X style of play side to side to previous editions.
And while I don't play 4E, from what I've read in the first 3 core books, the is another large gap from 3.X to 4E.
The difference in expectations from 4E players and "grognards" is way too much to easily handle with an omni-comprehensive set of "anniversary rules".
I'd rather see a bold move, scrapping once and for all unwieldy holy cows such as the AC value that encompasses dodge ability, armor resistance and shield parrying, or the HP concept of both stamina, will to fight and actual damage sustained/sustainable. Or the handy but limiting Vancian spellcasting. And so on.
Something that could be tailored to a variety of styles (see the FantasyCraft example with its campaign qualities), while putting to good use the lessons in game design and crowd contr... ehrm, pleasing that have been - hopefully - learned so far.
After closeting with my think tank, I believe the fifth edition now under development will
1. Not be called 5e, but something else with a more markety name
2. Be even more integrated with digital and online content
3. Have board game elements, yet
4. Make minis optional
5. Aim to bring in (or back) the grognards
6. Aim to bring back the Pathfinders
7. Be both a new edition and editionless
8. Be a bridging ruleset across editions
9. Be an innovate ruleset
10. Be a ruleset that offers both simplified core elements and advanced options.Can you do it, Monte!?
I fear not. Points 5, 7, 8 and 9 foremost.
I play/DM a number of games spanning from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.5 Core only, to heavily houseruled PFRPG. The differences in gameplay these rulesets elicit are quite strong and clearly defined, even when taking away the house rule part from the PFRPG games and comparing it to its closest ancestor, the 3.5 books.
The gap is even wider and more difficult to bridge, from a simple attitudinal standpoint - thusly taking away all those burdensome mechanical twists and turns - when putting the 3.X style of play side to side to previous editions.And while I don't play 4E, from what I've read in the first 3 core books, the is another large gap from 3.X to 4E.
The difference in expectations from 4E players and "grognards" is way too much to easily handle with an omni-comprehensive set of "anniversary rules".
I'd rather see a bold move, scrapping once and for all unwieldy holy cows such as the AC value that encompasses dodge ability, armor resistance and shield parrying, or the HP concept of both stamina, will to fight and actual damage sustained/sustainable. Or the handy but limiting Vancian spellcasting. And so on.
Something that could be tailored to a variety of styles (see the FantasyCraft example with its campaign qualities), while putting to good use the lessons in game design and crowd contr... ehrm, pleasing that have been - hopefully - learned so...
I think breaking the sacred cows is something the 4e crowd can tolerate more than the crowd from earlier editions. At this point it is probably smart to do so.
I know I no longer have anything invested in D&D in the form of 4e so any further erosion of the sacred cows would not bother the 'older fans'. I really think the mold of D&D is going to have to break to be a viable product that Hasbro is willing to keep.
Seems part of the advantage of Paizo being in house. They can make exactly the game they want. I am not sure Mike Mearls has that luxury.
|
|
As usual give someone enough money and any hate or dislike they have towards anything disappears. I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before. You trash talk both the rpg and the copany then you go back to work for the company. Sorry I cannot and will not respect such a person.
|
|
I think breaking the sacred cows is something the 4e crowd can tolerate more than the crowd from earlier editions. At this point it is probably smart to do so.I know I no longer have anything invested in D&D in the form of 4e so any further erosion of the sacred cows would not bother the 'older fans'. I really think the mold of D&D is going to have to break to be a viable product that Hasbro is willing to keep.
Seems part of the advantage of Paizo being in house. They can make exactly the game they want. I am not sure Mike Mearls has that luxury.
With 4E they started breaking sacred cows and I agree they need to do more. Bringing them back imo is not going to get gamers inerested imo. I have Pathfinder and 4E. Why would I to play let almone buy another version of D&D with the same Vancian magic system or any other sacred cow again.