Mearls talks 5E


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I just read this interview with Mike Mearls regarding the new edition.

Some of his answers do a good job clearing up some of the misconceptions generated by Monte's earlier comments. So far, I'm really liking what he's got to say. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.

That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".


Cheers. I appreciate the link. :)

I was also impressed by his comments.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".

Maybe instead of new editions, they'll just do new 'rules modules' that build off a stable base? Maybe they want to try the Pathfinder approach of a more adventure-based business plan? Still too early to tell.


Scott Betts wrote:

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".

I wonder if they plan on shifting towards mirroring paizo's focus on flavor material. Tying the various worlds together through DDI may avoid the "split market" problem which plagued TSR.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".
I wonder if they plan on shifting towards mirroring paizo's focus on flavor material. Tying the various worlds together through DDI may avoid the "split market" problem which plagued TSR.

He did say they're trying to incorporate 'your setting of choice' into their plans for the future, but how far will they really go with that? ...Planescape? Mystara? Spelljammer? ...Who knows?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You know, I'm thinking maybe the plan is to focus more on growing the market, too. He mentions making the base version really easy to pick up and play- I'm betting on another starter box early in the release cycle.

EDIT: Maybe a new blue box?


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Has anyone heard about what Hasboro is doing with the 3rd party publishers? They say they're "Exploring options" but i'm not sure what that means.


My (unsubstantiated) guess is that there'll be some kind of license, more liberal than the GSL but not as open as the OGL. Maybe the GSL but making the character builder and other online tools available to third parties or something?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

After I cast Dispell Marketing there was nothing left of that article.

Oh wait, there is a little something...

Mike Mearls wrote:
Hi, I'm Mike Mearls. You may remember me from such products as D&D. You remember D&D? The game with the the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things?


Steve Geddes wrote:
My (unsubstantiated) guess is that there'll be some kind of license, more liberal than the GSL but not as open as the OGL. Maybe the GSL but making the character builder and other online tools available to third parties or something?

That would be interesting, and also impressive from a technical standpoint.


Scott Betts wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
My (unsubstantiated) guess is that there'll be some kind of license, more liberal than the GSL but not as open as the OGL. Maybe the GSL but making the character builder and other online tools available to third parties or something?
That would be interesting, and also impressive from a technical standpoint.

I know nothing about it, but given the "checkbox" nature of the CB (for example) it seems doable to me. Of course, timelines and who'd pay for it would be an issue. Nonetheless, that's one of the real barriers to seriously using 3PP, at least at our table.

Silver Crusade

I would really like to see a new campaign setting. The extent ones have become either too over used or the alterations made for 4e were not for the best IMHO. Still, I'd go back to the Forgotten Realms...


Scott Betts wrote:

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".

That's the first thing I noticed too. It's striking, because in the past we've been given to understand that the two important profit centers of the D&D brand are rule books and miniatures. Are they changing their business model?

On the other hand maybe he just means that he really feels our pain and it hurts him too and he wishes that it wasn't necessary to keep making new editions but he's sorry he has no choice in the matter.

Quote reads either way... but here's to hoping.

The Exchange

I'm thinking they may have realised that a vibrant D&D needs support with campaign settings and adventures. Hoping, anyway. I'm also wondering if they are looking to build a relatively simple platform and support and revise it online, rather than have a series of big discontinuities with edition changes. After all, the errata are pretty seamless with the DDI, and is one of tis strengths.

Contributor

another_mage wrote:

After I cast Dispell Marketing there was nothing left of that article.

Oh wait, there is a little something...

Mike Mearls wrote:
Hi, I'm Mike Mearls. You may remember me from such products as D&D. You remember D&D? The game with the the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things?

Pretty much.

It also sounds like there are internal power struggles over whether to renew the OGL for 5e or try to put out some sort of nerfed-OGL and how to sell that to 3rd party publishers.

Basically, no new news. We'll have to wait until the con at the end of the month for anyone outside the press and other NDAd playtesters to give us a look at the new beta aside from what Monte has mentioned in his columns the last year.

Liberty's Edge

Thats for the link to that interview!

I think masybe the reason why a stable ruleset is key for WotC now, is possibly DDI and hopefully the virtual tabletop. If the rules keep changing they will have to keep changing the tools - but a stable ruleset will allow the tools to mature and grow rather than be overhauled every few years.

Rather than make X amount of money buy selling people new core books every Y years, they can likley make X x Y amount of money in DDI subscriptions in that same period, especially if they can get the VTT working.

This sounds most exellent, and I get more and more enthused for D&D Next.


Well, I don't think he wanted to adress the people who are already extremely informed about 5th Edition and have read every snippet that is out there.

Important is, that they finaly said outright that the game is not compatible with all older editions. I think that was obvious all along, but some people didn't seem to understand that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, who knows what the future holds, but "We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy." sounds like the most intelligent thing I've heard come out of the owners of "Dungeons & Dragons" in a long time. Those are words of wisdom that every TRPG publisher could learn from. Every one.

Just make a single stable rule set and do cool things with it. We will give you money for that. Simple.

At this point the only thing that would make me consider playing D&D 5.0 is PF 2.0. I figure, if the game I play is changing anyway, I might as well look at all the options.


DigitalMage wrote:


I think masybe the reason why a stable ruleset is key for WotC now, is possibly DDI and hopefully the virtual tabletop. If the rules keep changing they will have to keep changing the tools - but a stable ruleset will allow the tools to mature and grow rather than be overhauled every few years.

Rather than make X amount of money buy selling people new core books every Y years, they can likley make X x Y amount of money in DDI subscriptions in that same period, especially if they can get the VTT working.

I agree with this assessment. I believe their online products and services tied into D&D are key to their long term financial success with the game and frequent rule changes make this difficult. Considering their issues with software to date I'm sure they find themselves concerned in this area. I think if they can get the core of the game nailed down with a handful of evergreen "essentials" type products for the stores and have the various options something you can easily take or leave with the online support they have the best chances of success. I think they should also stick to the early 4E method of one campaign setting a year with a few key products for it (I'm partial to a single big boxed set with player and DM books, adventures and maps myself). And they need a lot of adventures. A few key adventure paths/series and a super module each year in print with numerous smaller ones online in Dungeon.

L


Well, as with most such interviews there was a lot more NOT said than said. However, here was the best part imho:

Mike Mearls wrote:
Of course, the most important element of D&D is the DM. We found that across all the editions, the DM was more important than the specific rules. Supporting DMs and giving them the tools to create the campaigns they want is an important goal for the project.

That's music to my ears, and imho is almost diametrically opposed to the approach taken in 4e which I believe moved the GM more towards a rules adjudicator than a creative force.

So that's pretty positive.

I'm still greatly skeptical of the core concept of providing one rules system that will support the "special of the day" alongside the "a la carte" much less the "I'm a chef and will cook it all myself" models.

I suppose if they pull it off, that would be nice.

I would like to see more from them about how they will pursue the 3PP support model in 5e.

Oh, and the edition thing. I think taking the edition number off the main title is fine. There will still be a version somewhere. But by taking the emphasis off of version numbers they are hoping, I think, to mitigate the nerd rage of edition wars in the future.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was interesting that he mentioned that the playtest feedback will be survey based. It's a lot easier to compile data that way, but will lose a lot of the information that a freeform playtest feedback provides - especially if that freeform feedback becomes a direct disussion with the developers, the way it has been with Pathfinder playtesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
I thought it was interesting that he mentioned that the playtest feedback will be survey based. It's a lot easier to compile data that way, but will lose a lot of the information that a freeform playtest feedback provides - especially if that freeform feedback becomes a direct disussion with the developers, the way it has been with Pathfinder playtesting.

It can be survey-based and still allow for free-form input. I'm OK if that's the case. As someone who used to run statistical analysis, I'm a big fan of well-written, comprehensive surveys. They can get more information than most people realize.

But I do think they HAVE to have the free-form input too.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

It also sounds like there are internal power struggles over whether to renew the OGL for 5e or try to put out some sort of nerfed-OGL and how to sell that to 3rd party publishers.

Basically, no new news. We'll have to wait until the con at the end of the month for anyone outside the press and other NDAd playtesters to give us a look at the new beta aside from what Monte has mentioned in his columns the last year.

Hmm, now I want to make a monster called a Noggle that feeds on Charisma and hampers creativity. ;-)

More seriously, I think the "To OGL or not to OGL" question will ALWAYS haunt any company that says 'no'


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
But I do think they HAVE to have the free-form input too.

My first thought when I heard they were going to use surveys is that you can skew results enormously based on the questions you ask.

For example:
"On a 1-5 scale, rate the way you feel about the Armor Class mechanic", with no way to explain what it is about the mechanic you don't like. If you like it but want it to be changed back to the descending system (lower is better), you can:

Vote with a 1 (indicating you hate it and think they should do away with it)
Vote with a 5 (indicating you don't want them to change it)
Vote with a 3 (indicating you don't care one way or the other).

None of that is going to tell them your specific problem with the Armor Class system.

I, for one, wish they would drop it and use straight DR for armor. There's no way to tell them that with a 1-5 answer.


The Legends and Lore poll options do not inspire optimism. :P


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
But I do think they HAVE to have the free-form input too.

My first thought when I heard they were going to use surveys is that you can skew results enormously based on the questions you ask.

For example:
"On a 1-5 scale, rate the way you feel about the Armor Class mechanic", with no way to explain what it is about the mechanic you don't like. If you like it but want it to be changed back to the descending system (lower is better), you can:

Vote with a 1 (indicating you hate it and think they should do away with it)
Vote with a 5 (indicating you don't want them to change it)
Vote with a 3 (indicating you don't care one way or the other).

None of that is going to tell them your specific problem with the Armor Class system.

I, for one, wish they would drop it and use straight DR for armor. There's no way to tell them that with a 1-5 answer.

This is why people who can write surveys which pull critical data in a way that can be accurately analyzed make pretty good salaries.

There is no reason the same survey couldn't also have said:

Which is your preferred mechanism for protecting characters from physical attack damage?
1 - The traditional Armor Class approach
2 - Damage reduction only
3 - Armor takes all damage until sundered

etc...

The key to a good survey is all about how well the survey addresses the core issues, which means that for a good survey to be written, the core issues have to be identified and articulated.

If the game designers have already determined that they will use some form of armor class and will NOT use damage reduction, getting your opinion on damage reduction is pointless. No matter how strongly you feel about it.


I think most didn't sound that bad in the results.

But the questions where so generic that there was always an obvious "right choice" by which you could say "I am an RPG player" and all others were pretty much "I hate RPGs".


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Well, as with most such interviews there was a lot more NOT said than said. However, here was the best part imho:

Mike Mearls wrote:
Of course, the most important element of D&D is the DM. We found that across all the editions, the DM was more important than the specific rules. Supporting DMs and giving them the tools to create the campaigns they want is an important goal for the project.

That's music to my ears, and imho is almost diametrically opposed to the approach taken in 4e which I believe moved the GM more towards a rules adjudicator than a creative force.

So that's pretty positive.

I'm still greatly skeptical of the core concept of providing one rules system that will support the "special of the day" alongside the "a la carte" much less the "I'm a chef and will cook it all myself" models.

I suppose if they pull it off, that would be nice.

I would like to see more from them about how they will pursue the 3PP support model in 5e.

Oh, and the edition thing. I think taking the edition number off the main title is fine. There will still be a version somewhere. But by taking the emphasis off of version numbers they are hoping, I think, to mitigate the nerd rage of edition wars in the future.

If you look back at some of the Legend & Lore articles from this summer, there are a lot of hints on how they may be planning to handle this 'modular model'. I think one from sometime in July, specifically. I'll post a link if I've got time later.

To people talking about the OGL/GSL licensing issues- I think we'll be waiting a while before we get that info, unfortunately. Maybe they'll surprise me and start talking about it shortly after the playtest material start to roll out. If I had to guess, I would think they'll go with a modified OGL that somehow requires you to buy at least the 'basic' ruleset. I.E.- I doubt there would be a 5E SRD, so you could publish all the 'rules modules' you want, but they still need to build off the core. That's all just guessing at this point, though.

Liberty's Edge

Step one when creating a new edition of D&D

(1) DO NOT let Mike Mearls do interviews.

Actually there are no other steps.


Stefan Hill wrote:

Step one when creating a new edition of D&D

(1) DO NOT let Mike Mearls do interviews.

Actually there are no other steps.

LOL, there's some merit to this...


Scott Betts wrote:
That would be interesting, and also impressive from a technical standpoint.

The former? Absolutely. The latter? No so much. All they really need is to provide an API. Frankly I think it is a necessity if they're going to bring 3rd parties back in a big way.

Dark Archive

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy.

long-term???

how long is long-term?


chopswil wrote:


Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy.

long-term???

how long is long-term?

Who knows. It'd be nice to see an edition that is good enough to be embraced by enough gamers to last 10-12 years rather than 4-6, though.

Frog God Games

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
But I do think they HAVE to have the free-form input too.

My first thought when I heard they were going to use surveys is that you can skew results enormously based on the questions you ask.

For example:
"On a 1-5 scale, rate the way you feel about the Armor Class mechanic", with no way to explain what it is about the mechanic you don't like. If you like it but want it to be changed back to the descending system (lower is better), you can:

Vote with a 1 (indicating you hate it and think they should do away with it)
Vote with a 5 (indicating you don't want them to change it)
Vote with a 3 (indicating you don't care one way or the other).

None of that is going to tell them your specific problem with the Armor Class system.

I, for one, wish they would drop it and use straight DR for armor. There's no way to tell them that with a 1-5 answer.

This is why people who can write surveys which pull critical data in a way that can be accurately analyzed make pretty good salaries.

There is no reason the same survey couldn't also have said:

Which is your preferred mechanism for protecting characters from physical attack damage?
1 - The traditional Armor Class approach
2 - Damage reduction only
3 - Armor takes all damage until sundered

etc...

The key to a good survey is all about how well the survey addresses the core issues, which means that for a good survey to be written, the core issues have to be identified and articulated.

If the game designers have already determined that they will use some form of armor class and will NOT use damage reduction, getting your opinion on damage reduction is pointless. No matter how strongly you feel about it.

And the last option should be "Other - Explain below."


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
That would be interesting, and also impressive from a technical standpoint.
The former? Absolutely. The latter? No so much. All they really need is to provide an API. Frankly I think it is a necessity if they're going to bring 3rd parties back in a big way.

I think there will be more to integrating the complex mechanical interactions that introducing, let's say, a new set of feats would cause than simply saying, "Here's the API, go for it!"

Even if that were true, though, it'll be interesting to see how the 3pp world adjusts to the need for a moderate level of technical expertise in order to keep up with publishing trends.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
To people talking about the OGL/GSL licensing issues- I think we'll be waiting a while before we get that info, unfortunately. Maybe they'll surprise me and start talking about it shortly after the playtest material start to roll out. If I had to guess, I would think they'll go with a modified OGL that somehow requires you to buy at least the 'basic' ruleset. I.E.- I doubt there would be a 5E SRD, so you could publish all the 'rules modules' you want, but they still need to build off the core. That's all just...

But I think you could not make alternate class features if you are not allowed to mention that it is meant for druids and what class feature it is supposed to replace.

Or you have adventures that include stat blocks only for 3pp monster, but simply say "here you have to build an advanced half-fiend gargoyle. The rules are in the Monster Manual, you have to do all the calculations yourself". Or you have NPC stat blocks that list the Race, Class, and Ability scores of the NPC, but you have to build the rest yourself.

Or this is an "Advanced Pit Trap, the stats are in the DMG".
"The next room has a summon monster spell trap. The rules for magic traps are in the DMG, the rules for the spell in the PHB, and the stats for the summoned creature in the MM."

It makes producing third party content extremely annoying. Making the PHB and MM1 material open should be the least they do. I think the 3.5e SRD did get it quite right.


Scott Betts wrote:

I think there will be more to integrating the complex mechanical interactions that introducing, let's say, a new set of feats would cause than simply saying, "Here's the API, go for it!"

Even if that were true, though, it'll be interesting to see how the 3pp world adjusts to the need for a moderate level of technical expertise in order to keep up with publishing trends.

Imho that depends on the content and the extensibility of the interfaces. Certainly some of even WotC's 4E mechanics would have been challenging to integrate without some kind of access to logic. However, pretty much anything would be an improvement on what third parties got for 4E.

In any event, I'd love to see a more open license and DDI (or whatever) for 5E.


I would be a huge proponent of an open API that developers can use to create content. But as a one-time programmer, don't underestimate the difficulty of that. For it to work well, it has to be designed into the system from the start. And now you're introducing design elements into the game that have more to do with promoting content than in playability.

Which may be fine. But it's something I'd be wary of if I were the chief designer.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I would be a huge proponent of an open API that developers can use to create content. But as a one-time programmer, don't underestimate the difficulty of that. For it to work well, it has to be designed into the system from the start. And now you're introducing design elements into the game that have more to do with promoting content than in playability.

Which may be fine. But it's something I'd be wary of if I were the chief designer.

Did C++ for Intel for three years...and I'll say I probably *am* underestimating the difficulty, at least of doing it well. Plus WotC isn't exactly known for their software...


bugleyman wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I would be a huge proponent of an open API that developers can use to create content. But as a one-time programmer, don't underestimate the difficulty of that. For it to work well, it has to be designed into the system from the start. And now you're introducing design elements into the game that have more to do with promoting content than in playability.

Which may be fine. But it's something I'd be wary of if I were the chief designer.

Did C++ for Intel for three years...and I'll say I probably *am* underestimating the difficulty, at least of doing it well. Plus WotC isn't exactly known for doing good software...

APIs are hard to design, hard to develop, hard to maintain and hard to support.

I would LOVE to see it, but man, it's rare that it's done well. When it works though, it's awesome.


Joana wrote:
The Legends and Lore poll options do not inspire optimism. :P

Indeed. It's not always easy to pick which is the "joke answer".

Sovereign Court

chopswil wrote:


Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy.

long-term???

how long is long-term?

Who knows? As soon as they give a number though it will be held as a promise.


OK, so I was finally able to read the article/interview that inspired this thread...and...I'm out. Good luck with the next iteration of D&D WoTC/Hasbro. I wish you the best, but according to what I read, it doesn't sound like something I am interested in.

Everyone else, have fun discussing and debating 5.0 on this forum and others, I hope things turn out well for everyone.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Yora wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
To people talking about the OGL/GSL licensing issues- I think we'll be waiting a while before we get that info, unfortunately. Maybe they'll surprise me and start talking about it shortly after the playtest material start to roll out. If I had to guess, I would think they'll go with a modified OGL that somehow requires you to buy at least the 'basic' ruleset. I.E.- I doubt there would be a 5E SRD, so you could publish all the 'rules modules' you want, but they still need to build off the core. That's all just...

But I think you could not make alternate class features if you are not allowed to mention that it is meant for druids and what class feature it is supposed to replace.

Or you have adventures that include stat blocks only for 3pp monster, but simply say "here you have to build an advanced half-fiend gargoyle. The rules are in the Monster Manual, you have to do all the calculations yourself". Or you have NPC stat blocks that list the Race, Class, and Ability scores of the NPC, but you have to build the rest yourself.

Or this is an "Advanced Pit Trap, the stats are in the DMG".
"The next room has a summon monster spell trap. The rules for magic traps are in the DMG, the rules for the spell in the PHB, and the stats for the summoned creature in the MM."

It makes producing third party content extremely annoying. Making the PHB and MM1 material open should be the least they do. I think the 3.5e SRD did get it quite right.

Sorry, I was in a hurry, so my idea wasn't as clear as it could've been. I think they will have a more condensed 'core' that can't be copied, but would allow the publishing of stat-blocks, etc. For example: No publishing of the combat chapter. It's just an example, but something you wouldn't need for a module, but would need for an 'alternate player's handbook'.

cibet44 wrote:

OK, so I was finally able to read the article/interview that inspired this thread...and...I'm out. Good luck with the next iteration of D&D WoTC/Hasbro. I wish you the best, but according to what I read, it doesn't sound like something I am interested in.

Everyone else, have fun discussing and debating 5.0 on this forum and others, I hope things turn out well for everyone.

Mind if I ask what it was that turned you off to the idea? My guess is the part where he said it will still be it's own game.


Yeah, that might work. Like they excluded XP-Tables and some other things with 3.5e. You can have all spell lists and spells without the chapter explaining how spellcasting works.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:

The most interesting part of that interview?

Mike Mearls wrote:
We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
That flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that game companies have a vested financial interest in the edition treadmill. I'm left wondering what exactly Mike means by "much better off".

I have some ideas:

1) They talk about modularity, so I gues they will do a "Basic" Book that gives you the fundamental rules and mechanics of the new game.

2) Next they will expand with "Option" Books that modify the game to suit you playstyle. I guess there will be an "old school" option book, an "3rd edtion" option book and a "4th edition" option book.

3) Then might come the Option Books that modify where the characters have their adventures. This will be like the environmental books (e.g. Frostburn) but much more fokussed on the DM.

4) Then they might explore some of their old campaihn settings. They will focus much more on fluff than on crunch. So a new Planescape Campaign Setting (one can always have dreams, yes?) would focus on how the DM can create a PS campaign.

5) As shown in 1)-4)I guess WoC will now switch their material from being player focussed to being DM focussed. After all, the DM is the one with the difficult job and needs help the most.

6) I guess WoC takes some Ideas from PAIZO and will produce player focussed "Splat Books" sparingly. I think that these Books will be about more options that you can create with existing material(like PAIZOs Archetypes). To retain a solid game, it is essential not to churn out "Feats" and "Prestige Classes" or "Powers"(or the 5th edition equivalent. This will unbalance the core rules due to a power creep. It happened with 3rd edition and it is happening with 4th edition (or so I gather).


Tharen the Damned wrote:
2) Next they will expand with "Option" Books that modify the game to suit you playstyle. I guess there will be an "old school" option book, an "3rd edtion" option book and a "4th edition" option book.

I think that's a really bad idea. If you want to play 4th Ed, you play 4th Ed. If you want to play 2nd Ed., you play 2nd Ed.

I think it's more likely that we'll get a PHB2 and PHB3 that have extensive sections about an advanced skill system like in 3rd Edition, or combat powers like in 4th Edition, and one about Epic Level games, without the other editions being mentioned. You would want people to select those options they want, instead of recreating the games they already have.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Merals has taken on a task which is quite frankly, impossible. The opening of 4th Edition didn't start the fracturing of the player base, as 3rd edition had already made the first big crack in Humpty'shell, but it pretty much completed it.

There is simply no way to put Humpty back together again, no way to unite the bulk of the players who have scattered through the various editions of the game since Chainmail. And I'm not even counting the players who left for Pathfinder, M&M, and all the non-D20 games out there.

They need to reassess where they are and focus on a more accomplish-able goal... building from the player base they still have. They're not going to lure the Pathfinder folks back.... unless they make a major cash offer for Paizo lock stock and barrel. And then they'd still have their 4th Edition players to deal with.

The only thing I see coming out of this is a new Edition which will address some composite of the interests and concerns brought forth, and no matter what they do, they're going to see initial shrinkage from 4th Edition backlash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After the news of 5e started to sink in, I realized there's one thing I'm really excited about.

I get to toss all my 4e stuff.

I had gotten so tired of re-writing of classes and races and errata and oh, I don't even remember anymore that six or ten months ago I went cold turkey on 4e. Oh, I still held on to what I already had from them, but I never looked at it. Ever. I kept it in the hope that some amazing new stuff would come out. The Fey book I leafed through, and I'll do the same with the elemental book. On the day they stop making new stuff for 4e, I'll have a 4e garage sale.

Maybe I'll stick with and increase my Pathfinder collection, maybe I'll drift back to 5e - who knows, I might even do GURPS or something else. But I will finally be free from 4e. HOORAY!

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Mearls talks 5E All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.