I mean I guess they could do a system that has skill based everything and be classless but I'm not sure that would still feel like D&D to me.
It seems like quite the pickle to me and I am not envious of the position they are in.
Now not to bring up the edition wars or anything but from my point of view this announcing of a new edition before Paizo does anything 'major' of the same sort with pathfinder is a bit of an announcement of defeat. Fourth edition spent out first (it does help that pathfinder started later than fourth edition, and I'm willing to accept that we won't know that pathfinder will last longer in actual time until later).
I really think one of the huge problems was the sheer amount of... stuff they tried to constantly spin out for fourth edition. The fact that we are just now getting to races and the bestiary 3 in pathfinder tells me that perhaps slow and steady really is the way it needs to be with role playing games.
I would finally suggest that perhaps the role playing game market simply isn't going to be the home of growth and sales that a corporation like Hasbro is going to want. I'm not saying that there isn't money to be made, but that there isn't quite the exponential sales potential inherent in the market that they would want to see. I would hypothesize that this is because for a good system people will use you really aren't going to have much in the way of extra material that will needed to play.
So I've been thinking and here is some of what I would like to see come with a new system if this is really going to happen in a 'fan freely way':
1. I think the d20 set had a lot of things pretty spot on with standardization in skills, feats, combat abilities and conditions -- I would like to see this extended further so that we know what each term means, and if something is or is not precision damage for example.
2. I think I would like to see a multi-class exp divide system back. I think the one place that d20 left most of us in a pickle was the "you have 20 levels and each one is used to buy a class" -- perhaps allowing for mixed paths that slow down your progress wouldn't be a bad idea. This could require multiple exp charts, and possibly extent as far as ranking classes, "Basic, intermediate, and advanced" and having their exp progression show from that.
3. I would really like to see a system with some built in limits and an open top. For example THac0 only advanced to a certain degree, as did AC and save throws in the early editions. Now I like that a wizard's power plays into how hard it is to resist a spell but if these sort of (at least soft caps) were extended we might be able to uncap level instead. This could allow for a hit dice stop with classes too, so that a GM could allow for more feats/levels/whatever without completely wrecking the 'balance of play'.
I got off the buy everything that was released bandwagon with the release of 3.5, but it was already getting that way with 3E. So I will never make it a habit again to buy books I will rarely use, especially as a player. It will also take some time for WOTC to demonstrate they are consistent, and won't change directions again too soon.
I want a game that is somewhere between Pathfinder and 4E, but with an emphasis of removing as many sub-systems as possible. Which as this point should be fairly easy since so many editions of D&D and/or deriviatives exist at this point. At least if they continue using D20 and common mechanics associated with all the versions currently released.
But the game itself is only half the battle, as they need to re-think their approach to digital copy rights. The main focus should be to get the system out, and then concentrate on products that promote play and release adventures and/or supplements that keep the imagination flowing.
In the end, Pathfinder people will be happy to continue to play Pathfinder, and I will be interested in 5E if it keeps the same design premise of 4E, but relaxes it a bit, to add in additional complexity or flavor.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Huh. Announcing the launch of a new edition playtest in January and not at a con? What's that about? Did they decide that announcing at a con didn't add that much value, or did they decide that they really, really needed a new edition out ASAP?
I hope they can keep it in their pants long enough to release a product that's actually finished and ready to ship. 4e was shoved out the door far too soon and suffered as a result.
Color me hopeful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a LONG time player of AD&D I skipped 4th Ed. I'll use a term I said to a store owner when Wizards bought TSR
Can we say Dungeons and Dragons the Gathering? Is this yet another ploy to get the money from the people's pockets.
Just like Magic the Gathering each pack has to be purchased to stay on top and to "Out due" the next guy.
I can remember when the 1st HB book of 1st ed came out, and the DMG and the MM, it was a few years before the next hard cover book came out
I'm NOT against new stuff, but when it is a NW HB book every month,
I think I and my group will stick with Paizo. They have a great thing going and I don't have to buy every book that comes out to continue playing or to DM.
Good luck to Wizards and 5E
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't it be neat if 5E somehow managed to be backward-compatible (to varying degrees) with multiple editions?
I mean, if you think about it, what's the difference between a PF will save and the 4E will defense? The will save is 1d20+statmod+fraction of your level (half or one-third, and honestly, there's not that much difference). Members of the right class get a +2 on top of that. Meanwhile, the will defense is 10+statmod+half level and certain classes get a +1 or +2 on top of that. So honestly, it's nearly the same mechanic.
Not everything would be that easy, but it's fun to consider, isn't it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will look into this new edition with an open mind and some hopes. No bad feelings, emotional luggage or unburied axe looming around - despite my strong dislike of 4E and less than pleasant experience with WotC PR strategies.
However, at the first hint of 5E not being the best next thing since sliced bread, I'll be heading towards other shores.
I feel too old and with too much "previous stuff" options still left unused to scrap everything, wipe my mental blackboard once again and start off learning yet another rule system just because one marginal element has been polished, or a little of everything has been marginally touched to fine tune the overall feeling of the game.
Do something dramatic, spectacular, and bold.
Be brave and say "we don't want to appease everyone or that other game crowd, we want to have our game working properly".
Anything less, and it will be just another rulebook, without any strong, long-lasting grip on the "fractured base" so much referred to.
Huh. Announcing the launch of a new edition playtest in January and not at a con? What's that about? Did they decide that announcing at a con didn't add that much value, or did they decide that they really, really needed a new edition out ASAP?
My guess? DDXP is coming up, and they wanted to have playtesting events stretched out over the entire 2012 con season, but needed to announce the playtests prior to the con and figured they might as well do the reveal anyway.
I'm more worried about losing my character builder. :(Well, it looks like the people over at Wizards of the Coast, have decided to take a page out of Paizo's book with an open play test.
A new edition? well this will be interesting. I wonder if there will be those who look at their book shelves and howl about how much money they sunk into an edition, and now how all their books will be useless.
Well this could also be an opportunity and a chance to try and knit the community back together.
Wizards_DnD tweeted a little while ago that they plan on continuing support for the 4e digital tools. I don't think you need to worry.
Whilst I am interested to see what 5e turns out like and I wish them well with it, do we really need yet another version of D&D?
I like learning for fun -- I'll at least follow to see what they are up to, but I'm not going to jump on it immediately either.
The only 'edition' I ever jumped on the bandwagon for was pathfinder -- The groups I was with stayed with 2nd ed look after 3.0/.5 came out and I don't really see a reason to jump to 5th edition immediately.
Whilst I am interested to see what 5e turns out like and I wish them well with it, do we really need yet another version of D&D?
Depends on what they want their Wikipedia entry to read in 20 years when they search "Dungeons and Dragons", either:
Wikipedia 2032: Dungeons and Dragons was an early precursor to the popular Pathfinder Role-Playing Game....
or
Wikipedia 2032: Dungeons and Dragons, on its 10th iteration is and continues to be the most popular Role-Playing Game of all time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I am interested to see what 5e turns out like and I wish them well with it, do we really need yet another version of D&D?
Since I am unhappy with 3rd Edition (about things so fundamental that Pathfinder doesn't change it a bit) and never wanted to play 4th Edition, I very much welcome abandoning 4th Edition so quickly and giving it a new try with a 5th.
For people like me, who would like to see a new attempt in making 3rd Edition easier to play, it is a very nice thing.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason, this whole thing just makes me sad. Yes, I'm a Paizo/Pathfinder bobo, and yes, I loathe Hasbro and it's soulless culture. It's also true that I don't find 4e my cup of tea, whereas Pathfinder is. But I don't hate 4e players and I didn't want the edition to fail. 4e players had their game they loved and enthusiastically supported, and Pathfinder players had their game that they loved and enthusiastically supported. Both groups could be happy that they had a game that they enjoyed. Where was the harm in that?
The harm, of course, was to Hasbro's bottom line. They demand a "unified game," and why? So that, like back in the heyday of the game, the vast majority of the RPG money gets channeled into one coffer. Unfortunately for them, those days are dead and gone and Hasbro is chasing a chimera. For better or worse, the market is splintered. Nobody's going to make all the money, because people have discovered the joy of having the game they want, rather than the game they're told to want. So Hasbro will make its fans shell out more hundreds of dollars just to be able to play the latest products, and other groups will continue to go their own ways because they already have games they enjoy. It's just so cynical and crass and depressing.
Death to Hasbro. Long live D&D, in whatever name, iteration, or flavor you choose!
This isn't an entirely unfair assessment and I agree with parts of what you've said (except, perhaps, for the 'death to Hasbro' bit!).
I think the ugly reality we as gamers never want to face is that while developers and designers may do what they do for love of the game, corporations and executives and shareholders don't. What they do, they do for profit.
The change in D&D that we're about to witness over the next 18 to 24 months is tied to profit, too - or the lack thereof. Ironically, so were the problems that made this change necessary in the eyes of those same executives and shareholders.
4E was driven by marketing. It was a calculated attempt to target the largest possible number of fantasy RPG fans and hopefully capture the market that had been dominated by computer RPGs. The formula was probably AB-tested and focus-grouped to death, and probably helped along by people with a great understanding of traditional research-based marketing practices, but a poor grasp of what makes a pen and paper RPG fun.
Here's the thing: the fact that we are having this conversion not even four years after the debut of the product just goes to show that it didn't work. And so now, Wizards is trying to take an approach that does. We know it does, in fact, because it's frankly the same process Paizo used to craft Pathfinder.
Clearly, 4E wasn't making Hasbro enough money and was losing market share rapidly to other games. If it were, they wouldn't be trying this. So in this case, it's capitalism FTW. Yaaaaaaay!
|
|
"We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play."So that was not the goal of 4E? Seems odd. So then what was the goal of 4E and did they accomplish it?
Did they want to make a sub-par game that drove vast numbers of loyal D&D players into the arms of a competing publisher that essentially reprinted the game they just decided needed to be replaced only to have to scrap and rewrite the new game 3 years later after a dismal launch and lackluster followup only to ask the very people they drove away to begin with for ideas on what they would like in another new game using an open playtest?
Because that seems like what 4E accomplished to me.
If you look at 4E, I think it's safe to say that that wasn't the goal of 4E. It was trying to something different, but that doesn't work when it's supposed to be a new edition of D&D. That's why it failed. It may have been fine for a run of the mill fantasy RPG, but not for D&D.
@Jiggy Or am I the only one who learns rules for fun?
No, i'm also on that boat. =)
Whilst I am interested to see what 5e turns out like and I wish them well with it, do we really need yet another version of D&D?Since I am unhappy with 3rd Edition (about things so fundamental that Pathfinder doesn't change it a bit) and never wanted to play 4th Edition, I very much welcome abandoning 4th Edition so quickly and giving it a new try with a 5th.
For people like me, who would like to see a new attempt in making 3rd Edition easier to play, it is a very nice thing.
I, personally, would love to see something simpler than 3rd edition - something more like the old basic D&D - but I just don't think that the hobby can support 3 different editions (PF/3rd, 4th and 4th) of one game
|
As a LONG time player of AD&D I skipped 4th Ed. I'll use a term I said to a store owner when Wizards bought TSR
Can we say Dungeons and Dragons the Gathering? Is this yet another ploy to get the money from the people's pockets.
Just like Magic the Gathering each pack has to be purchased to stay on top and to "Out due" the next guy.
I can remember when the 1st HB book of 1st ed came out, and the DMG and the MM, it was a few years before the next hard cover book came out
I'm NOT against new stuff, but when it is a NW HB book every month,
I think I and my group will stick with Paizo. They have a great thing going and I don't have to buy every book that comes out to continue playing or to DM.
Good luck to Wizards and 5E
Well, Monster Manual in '77, Player's Handbook in '78, Dungeon Master's Guide in '79, Deities and Demigods in '80, Fiend Folio in '81, Monster Manual II in '83 and Unearthed Arcana in '85. After that, Oriental Adventures and the "Survival Guides", Manual of the Planes and Greyhawk Adventures.
I, personally, would love to see something simpler than 3rd edition - something more like the old basic D&D - but I just don't think that the hobby can support 3 different editions (PF/3rd, 4th and 4th) of one game
I was actually wondering this, I started playing D&D from 2nd edition and never played the original game.
When I first saw this announcement I was thinking that they might go back to the beginning.
I have no idea what the original game was like, so I don't know how realistic a choice it would be.
Well, under ideal circumstances, 3rd and 4th Edition would be played only by a few nostalgic fans.
If they don't like 5th Edition a lot more and want to switch, then Wizards really has a huge problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love 'em or hate 'em, he's the man of the hour!
C'mon, these are high-quality poly-ester!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that WotC is going from the "we know what is best for our customers better than they do" extreme to the opposite extreme in desperate search of their fountain of youth.
Honestly, I believe it will not help them get back the 3.5 fans who were disgruntled by what they perceived as a casual disregard for the game they loved and that it will alienate the 4e fans.
I might be wrong and WotC may end up releasing THE RPG of the 3rd millenium though. In which case I will recant my heretical words and promptly buy all the related products :-)
Whilst I am interested to see what 5e turns out like and I wish them well with it, do we really need yet another version of D&D?Of course! Learning new rules is fun!
Nope, not at all...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Also, keep in mind that most publishers can't wait to get to release a new edition of a game (even if one isn't required at a time). Most people playing D&D really only needed the PHB, DMG, and MM. Any other book beyond the first three were completely optional and were purchased if they actually saw a use for it in their game. But, if a new edition is released, you're guaranteed that every single player in your hobby will have to purchase three new books in order to stay up to date with the current rules for the game. So, releasing new editions can be financially convenient for a games publisher just to squeeze a couple extra dollars out of their players....
Tarrintino
That's why a decent publisher (like Our Hosts) sells the system as a gateway drug to the high-quality support material they produce--all of the Campaign Setting stuff, the modules, the APs--that's where the long-term profits are. And Paizo is good enough at it that someone like Scott Betts, who vastly prefers playing 4E, would rather buy Paizo support material and convert it. That's the market that WotC seemed/seems to be ignoring (for at least the first couple of years of 4E). If WotC could get a decent campaign setting together, they've got a chance to make some money off of even diehard PF/d20 fans...but only if the material is good enough. And if the cash flow from the campaign setting(s) is good enough, that's one less driver for 6E.
I, personally, would love to see something simpler than 3rd edition - something more like the old basic D&D - but I just don't think that the hobby can support 3 different editions (PF/3rd, 4th and 4th) of one gameI was actually wondering this, I started playing D&D from 2nd edition and never played the original game.
When I first saw this announcement I was thinking that they might go back to the beginning.
I have no idea what the original game was like, so I don't know how realistic a choice it would be.
See Swords and Wizardry for a "clone" of the original D&D and Labyrinth Lord for a "clone" of Basic D&D. I believe they both have free PDFs of the rules. Some of the rules are a bit bizarre (Armor class and races as classes)and the classes weren't balanced. However, they were less rules heavy than 3rd edition.
|
|
See Swords and Wizardry for a "clone" of the original D&D and Labyrinth Lord for a "clone" of Basic D&D. I believe they both have free PDFs of the rules. Some of the rules are a bit bizarre (Armor class and races as classes)and the classes weren't balanced. However, they were less rules heavy than 3rd edition.
I, personally, would love to see something simpler than 3rd edition - something more like the old basic D&D - but I just don't think that the hobby can support 3 different editions (PF/3rd, 4th and 4th) of one gameI was actually wondering this, I started playing D&D from 2nd edition and never played the original game.
When I first saw this announcement I was thinking that they might go back to the beginning.
I have no idea what the original game was like, so I don't know how realistic a choice it would be.
"Bizarre"? Or how the game was until AD&D was released? And AC worked that way until 3rd Edition. i.e. most of the existence of D&D to date.
"Bizarre"? Or how the game was until AD&D was released? And AC worked that way until 3rd Edition. i.e. most of the existence of D&D to date.See Swords and Wizardry for a "clone" of the original D&D and Labyrinth Lord for a "clone" of Basic D&D. I believe they both have free PDFs of the rules. Some of the rules are a bit bizarre (Armor class and races as classes)and the classes weren't balanced. However, they were less rules heavy than 3rd edition.
I, personally, would love to see something simpler than 3rd edition - something more like the old basic D&D - but I just don't think that the hobby can support 3 different editions (PF/3rd, 4th and 4th) of one gameI was actually wondering this, I started playing D&D from 2nd edition and never played the original game.
When I first saw this announcement I was thinking that they might go back to the beginning.
I have no idea what the original game was like, so I don't know how realistic a choice it would be.
yeah - better AC is a lower number - bizarre. same as hitpoints are bizarre. same as alignment is bizarre.
This isn't an entirely unfair assessment and I agree with parts of what you've said (except, perhaps, for the 'death to Hasbro' bit!).
Well, I meant a metaphorical death. This is not to be construed as an actual threat to do physical harm to anyone at Hasbro. If the FBI is monitoring this thread, please don't arrest me. Mea culpa! Mea culpa!
I think the ugly reality we as gamers never want to face is that while developers and designers may do what they do for love of the game, corporations and executives and shareholders don't. What they do, they do for profit.
The change in D&D that we're about to witness over the next 18 to 24 months is tied to profit, too - or the lack thereof. Ironically, so were the problems that made this change necessary in the eyes of those same executives and shareholders.
4E was driven by...
The issue isn't that Hasbro wanted profit. Paizo wants profit too, and because I like the way Paizo does business, I support them with my cash in an effort to help them reach that goal.
The issue is that Hasbro wants all the profit. They sold the acquisition of the D&D brand to their shareholders on the idea that it would control the RPG market and make the vast majority of the money spent there. It wasn't that 4e wasn't turning a profit for Hasbro, it just wasn't returning the margin that they'd told the shareholders it would. And so their support for it dropped way off, which drove even more people to Pathfinder simply because Pathfinder was being properly supported (or so several 4e players have told me, which admittedly is anecdotal). The death spiral began and here were are getting a new edition less than 4 years after the release of the last one.
A profit can be made in the RPG industry. Paizo and other companies prove it. But it's not the vast pile of cash Hasbro is used to, and so they're repeatedly slicing D&D this way and that to try to get every single dollar. That effort is absolutely doomed to failure -- and it should be. And the real victims are the people who are going to have to shell out another pile of money just to play a game to get proper ongoing support (or at least the hope of proper ongoing support; there's no particular reason to think Hasbro will actually be able to deliver on that).
We have different definitions of "bizarre" then. It doesn't mean "how the very first role playing game was" to me at all.
Just because it always used to be done that way doesn't make it not bizarre
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone want to start a bet that Drizzt will run so fast that he goes back in time to stop Elistraee from being killed but makes it worse.? ;-)
I actually liked 4e....
Then I got to level 5.
And noticed the monsters always going first, every AP started you off in fireball formation.. oh and every monster had an AoE attack...
Anyone want to start a bet that Drizzt will run so fast that he goes back in time to stop Elistraee from being killed but makes it worse.? ;-)
I almost fell from my bed laughing. Stop these things please ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- 1e was fun, because no one really ever played the rules, including Gygax.
- 2e was fun, because we could play all the rules, only someone's mother edited the book to make sure it was PG13 rated.
- 3e was fun, because we all had to learn to add, well until about 16th level when the game was unfun for the DM.
- 3.5e was fun, because Rangers got nice things too.
- 4e is fun, because everyone does something all the time, but requires something akin to the holographic chess-like game played on the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars IV to play out a battle.
- 5e will be fun, because WotC told me it will be.
S.
PS: - PF is fun because Paizo took WoTC ideas that were deemed ready for the trash heap and made a product that still makes money.
...
- 4e is fun, because everyone does something all the time, but requires something akin to the holographic chess-like game played on the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars IV to play out a battle.
...
Actually it doesn't... You just need to ignore a few things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have different definitions of "bizarre" then. It doesn't mean "how the very first role playing game was" to me at all.
Damn straight! There was nothing bizarre about 1E.*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...bags with teeth?We have different definitions of "bizarre" then. It doesn't mean "how the very first role playing game was" to me at all.Damn straight! There was nothing bizarre about 1E.*
You know you're spending too much time on reddit when your immediate reaction to the above post was to try and upvote it for being an appropriate novelty account.
3 words: Giant Space Hamster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest worry is I don't see a place where what makes a good RPG and what makes a good business model meeting in a place that Hasbro expects it too.
Paizo makes their big pushes on the adventure paths and campaign setting material that they sell. You can tell since these products seem to consume more of their time and effort. Yes they produce core materials for the system but they keep it at a sedate pace and try to really produce something new with all sorts of options for everyone at the table rather than just more mechanics to throw at the market.
I don't think Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast are going to want to go that route, because it means more work for less reward on a product. They wanted big price low cost products like rulebooks and players options that were 'simple' mechanics (realizing that this is extremely relative) that they hope they can control access to in 4th edition (my opinion).
(Please realize that these are a lot of generalizations and I don't mean to insult any produce by any company, or to say there are no exceptions or mistakes made by any company)
I ashamed to admit this, but I will buy the new edition, iteration, or whatever it is called.There's no shame in that. (And assuming it's available through standard hobby distribution channels, we'll be happy to sell it to you!)
I would happily buy new D&D material through Paizo.com :)