This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!
This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!
I like how doing the same thing they always do to 5E speculation threads since day one of 4E is counted as evidence for 5E.
This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!I like how doing the same thing they always do to 5E speculation threads since day one of 4E is counted as evidence for 5E.
I was thinking more about the statement from Margaret Weiss.
I was thinking more about the statement from Margaret Weiss.This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!I like how doing the same thing they always do to 5E speculation threads since day one of 4E is counted as evidence for 5E.
Ah, it looked like you were responding to the "new" information from wizard's board in response to it. Especially as you had posted in this thread between the link to Margaret Weiss's comments and the link to the message board.
Edit: Ah, the Margaret Weiss comment was new to this thread. I had seen it before on the Monte is working for Wizards thread. My bad.
Who is "they"?
They are WotC forum moderators/official posters. All the WotC rep said was he moved the thread to where it should be, like they do with all the other 5e speculation threads.
So, are you saying that Margaret Weiss is not a reputable source? (This is an honest question meant to spark discussion, not an accusation).
I feel this comes off as "a friend of a friend told me....." type of thing. Sorry but we don't know who the 2nd source was and Monte is no doubt under an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) so I guess confirmations will have to wait and speculation will suffice. So, just like telephone there are ways that what was supposedly said could be mininterpreted. We don't know what, if any, stage they might be in nor do we know Monte's full role if they were creating a new system.
Would I be suprised if he was working on the beginning foundations for 5E? No, not really. If they expect to have any sort of success with 5E by 2014 (D&D's 40th anniversary) then they NEED to get working on it ASAP though I feel this "could" be the preliminary process of figuring out what sort of Base the system is going to have. Judging by the Legends and Lore articles, it's clear to me that they're attempting to be very modular with the system. Everything from the bare basics and little to no magic to the extreme fantasy with fantastic weapons and magic. The system might be able to easily fullfill both styles. Same might go for magic, keeping it simple spells and effects but with the options for more powerful aspects for different campaigns.
The problem I see with this is that more advanced styles probably will require more money as it'll most likely be done by supplement and not inclusive with the Core Rules. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
So, are you saying that Margaret Weiss is not a reputable source? (This is an honest question meant to spark discussion, not an accusation).
I feel this comes off as "a friend of a friend told me....." type of thing. Sorry but we don't know who the 2nd source was and Monte is no doubt under an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) so I guess confirmations will have to wait and speculation will suffice. So, just like telephone there are ways that what was supposedly said could be mininterpreted. We don't know what, if any, stage they might be in nor do we know Monte's full role if they were creating a new system.
Would I be suprised if he was working on the beginning foundations for 5E? No, not really. If they expect to have any sort of success with 5E by 2014 (D&D's 40th anniversary) then they NEED to get working on it ASAP though I feel this "could" be the preliminary process of figuring out what sort of Base the system is going to have. Judging by the Legends and Lore articles, it's clear to me that they're attempting to be very modular with the system. Everything from the bare basics and little to no magic to the extreme fantasy with fantastic weapons and magic. The system might be able to easily fullfill both styles. Same might go for magic, keeping it simple spells and effects but with the options for more powerful aspects for different campaigns.
The problem I see with this is that more advanced styles probably will require more money as it'll most likely be done by supplement and not inclusive with the Core Rules. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
I think you make a good point, even if Monte was just hired to start work on 5e, it is not something we are going to see in the near term. I would say 2013 at the absolute earliest, and I would expect that it would take longer then that for a whole new addition.
Well, not to be crazily on topic or anything, but my take is that if WoTC is indeed working on 5E, it's all the more important that keep doing exactly what they're doing.
Clearly it's working well, and I think it might work even better were the market to fragment a second time.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, not to be crazily on topic or anything, but my take is that if WoTC is indeed working on 5E, it's all the more important that keep doing exactly what they're doing.
Clearly it's working well, and I think it might work even better were the market to fragment a second time.
I can't quite tell if that's sarcasm or not.
If (when!) 5e comes out, if it is radically different from 4e (like how 4e differs from 3.x) I really feel sorry for the folks who like 4e. Because of the GSL, there won't be another publisher to leap into the fray to keep the mechanics alive.
Instructional aside, I'll be curious how WoD classic sells compared to New Coke, er New World of Darkness.
|
This continues to drift off-topic, but the Essentials line came out a year ago and doesn't appear to have done anything to stop D&D's market share slide. I think it's safe to say that 5e will be announced by Gen Con 2012 at the latest. The most aggressive approach would have 5e announced at D&D expo 2012 (does wotc still do that) with a Gen Con 2012 debut. Posibly wotc will take a page from Paizo's book and deliver a cut down 5e playtest at Gen Con.
WotC simply can't take a a couple of years to deliver 5e, if they want to attract the gamers who left for PF in the early years of 4e. A lot of PF gamers are lost to Wizards forever due to tht 4e missteps and the longer that goes by the more people will fall into that camp. So Monte can have a hand in what is eventually delivered, but 1) he's not doing it by himself and 2) it looks largely like he is a figurehead to make people think that WotC cares what gamers think.
|
If (when!) 5e comes out, if it is radically different from 4e (like how 4e differs from 3.x) I really feel sorry for the folks who like 4e. Because of the GSL, there won't be another publisher to leap into the fray to keep the mechanics alive.
I think the biggest problem for 4e fans when 5e comes out is that DDI will likely no longer support 4e and thus the character builder etc will go.
However, if anything not having another publisher to "leap into the fray" may mean 4e fans who don't like 5e may still actually keep playing 4e and thus mean its easier to keep playing 4e; unlike with D&D3.5 where Pathfinder RPG has actually made it even harder to find 3.5 players!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If (when!) 5e comes out, if it is radically different from 4e (like how 4e differs from 3.x) I really feel sorry for the folks who like 4e. Because of the GSL, there won't be another publisher to leap into the fray to keep the mechanics alive.I think the biggest problem for 4e fans when 5e comes out is that DDI will likely no longer support 4e and thus the character builder etc will go.
However, if anything not having another publisher to "leap into the fray" may mean 4e fans who don't like 5e may still actually keep playing 4e and thus mean its easier to keep playing 4e; unlike with D&D3.5 where Pathfinder RPG has actually made it even harder to find 3.5 players!
I've never been on the DDI thing, (no interest) so is the content there easily downloadable? It's been part of the reason I don't do digital comics. I'm not buying a file I can keep on my drive, make back ups of etc. I'm paying to access a file on someone else's computer, so if they pull it for whatever reason, I'm humped.
Of course the worst of both worlds would be "You can still access our 4e content, you just need to maintain your subscription to a system you don't play, for a set of content we won't update."
Edit: The post of the Beast!
|
If (when!) 5e comes out, if it is radically different from 4e (like how 4e differs from 3.x) I really feel sorry for the folks who like 4e. Because of the GSL, there won't be another publisher to leap into the fray to keep the mechanics alive.I think the biggest problem for 4e fans when 5e comes out is that DDI will likely no longer support 4e and thus the character builder etc will go.
However, if anything not having another publisher to "leap into the fray" may mean 4e fans who don't like 5e may still actually keep playing 4e and thus mean its easier to keep playing 4e; unlike with D&D3.5 where Pathfinder RPG has actually made it even harder to find 3.5 players!
I have a strange feeling that when WotC flips the switch on DDI to 5e, the 4e players will just change en masse - all 4E players I know are addicted to DDI and they likely just won't be interested in doing it all by hand all over again.
If that happens, then DDI will be actually the greatest success of WotC, ever. Best edition switch marketing tool, woot!
Not to get into a legal argument about GSL or Copyright crap but I don't see why a 3PP couldn't produce Adventures using 4E? I mean, they could just do their own monsters or reference monsters in D&D's Monster Manual or any other 4E supplement to fit into the campaign. Skill Challenges could still be done, again, while referencing their main mechanics within WotC content. And they may actually be better adventures than what they're getting.
As for being a 4E fan and looking into the maw of 5E, I don't have a problem with it. Lets be honest, getting into this hobby is expensive. You're always going to run the risk of your favorite supplements not being supported anymore. It's been happening for 40 years so it's really no suprise. I'd be happy to see 5E a completly new and diverse ruleset instead of supporting a system I already own. Diversity is the spice of life and it's a reason why I still play v3.5, PF, AND 4E because they're all fun for different reasons.
And if DDI doesn't support 4E and I don't like 5E then I'll cancel my subscription and write up my character with good ol' pencil and eraser (something I've already been doing since 4E's debut). It's only easy when I can print out the power/spell selection instead of looking it up in a book.
|
|
I've never been on the DDI thing, (no interest) so is the content there easily downloadable?
The character builder and monster builder used to be downloadable but now are just online tools. Luckily I downloaded the tools and so can still use them even though I stopped my DDI subscription - god help me if my PC dies though :( The compendium of rules was always online only.
Dungeon and Dragon magazine articles are downloadable PDFs still though.
It's been part of the reason I don't do digital comics.
Ditto for me :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not to get into a legal argument about GSL or Copyright crap but I don't see why a 3PP couldn't produce Adventures using 4E? I mean, they could just do their own monsters or reference monsters in D&D's Monster Manual or any other 4E supplement to fit into the campaign. Skill Challenges could still be done, again, while referencing their main mechanics within WotC content. And they may actually be better adventures than what they're getting.
The concern is (in MNSHO) new players and cost/availability.
The concern of Paizo, IIRC, was that the rules would 'die' or that they'd have to either come up with their own version or use someone else's. I can go into the FLGS and get a copy of True20, or Pathfinder or (I think) Spycraft. I can't get a new copy of the 3.x PHB to get my Godkids, or even if I found one, they couldn't get a copy for their friends, etc.
It would be the same concern for 4.x players. you've taught Billy how to play 4.x and he likes it. Now are you going to let Billy take your (only!) copy of your 4.x books over to Timmy's to let them play? What if Timmy then wants his own copy?
For the publishing side, if I (as hypothetical writer) can produce a 4.x adventure that will sell 20 copies, or a Pathfinder version that will sell 60 copies, which makes more business sense?
Monte can have a hand in what is eventually delivered, but 1) he's not doing it by himself and 2) it looks largely like he is a figurehead to make people think that WotC cares what gamers think.
I think this would be the very worst thing WotC could do. At this point, Monte's association with the game is a good thing for D&D's fans AND its detractors. If it becomes glaringly obvious at any point in the future that he's been pulled aboard to rubber-stamp an edition with sub-par design and development (or some weird fusion of D&D branding and traditional board game-style play) with his industry credibility, it will hurt WotC's chance of regaining those lost fans much worse than 4E ever did.
The concern is (in MNSHO) new players and cost/availability.The concern of Paizo, IIRC, was that the rules would 'die' or that they'd have to either come up with their own version or use someone else's. I can go into the FLGS and get a copy of True20, or Pathfinder or (I think) Spycraft. I can't get a new copy of the 3.x PHB to get my Godkids, or even if I found one, they couldn't get a copy for their friends, etc.
It would be the same concern for 4.x players. you've taught Billy how to play 4.x and he likes it. Now are you going to let Billy take your (only!) copy of your 4.x books over to Timmy's to let them play? What if Timmy then wants his own copy?
For the publishing side, if I (as hypothetical writer) can produce a 4.x adventure that will sell 20 copies, or a Pathfinder version that will sell 60 copies, which makes more business sense?
Yea, you make some very good points. Why make adventures for rules that aren't supported in any sense of the word with a limited quantity of supplement? Still, I think a 3PP who published a lot of other content could throw out an adventure or two a year that applies to 4E ruleset.
But a good note about not supporting 4E in lieu of 5E would be no more Errata every few months. No more worrying about if they're going to change Twin Strike, what magical items healing works with, or changing class features 3 months after they publish an article on DDI. Thse are the biggest pet peeves with me about 4E. Not so much the mechanics but how they change drastically from the books. Personally I'd just revert back to what hte books say if they cancelled DDI 4E support. Actually, it's probably much simpler for me lol.
So here's a question for you (collective you), would you rather see 5E with rules and style akin to 3E/PF (BAB, Saves vs spells, robust skill set, multi-level class stacking) OR have something completly different than 3E/PF and 4E?
Monte can have a hand in what is eventually delivered, but 1) he's not doing it by himself and 2) it looks largely like he is a figurehead to make people think that WotC cares what gamers think.I think this would be the very worst thing WotC could do. At this point, Monte's association with the game is a good thing for D&D's fans AND its detractors. If it becomes glaringly obvious at any point in the future that he's been pulled aboard to rubber-stamp an edition with sub-par design and development (or some weird fusion of D&D branding and traditional board game-style play) with his industry credibility, it will hurt WotC's chance of regaining those lost fans much worse than 4E ever did.
I doubt they would bother to hire Monte to not actually do anything. His name is only really important to a fairly small subset of D&D players. Besides, its not like the corporate overlords at Hasbro really care about the mechanics of D&D. They only care if it is selling.
If you look at Mike Mearl's Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, I think you'll see they have a good grasp on both what D&D is, and how to tweak a system.
I personally think that you could take some of the best ideas from 4E and bring them back into a more traditional looking D&D. In fact, the first thing I thought when I picked up the 4E Rules Cyclopedia is that it was a very tight ruleset. I really want to try to meld those rules with lighter, BECMI style character creation. I think it would work remarkably well.
I did not like Mike Mearl's take on D&D at all, it was a brand new game using a well known IP. I did however like some of his Iron heroes stuff. I would Indeed give 5e a look if it was more old school and less 4e. I do think a good deal of clunkyness needs rippout of of 3.5 rules set, you can take some ideas from 4e ( ok mostly from Saga, which was far , far better then 4e)
I would use Saga as the starting point really.
I doubt they would bother to hire Monte to not actually do anything. His name is only really important to a fairly small subset of D&D players. Besides, its not like the corporate overlords at Hasbro really care about the mechanics of D&D. They only care if it is selling.
Agreed. My concern is that a company with its roots in traditional board games may have some... let's say "interesting" ideas about what will sell. I actually do believe that a large part of 4E's presentation and play was designed to mimic popular MMOs in order to drum up interest, and I furthermore believe that that course was plotted in board rooms by focus groups rather than at game tables by gamers. (Please don't argue the point with me; I've read all the arguments in other threads already, and I'm not bashing 4E because of it - if anything, it manages to be fun IN SPITE of it in many ways.)
But a successful 5E doesn't need to be formulated based on ill-applied marketing research and analysis by people who don't understand tabletop roleplaying games, something I'm convinced played a bigger part in 4E's development than many people want to admit. The marketing talking heads that were caught on camera like deer in headlights at GenCon and D&D Expo the year 4E launched is evidence enough for me of this; many of them very obviously didn't understand RPGs and didn't know how to talk intelligently about the game - you can tell because they use a lot of buzzwords like "fast" and "exciting" without getting specific about what makes the game fast or exciting. (Find the YouTube footage of Sara Gerard and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.)
I just hope they learned their lesson from 4E, is all I'm saying. And having brought Monte on board, it LOOKS like they did.
I personally think that you could take some of the best ideas from 4E and bring them back into a more traditional looking D&D. In fact, the first thing I thought when I picked up the 4E Rules Cyclopedia is that it was a very tight ruleset. I really want to try to meld those rules with lighter, BECMI style character creation. I think it would work remarkably well.
Oh, I absolutely agree. The underpinnings of 4E are brilliantly simple. They practically beg for a reskin.
...
So here's a question for you (collective you), would you rather see 5E with rules and style akin to 3E/PF (BAB, Saves vs spells, robust skill set, multi-level class stacking) OR have something completly different than 3E/PF and 4E?
Personally I like some parts of 4E and I'd love to see the system cut even more down to core. I like the logic that the attacker rolls vs target's fixed defense - nice, clear and simple. I like the skill system consolidation, although I'd love to see some other skills in there (but I like 3E way of point distribution more to my liking). I liked p. 42 table for nonstandard action and I'd actually love it to replace the system of powers, instead setting a guideline of what can be achieved and how much of resources it costs - 1 dice of damage, 1 square push or +2 bonus to saves costing X and then having At-will action able to combine 3X, Encounter 5X an Daily 7X or something like that. Giving the player a bit more space to express fantasy. Classes then could have some extra tricks the others can't get as easily. I like 3E spells more than 4E powers, that are too stiff for my tastes, so this is an amalgam of the two that could at once have the ballance and variability IMO.
...
So here's a question for you (collective you), would you rather see 5E with rules and style akin to 3E/PF (BAB, Saves vs spells, robust skill set, multi-level class stacking) OR have something completly different than 3E/PF and 4E?
I'd like it to be completely new - I can see why people like backwards compatibility but it's low priority for me.
I wasn't playing DnD then, but the 3.0 to 3.5 change would have annoyed me. As it is, I only bought the PF rules due to my love of the flavor material, my completionist tendencies and my admiration for the company. If I was someone crying out for a change to 3.5, I think the minimalist approach paizo took would have annoyed me too. If they ever make a Pf2, I hope they at least allow themselves to explore radically different design assumptions.
|
|
I personally think that you could take some of the best ideas from 4E and bring them back into a more traditional looking D&D. In fact, the first thing I thought when I picked up the 4E Rules Cyclopedia is that it was a very tight ruleset. I really want to try to meld those rules with lighter, BECMI style character creation. I think it would work remarkably well.
I'm kind of thinking that taking the best ideas from 4e would lead to a clean sheet redesign. IMO, the most worthwhile idea in 4e was "healing surges" as a mechanism for making everyone responsible for their own hit points and eliminating the need for a healbot cleric and I think it was poorly implemented. I think the solution to that is some sort of out of combat healing which doesn't take party resources - PFS is moving this direction with wands of CLW. CLW and CMW are unused about two levels after you get them. They don't do enough in combat and it's much easier to wand outside of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that you could take some of the best ideas from 4E and bring them back into a more traditional looking D&D. In fact, the first thing I thought when I picked up the 4E Rules Cyclopedia is that it was a very tight ruleset. I really want to try to meld those rules with lighter, BECMI style character creation. I think it would work remarkably well.I'm kind of thinking that taking the best ideas from 4e would lead to a clean sheet redesign. IMO, the most worthwhile idea in 4e was "healing surges" as a mechanism for making everyone responsible for their own hit points and eliminating the need for a healbot cleric and I think it was poorly implemented. I think the solution to that is some sort of out of combat healing which doesn't take party resources - PFS is moving this direction with wands of CLW. CLW and CMW are unused about two levels after you get them. They don't do enough in combat and it's much easier to wand outside of combat.
The core critical change is that HP are not literal wounds. Once you remove that assumption lots of options open up. Redefining what HP is the starting point.
Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga! If WotC had just used a cleaned up fantasy/D&D focused version of Saga from the start (and hadn't done a fluff cow hunt) they wouldn't have broken the community the way it did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core critical change is that HP are not literal wounds. Once you remove that assumption lots of options open up. Redefining what HP is the starting point.
Go re-read what Gary Gygax wrote about HP. Hit points were never literal wounds. A fighter gained hit points as an abstraction of both toughness and the skill to avoid serious wounds in the first place.
Go re-read what Gary Gygax wrote about HP. Hit points were never literal wounds. A fighter gained hit points as an abstraction of both toughness and the skill to avoid serious wounds in the first place.
I've read it, and I apply it often in my games (though not always, dependent upon the game I'm going for), however the thing is hp still look like wounds in most settings. Swinging a sword and hitting a guy = hp loss. This makes it look like hp=wounds. Often in games (Pathfinder included, but 4E stepping away from that somewhat with bard insults that "demoralize" and thus deal hp damage, etc) hp look like how many wounds a person can have before falling. The main problem is that hp seem too abstract. I like them, and I couldn't and haven't designed a perfect way around this, but that's the real problem. Acid deals damage. Dropping into a vat of acid does damage. Being hit by fire does damage. Being dropped onto a fire does damage. Falling does damage. Swords deal damage. All these things do "damage". That makes it sound like, well, "damage", aka how many wounds a person can have (and in that way 4E is worse, as everything deals damage... except certain monster powers which is annoying*).
Really, I'd generally appreciate something more robust, like PF/3.X, though streamlining has its uses and features - I'm very okay with passive things. One trick, however, is that I don't like penalizing players for actually trying to do good things (i.e. passive v. active and rolling low).
* This is not entirely true, though it is a strong tendency. Recently an online friend made a completely non-damaging wizard build (except for one class feature) that would theoretically be successful in battle, but it took him something akin to five (or more?) books to find all the things that he needed to do so. So, you know, it's possible. It was just thematically all over the place. Also, I'm not against damage. It's just annoying that most non-damaging PC abilities... are also damage-dealing abilities ("cause it to attack its nearest ally" and things like that).
I wasn't playing DnD then, but the 3.0 to 3.5 change would have annoyed me. As it is, I only bought the PF rules due to my love of the flavor material, my completionist tendencies and my admiration for the company. If I was someone crying out for a change to 3.5, I think the minimalist approach paizo took would have annoyed me too. If they ever make a Pf2, I hope they at least allow themselves to explore radically different design assumptions.
It was annoying. The 3.5e rule set was indeed better in my opinion, but it was still annoying.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I was slow getting on board Pathfinder. Not that I haven't been a subscriber since day one, but I didn't like the feeling that I had to change my rule system. And it is not an insignificant change.
All this talk about DDI reminds me that Pathfinder needs a tool as easy to use as the 4e character builder. I've never used Hero whatever (can't remember the name), as I really don't feel like paying that much, and while I like PCGen, I've always found it slow and hard to extend.
I wasn't playing DnD then, but the 3.0 to 3.5 change would have annoyed me. As it is, I only bought the PF rules due to my love of the flavor material, my completionist tendencies and my admiration for the company. If I was someone crying out for a change to 3.5, I think the minimalist approach paizo took would have annoyed me too. If they ever make a Pf2, I hope they at least allow themselves to explore radically different design assumptions.It was annoying. The 3.5e rule set was indeed better in my opinion, but it was still annoying.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I was slow getting on board Pathfinder. Not that I haven't been a subscriber since day one, but I didn't like the feeling that I had to change my rule system. And it is not an insignificant change.
All this talk about DDI reminds me that Pathfinder needs a tool as easy to use as the 4e character builder. I've never used Hero whatever (can't remember the name), as I really don't feel like paying that much, and while I like PCGen, I've always found it slow and hard to extend.
I would agree with that. Whilst I'm not a big fan of computers as a general rule, the 4E character builders are pretty amazing tools. I have herolab too for PF, but it's not quite as slick and easy to use, in my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about DDI reminds me that Pathfinder needs a tool as easy to use as the 4e character builder. I've never used Hero whatever (can't remember the name), as I really don't feel like paying that much, and while I like PCGen, I've always found it slow and hard to extend.
Hero Lab is very good. One thing you need to keep in mind is that it is a one-time purchase, unlike DDI where you pay every month. I've been unemployed for over two years and Hero Lab was worth the money for PF core rules, UC and UM. I'm not spending the money for the other miscellaneous PF products, but what I have works fine for PFS and non-adventure path home games. I can sort of make it work for the one 3.5 game that I am still playing: it just requires some creativity.
I quite agree, Herolab is a pretty good program. Although having to buy the additional books past the core may turn off some potential customers, but they do have a business to run so I imagine having a steady stream of revenue helps :)
On PCGen being slow, yes we are aware of it and are continuously working on making it function faster. Write now Tom, Connor and others are doing a complete re-write of the core code that is looking VERY promising. So if you haven't downloaded PCGen in a while give the latest alpha a try and see if it's improved.
On extending the data files for PCGen, in the latest production and alpha releases there is a "homebrew" basic empty dataset that you can edit and there are pointers and guidelines and such in there that will help you create your own data for classes, feats and such. And of course there always monkey's hanging out here to help you with your data questions on why something isn't working right.
|
I quite agree, Herolab is a pretty good program. Although having to buy the additional books past the core may turn off some potential customers, but they do have a business to run so I imagine having a steady stream of revenue helps :)
I missed the part where someone from Lone Wolf shows up at your house and forces you to buy those at gunpoint.
You can program it in yourself, or search around online for someone who has already done so.
I was being realistic, most gamers are collectors, most gamers like to have all their books as useable options, most gamers are moderately lazy.
When you combine the above, plus getting more timely updates to a book, almost all people using a commercial character builder are going to opt for the easiest method (ie purchase the books). As opposed to build custom classes, feats, races etc, test them, fix errors in them, re-test them, fix more bugs etc on their own time.
|
|
My only hope is that 5e, if it is more than speculative vaporware, is good. I remember the so-called good ol' days when there were dozens of rpg's, some clearly better than others and some simply more popular for whatever reason. It was an amazing time to be a part of this hobby. You watched the market to see what new games were coming out and it was like waiting for a blockbuster movie.
Anyone remember the old TORG ad campaigns? Nothing but pics of stormy skies in various colors and some blurb or quote for MONTHS...before the name of the game was ever even included!
Shadowrun did very much the same thing... with the Elmore pic that ended up as the cover for 1st and 2nd Edition...
It was a lot of fun.
Whatever 5e is, I hope it brings attention back to playing tabletop rpg's. I don't know if being number 1 is all that important to Paizo (as I assume it is to WotC) so long as their product is profitable and met with praise.
I've never cared if the game I play is #1, #2 or #googol so long as my group is having fun with it (in so much as the game company can afford to continue supporting it, that is).
I just hope that when WotC does make a 5th edition, it won't try luring away Pathfinder fans by rehashing 3e.
A new edition should be truly innovative IMO. I'm not a fan of resurrecting sacred cows.
4e has definitely been my favourite RPG system so far, but I think their post-Dark Sun products have been pretty lame. I'm not sure that WotC currently has enough talented designers to put together a system that could be better than 4e.
Hopefully they build up their talent pool before starting to work on the inevitable 5e.
I just hope that when WotC does make a 5th edition, it won't try luring away Pathfinder fans by rehashing 3e.
In all honesty, this is the very thing they should be trying. You want to bring back lapsed players and bring in new players at the same time.
For myself I think they started in the right direction with Saga, but derailed somewhere between it and 4e. I think they should go back to it, and start from there, taking some things learned from 4e, but I really feel like they will never get many lapsed players back if they keep going down the 4E road.
My only hope is that 5e, if it is more than speculative vaporware, is good. I remember the so-called good ol' days when there were dozens of rpg's, some clearly better than others and some simply more popular for whatever reason. It was an amazing time to be a part of this hobby. You watched the market to see what new games were coming out and it was like waiting for a blockbuster movie.
This is a great time to be a gamer. If you look around, there are tons of awesome games being produced. Far more than I can keep up with. Check out Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Cthulhutech, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Black Crusade, Dresden Files, Traveller, Dragon Age, Mutants and Masterminds, etc. Those are just the games I like. Between PDF and Print on Demand, this really is a golden age of RPG development. Anyone determined enough can make a game, and the good stuff rises to the top.
It's all out there if you pay attention.
I just hope that when WotC does make a 5th edition, it won't try luring away Pathfinder fans by rehashing 3e.
In all honesty, this is the very thing they should be trying. You want to bring back lapsed players and bring in new players at the same time.
For myself I think they started in the right direction with Saga, but derailed somewhere between it and 4e. I think they should go back to it, and start from there, taking some things learned from 4e, but I really feel like they will never get many lapsed players back if they keep going down the 4E road.
I think 4e was great, and a major improvement over 3e.
That being said, they should move forward rather than trying to make their new system similar to 4e or 3e.
If WotC tries to rehash 3e, then what motivation do people have to jump on the bandwagon? You already have the old books and Pathfinder for those who like 3e. How would they justify spending their cash for something so similar to what they already have?
Sure, the whole 3.5e scam worked, but it also pissed off a lot of people.
WotC would at best recover only a small fraction of their 3e fanbase. At the same time, they would piss off their entire 4e fanbase by resurrecting the sacred cows of 3e.
Ultimately, the smartest decision would be to present a fresh new edition which is distinct from 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. Then they can tap a new market by getting RPG players who don't like either 4e or 3e.
A new edition ( for almost every game out there) is not a brand new system, but more 1e to 2e or 3.0 to 3.5 scale of changes. A total system rebuild is not the way most games are updated to a new edition. 2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap. The 3.5 update pissed people off because the timing, not because the changes. It came out far, far to soon.
I am gonna disagree on a fresh system that alienates 1e,2e,3e and 4e players. They lost a good amount by going 3e to 4e. They simply can not afford to run off all the fan base, the either needs to keep the 4e folks or try to keep the 4e folks while bring back people who disliked the 4e changes.
That is how editions work, they improve, fix, rework flaws, they do not rebuild from the ground up.
You do not alienate your customers, you do not make something so out of line to what they want you lose a massive chunk of them. That was a mistake they made once, and I do not see them making it again ( I could be wrong they way they mess up never ceases to amaze me).
I think 4e was great, and a major improvement over 3e.
That being said, they should move forward rather than trying to make their new system similar to 4e or 3e.
If WotC tries to rehash 3e, then what motivation do people have to jump on the bandwagon? You already have the old books and Pathfinder for those who like 3e. How would they justify spending their cash for something so similar to what they already have?
Sure, the whole 3.5e scam worked, but it also pissed off a lot of people.
WotC would at best recover only a small fraction of their 3e fanbase. At the same time, they would piss off their entire 4e fanbase by resurrecting the sacred cows of 3e.
Ultimately, the smartest decision would be to present a fresh new edition which is distinct from 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. Then they can tap a new market by getting RPG players who don't like either 4e or 3e.
This is similar to my thinking too, except for noting the fact that gaming companies in general dont keep supporting old editions. That means if they dont make 5th edition palatable to 4th edition players they face the same problem they have every time they bring out a new edition - the loss of current paying customers for the promise of potential future customers.
This tendency to 'move on' is also concerning (to me at least) given the recent shift to online content. I have very little hope that the online tools will remain once 5th edition comes out. If anything, I suspect the 4th edition -> 5th edition resentment to be even greater than previous schisms have been. Those of us who play 4th edition are much more dependant on the company than we used to be, in my view. The online Character Builder and other tools may be optional, but I dont know many who would willingly play without them (and the offline CB is becoming less and less useful).
2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.No bigger than 2e to 3e.
It's all a matter of personal preferences, I suspect. For my group the AD&D -> 2nd edition was such a leap that we felt we were playing a different game and didnt move on. We continued with AD&D for a while then drifted off to other systems.
It seems to me that a game which changes one's cherished features will seem to be 'a massive shift' whereas a game which preserves your own likes and changes things you never paid much attention to (or were ambivalent about, anyhow) will not seem like such a change. I think it's difficult to assign an objective measure to 'how much an edition has changed from the previous one'.
2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.No bigger than 2e to 3e.
I am gonna disagree, the lack of vanican casting and changes to some core concepts alone made it a far larger change. 2e to 3e was big, don't get me wrong but I would call the departure and death of so many key parts of the system as a march larger change.
2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.No bigger than 2e to 3e.
Exactly. Back in the day of the 2e to 3e switch there was also edition wars going on, and people raging about how D&D had been destroyed.
There's actually a pretty funny thread I've seen a few times where people were bashing 3e for turning D&D into a video game. Comparisons to Diablo abounded, and trolling ensued.
Kind of reminds me of the "ZOMG 4e is Warcraft!11!" trolling that used to be so popular...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am gonna disagree, the lack of vanican casting and changes to some core concepts alone made it a far larger change. 2e to 3e was big, don't get me wrong but I would call the departure and death of so many key parts of the system as a march larger change.2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.No bigger than 2e to 3e.
I'm going to agree with seeker on the size of the jump. The number of mechanics changes are almost enough is scope to about the same level. On top of that there are many radical changes in fluff and presentation that make it a significantly bigger change.
1e to 2e: Mostly Fluff, some mechanical
2e to 3e: Major Mechanical, very little fluff.
3e to 4e: Moderate Mechanical, major fluff.
====
On the "It's Diablo" allegations, to be fair, there was actually a cusp Diablo supplement. First printed in 2e format, then again revised into 3e format as Diablo 2.
So here's a question for you (collective you), would you rather see 5E with rules and style akin to 3E/PF (BAB, Saves vs spells, robust skill set, multi-level class stacking) OR have something completly different than 3E/PF and 4E?
I wouldn't necessarily mind if the new edition were something completely different, but with some important stipulations:
1) The direction of the differences/deviations matters a great deal to me. It should strive to be more "simulationist" (for lack of a better term), rather than less so. It needs to have more inter-class diversity, rather than less so. It ought to... you get the picture. I am not opposed to change, but if it must be in the right direction for me or I will dislike it intensely and forgo buying it altogether.
2) Regardless of the changes, the new edition has to possess enough of the mechanical and flavor components of the 1E/2E/3E to be clearly recognizable to me as D&D. I know this is a somewhat nebulous requirement, but it is difficult to narrow this down.
There may be more, but that's what comes to mind immediately.
Anyway, although I started playing D&D long before that, 3.X edition was mechanically my favorite (settings were best in 2E), so if there is a starting-point edition that has to be chosen, I would pick that one. Having said that, I don't think there will be a starting point edition that 5e will be derived from, though the new edition will surely incorporate elements of the previous ones.
Here is the latest Legends & Lore article to fuel more speculation. "Live Together, Die Alone" is about party cooperation: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111011
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the latest Legends & Lore article to fuel more speculation. "Live Together, Die Alone" is about party cooperation: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111011
Monty does better this time around, but I think he's misidentified the problem here:
They say that using an action to help someone else is a waste of that action. They'd rather use all of their own game time inflicting damage and being the star—and that's fine. There's certainly nothing wrong with wanting to be powerful and cool. That's a big part of the game. But what people who criticize "action wasting actions" don't realize is that there are people who actively enjoy helping others.
Healing is inefficient if it decreases your overall damage output, not because it's not interesting. The 3.5/PF cleric is nearly always better suited to thwacking a monster in the face than casting a healing spell, because if he can kill the monster, it stops dealing damage and he's thereby prevented more HP loss than his healing would have fixed. That criticism isn't a matter of game style, it's an entirely mechanical point. Unless healing outpaces incoming damage, or buys more actions from the biggest damage dealer, it's not the best use of your time.
Support character design needs to take the efficiency of the action economy under advisement to be meaningful.