At the end of my 3.x days I had worked to modify the core system, with a friend's help. Our biggest issue has always been that the casters have penalties to everything else (attacks, armor, HP... options), that for them to have a limited resource of what was intended to be their key component seemed too restrictive.
Now, I'm not saying unlimited spells all day. Instead of a limit to spells/day we limited how well or often they could use the "unlimited" amount based off the caster himself, not some table that they all shared. We still used the spells/known rules, and Sorcerers got a HD increase to d6, and Wizard used their spells/day table to show control how many spells could be prepared/day.
Our system:
To cast a spell was a DC of spell level x2 +10 (1st DC 12, 2nd DC 14, 3rd DC 16... 9th DC 28)
The check was 1d20 + Caster level + Casting stat modifier (lvl 2, 18 Int Wizard 1d20+6; lvl 5, 16 Chr Sorcerer 1d20+8)
For each spell cast a cumulative -2 was given, and the penalty disappeared at a rate of 1 pt/caster lvl per hour (aforementioned Wizard, after casting 3 spells, would have 1d20 [+6-6] to cast and wait 3 hours for the entire penalty to dissappear.
The classes differed in how the penalty for failing to cast presented itself:
Wizard, on a failed check, took 1d4 NL damage/level of the spell attempted (which could not be healed as normal, and returned at a rate of 1 pt/caster level per hour). It could be its own score (burnout, or something) so as to not mix it with NL from other sources.
Sorcerer, on a failed check, took 2 points of temporary Con drain (regardles of spell or spell level), which could only be recovered by 8 hours of rest. Using Con mainly since Sorcerer is flavored as having a more wild and uncontrolled magic in their being, instead of studying how to manipulate the magic of the world.
This way the two had unlimited spells, but could just as easily overdo it if they don't control how much or how often they use it. It reflects the whole commonly used draining effect that magic took on the body and mind that is used in novels. Also, as they go up in levels it becomes easier to use the lower level spells without risk, but ot removing the risk entirely. We ran the numbers, (die averages, typical acceptable high/low/common abilty scores for casters, how often they could use spells throughout the day without overuse, or "saving" them for the right time)
Is it a little more involved than just the fire and forget method, with a bit more note-taking and paperwork, sure. But it gave us the flavor, and tightened the reins all the while, allowing casters to cast all day long. If you want to spend a bunch of rounds buffing, fine, but any thing you cast after that will be much harder and you still have a chance of making yourself weaker in doing so.
You want a system where casters have access to (potentially) all the spells, can choose on a daily basis which ones to have ready and never use any of them up? Yeah, no one would play a regular wizard or sorcerer ever again, because this is vastly more powerful. Possibly acceptable at low levels, but overwhelming in the mid-game and beyond.
No. I want a class that has access to the entire wizard spell list. Has to pick a cetain amount spells using spell slots like the current wizard does yet not forget them once cast. Take for example a 5th level Wizard. THe class can cast 4 0 level, 3 1st, 2 2nd and 1 3rd. What I woud like is for the wizard to be able to cast that limited number of spells all the time. It's not broken because he has a limited number of spells to cast along with the other balanicng features the Wizard class. It's also used in Earthdawn. The casters can pick from their entire spell list of their level. Yet cast only a limited amount over and over again. It balances because they can only wear light armor and are not good at using weapon o shields. They can if they have to in an emergency yet they don;t oversahdow the Warrior class. If they want access to other spell they have to rest and the player has to pick and chooose yet th day after can cast the spells over and over again.
In the other words you want a sorcerer that has less spells known, unlimited spells paer day and picks it's spell list after every rest? Still more powerful IMO at higher levels as it has been said.
|
I think a large part of the issue for old hat gamers that has disconnected them from the system is the fact that the rules have been getting more concrete with each edition. In the early days, you got a general idea of how something should work and then a paragraph that basically said, "use your imagination and fill in the blanks - you're the DM and this is your world." The loss of that freedom does rub some people the wrong way. Hell, that is pretty much Gygax's view on 3rd edition (don't get much older-hat/greybeardier than that).
That sums up my views on pre-d20 vs 3.X pretty well. Which is the main reason it amuses me so much to see people who prefer 3.X react with shock and horror that 4E could POSSIBLY change the game in such large ways. Here's a note, fanboys: The edition that gives you such a stiffy did the exact same thing to the game in 2000.
I don't know if that's entirely fair. 3.0 brought a surge and the OGL was a refreshing approach that invited third party participation. In general, I think your point is mostly accurate though, as far as it relates to people being grumpy about change. I'm in that boat. Couldn't swallow the 4E spell-changes. I genuinely like Pathfinder in its current form more than I did the 2nd Edition system, as a whole, though 2E is what I would consider my nostalgic anchor. Put it this way: when we play 2E, we import some 3.x mechanics, but when we play 3.x we don't import any 2E mechanics (apart from those that 3.x itself imported).
The spells (and Vancian casting in particular) are at the forefront of what attracts me to D&D in general, however. I've tried systems with exhaustible "spell points," systems with modular spells (which are wonderful, but nowhere near as much depth), and inexhaustible spell casting. I like some of them. I like some of them a great deal. Nowhere near as much as I like 2E and 3E, though. I think there is definitely room to incorporate those styles into D&D, but I think it would be folly (and history has indicated that it may in fact be folly) to support a wholesale departure from what came before. Vancian as it is presented in D&D, like it or not, is a unique playstyle that other games have not approached. It's the only place to come to get my fix. Without it, I don't see much reason to pursue new editions.
|
I think a large part of the issue for old hat gamers that has disconnected them from the system is the fact that the rules have been getting more concrete with each edition. In the early days, you got a general idea of how something should work and then a paragraph that basically said, "use your imagination and fill in the blanks - you're the DM and this is your world." The loss of that freedom does rub some people the wrong way. Hell, that is pretty much Gygax's view on 3rd edition (don't get much older-hat/greybeardier than that).That sums up my views on pre-d20 vs 3.X pretty well. Which is the main reason it amuses me so much to see people who prefer 3.X react with shock and horror that 4E could POSSIBLY change the game in such large ways. Here's a note, fanboys: The edition that gives you such a stiffy did the exact same thing to the game in 2000.
Actually, 3x brought back a few sacred cows 2e dismissed in its original core, and actually called demon and devils, I don't know, demons and devils. Yep, it's mechanically different from 1e/2e in a lot of ways, but none of the changes were as dramatic as the ones in 4e were.
And, guess what? A lot of people complained about 3x back then just as people did with 4e this time. The difference? 3x actually bought back a bunch of players to buying books. Something about the edition brought people back into the fold, so, apparently, a lot of people felt, in spite of the changes, that 3x "felt" like D&D.
4e didn't accomplish that for enough players, and WotC obviously do not think it is doing well enough for them to continue producing it. Seriously, you can make that comparison all day, but it doesn't hold water. It doesn't matter what mechanics were changed, it matters that customers that spend money think it "feels" right.
And to you, 4e fan boy, no, the edition that gives us a stiffy didn't do the exact same thing in 2000, because the game put out in 2000 was a success and brought a lot of people back in to buying books (or even back into the hobby, in my case - I hadn't played in years when 3x came out).
The (according to 4e fan boys) 4th edition did not. It split the base and it failed to meet expectations. Sour grapes aren't going to change that.
|
|
I'm a 4E fanboy? Hardly. I took a brief look at it when it came out and decided that it wasn't for me. But unlike some people, I didn't spend the next few years demonizing it. I simply didn't play it.
Every new edition has split the fan base, and failed to meet the expectations of some. 1E did it, 2E did it, 3.0 did it, 3.5 did it, 4E did it, and 5E will do it. YOUR sour grapes aren't going to change that.
I don't have the book, so a couple quick questions: How many spells would a caster have access to? All (or potentially all) like a cleric or wizard? Or just a few like a sorcerer?
The Wizard gets an unlimited number of spell slots. They can learn all the spells you make available to them.
The Sorcerer gets 80 points of spell slots -- 4 every level.
Clerics (and Druids) can either learn prayers in a certain number of spell slots, or they can get all Divine spells that are available.
Rangers and Paladins get a limited number of spell slots. They know all the spells that are available to them.
Other classes like the Alchemist and Summoner would get 80 spell slots, like the Sorcerer. The Magus would be like Rangers and Paladins, they would get 40 or 50 spell slots.
This has nothing to do with Vancian casting, but:
Everyone points out the huge difference between 2E and 3E, but it seems to me that AD&D to 2E change, with the introduction of Proficiencies as skill rolls, was the death of i'm-going-to-just-RP-it-rather-than-roll-to-accomplish-it. Full disclosure, 2E hit during my Traveller years.
Backing up Kthulu here, can we 1: recognize that every edition has been called a miniature combat system rather than real D&D (it's almost as if combat is a large part of gameplay), and 2: not start calling people fanboys just having the un-mittigated gall not to loathe whichever edition?
That's right, I forget how fuzzy the line between AD&D and 2E was. Like I said, Traveller years.
|
|
I'm a 4E fanboy? Hardly. I took a brief look at it when it came out and decided that it wasn't for me. But unlike some people, I didn't spend the next few years demonizing it. I simply didn't play it.
Every new edition has split the fan base, and failed to meet the expectations of some. 1E did it, 2E did it, 3.0 did it, 3.5 did it, 4E did it, and 5E will do it. YOUR sour grapes aren't going to change that.
+1 Agreed and seconded.
|
|
No edition did so as decisively as 4e did. 2e didn't sell half as well as 1e, 3e sold better than 2e (sales weren't 2e's problem, the edition itself spitting the base into Ravenloft players, Dark sun players, Forgotten Realms players, Planescape players, and the bean counters at TSR thinking gamers would buy everything like they did for 1e - and producing everything like all players would buy all the settings - was the problem).
4e was a huge miscalculation of what most gamers wanted. Hence Pathfinder's success. Again, I'm guessing they sold about equally, with 4e having the edge for the first year or so (after PF was released, not the first year of D&D 4e). But, and again, those numbers for Paizo are far above expectiations. For WotC they're well below.
And, sour grapes? I don't really care about 4e or WotC. They lost me when they pulled the older edition PDFs, not with 4e. I got more than I paid for the 4e core (PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1), so I didn't lose money on the deal. 4e is ok, I actually played a little at OwlCon and watched some games being played.
I've just been watching this stuff since '79, and this is the craziest thing I've seen in that time. WotC didn't screw up as badly as Lorraine Williams did at TSR, but they did screw up.
No edition did so as decisively as 4e did. 2e didn't sell half as well as 1e, 3e sold better than 2e (sales weren't 2e's problem, the edition itself spitting the base into Ravenloft players, Dark sun players, Forgotten Realms players, Planescape players, and the bean counters at TSR thinking gamers would buy everything like they did for 1e - and producing everything like all players would buy all the settings - was the problem).
4e was a huge miscalculation of what most gamers wanted. Hence Pathfinder's success. Again, I'm guessing they sold about equally, with 4e having the edge for the first year or so (after PF was released, not the first year of D&D 4e). But, and again, those numbers for Paizo are far above expectiations. For WotC they're well below.
And, sour grapes? I don't really care about 4e or WotC. They lost me when they pulled the older edition PDFs, not with 4e. I got more than I paid for the 4e core (PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1), so I didn't lose money on the deal. 4e is ok, I actually played a little at OwlCon and watched some games being played.
I've just been watching this stuff since '79, and this is the craziest thing I've seen in that time. WotC didn't screw up as badly as Lorraine Williams did at TSR, but they did screw up.
My intuition is similar to yours, although I don't really have a view about sales volume.
It seems to me that the 4E transition was something of a perfect storm - I don't think there was anything disastrous when viewed in isolation, but the revolutionary system changes, coupled with sweeping changes to FR, poorly received marketting campaign, retraction of PDFs and revocation of the dungeon/dragon licenses all alienated different subsets and, together, created a large backlash.
I wasn't playing D&D at the time - I'm interested to watch them this time around and see what their approach is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They lost me when they pulled the older edition PDFs, not with 4e.
WotC didn't screw up as badly as Lorraine Williams did at TSR, but they did screw up.
I have to agree with houstonderek on these two points in particular, especially the second. In order to screw things up as bad as Lorraine Williams, WotC would have had to have ground the brand into non-existence. As irritated with WotC as many of us have been over 4e, without WotC, and with the disaster Ms. Williams had made of TSR near the end of its life, there may never have been a 3e, much less a 4e. I can at least give them credit for that.
As for Vancian magic, there have been those who claim it reduces daily spell selection to a guessing game; I say it encourages creativity, especially at lower levels. Seriously, how many different uses did your 2e players find for the grease spell? WD-40, oil slick, escape aid...
|
|
Still ever edition has in some way divided the players. Depending on how one feels a certain edition more then others yet it's not something exclusive to 4E. You think PF did not divide the 3.5 community. Some in my gaming group refuse to buy it because they feel it adds nothing new. That 5E even if it brngs back a lot of rules from 3E will somehow by miracle reunite the fractured fanabse. With a new edition it's always a big IF on some many levels. Who knows if PF was not around we might still be seeing 4E survive instead of being replaced. Too often I see "this is the main cause that XYZ failed" when it's more than that.
|
|
momorax, keep thinking the change to 2e and the change to 3e were in any way as cataclysmic as the change to 4e. TSR didn't die because they revised AD&D, they died because they glutted the market with crap product. Players didn't have any option for new product with the 2e change and the 3x change. Players had an option after the 4e change. And about half the base exercised that option. I hated 2e, seriously, but it had zero impact on TSR.
So, you can ignore what really happened and try 20/20 hindsight speculation all you want (which is funny, because it's hard to change what really happened to fit your narrative and make the 4e change and customer exodus seem less than it was, or make the 2e and 3e changes more dramatic than they were).
And, again, um, there is no OGL to save 4e fans like there was for 3e fans, so there will be no division of the fan base for new product. And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion, and, if enough of them exist, they make Pathfinder's success that much more impressive. And, again, PF does exist, so that 20/20 hindsight speculation is completely irrelevant. It's like "what if Lincoln fell off a horse when he was a kid" speculation. Ultimately meaningless in the face of actual history. If 4e were a game more people wanted there would have never been a Pathfinder. It works both ways. the reality is, for the first time, the new edition didn't keep enough people and attract enough new people to survive. Why that happened, or how "wrong" the opinions are of the people who didn't jump on board are, is irrelevant. The edition failed where it counted, in the marketplace.
|
|
momorax, keep thinking the change to 2e and the change to 3e were in any way as cataclysmic as the change to 4e. TSR didn't die because they revised AD&D, they died because they glutted the market with crap product. Players didn't have any option for new product with the 2e change and the 3x change. Players had an option after the 4e change. And about half the base exercised that option. I hated 2e, seriously, but it had zero impact on TSR.
Which I disagree with. You know I don't think you understand difference between a fact an opinion. In your opinion 2E failed because TSR flooded the market with too many products. I agree wtih that. I also think that every time a game changes editions some of the fanbase do not want to switch over. It was very visisble with 4E. Yet imo it happens all the time.
So, you can ignore what really happened and try 20/20 hindsight speculation all you want (which is funny, because it's hard to change what really happened to fit your narrative and make the 4e change and customer exodus seem less than it was, or make the 2e and 3e changes more dramatic than they were).
Pot calling the kettle black much. Unlike yourself who post something and expects it to be accepted as pure fact I have alay said it's been my opioion. Fans being alienated between editions happen all the time. Just because you don't agree with it or want to acknopwledge it does not mean it does not exist. And what you think the fans of 2E accpeted 3E without saying anything. If anyone who insists on fitting things into a narrative it;s yours. I can say something does not exist too if I disagree with it. If your not interested in hearing anything or from anyone that disagrees with your opinion why are you even posting on this or any other forum. You don't get to demand the type of feedback you get on this forum or any other.
And, again, um, there is no OGL to save 4e fans like there was for 3e fans, so there will be no division of the fan base for new product.
Right so all those 4E fans who bought the 4E books are going to be happy with a new edition. Ogl or not not every one is happy with a new edition. I'm sure your going to say who cares about them. I don't think you realize or want to realize that you and your views don'r represent the entire market or fanabse.
And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion,.
Interesting lets discount a segment of the fanbase because they don't fit into how I want to view things argument. I'm not even sure you care that you just insulted your fellow famers.
If 4e were a game more people wanted there would have never been a Pathfinder.
You really like making broad claims. Really PF would not have existed if more people wanted 4E. Last time I checked we had a whole bunch of other rpgs that people play beyond PF.
|
|
momorax, keep thinking the change to 2e and the change to 3e were in any way as cataclysmic as the change to 4e. TSR didn't die because they revised AD&D, they died because they glutted the market with crap product. Players didn't have any option for new product with the 2e change and the 3x change. Players had an option after the 4e change. And about half the base exercised that option. I hated 2e, seriously, but it had zero impact on TSR.
Which I disagree with. You know I don't think you understand difference between a fact an opinion. In your opinion 2E failed because TSR flooded the market with too many products. I agree wtih that. I also think that every time a game changes editions some of the fanbase do not want to switch over. It was very visisble with 4E. Yet imo it happens all the time.Nope. Jacobs actually came on the boards and confirmed my opinion as pretty much fact. TSR had warehouses full of unsold 2e stuff they couldn't push, and they ate a ton of product because of a very liberal buy back (from vendors and distributors) policy. You confuse not knowing the story with thinking what I said is an opinion. What I said is what happened. Your opinion otherwise is irrelevant.
So, you can ignore what really happened and try 20/20 hindsight speculation all you want (which is funny, because it's hard to change what really happened to fit your narrative and make the 4e change and customer exodus seem less than it was, or make the 2e and 3e changes more dramatic than they were).
Pot calling the kettle black much. Unlike yourself who post something and expects it to be accepted as pure fact I have alay said it's been my opioion. Fans being alienated between editions happen all the time. Just because you don't agree with it or want to acknopwledge it does not mean it does not exist. And what you think the fans of 2E accpeted 3E without saying anything. If anyone who insists on fitting things into a narrative it;s yours. I can say something does not exist too if I disagree with it. If your not interested in hearing anything or from anyone that disagrees with your opinion why are you even posting on this or any other forum. You don't get to demand the type of feedback you get on this forum or any other.Again, I have the advantage of actually knowing what happened. I never said fans weren't alienated. I said that some editions succeeded and some failed in spite of or because of fan alienation. 4e didn't sell what WotC needed it to, that is the only reason they'd come out with a new edition so quickly. 2e sold ok, but they printed way too much product and bought back unsold stock from distributors and it sunk TSR. This is a fact, not an opinion. That you are unfamiliar with the facts and dismiss those that do not fit what you want the truth to be is irrelevant.
And, again, um, there is no OGL to save 4e fans like there was for 3e fans, so there will be no division of the fan base for new product.Right so all those 4E fans who bought the 4E books are going to be happy with a new edition. Ogl or not not every one is happy with a new edition. I'm sure your going to say who cares about them. I don't think you realize or want to realize that you and your views don'r represent the entire market or fanabse.The 4e fan base will do what the 3.5 fanbase did. Some will switch, some won't. The difference is there is little to no chance of some 3pp stepping up and producing new product for them. No Paizo on the horizon. So, they'll be like people who play 1e, 2e and 3.5. Well, the only difference is people who play older editions have companies making new product under the OGL, whether they be OSR boutique publishers or Paizo (a little secret, Pathfinder is just 3.5 with houserules, their adventures are usable with 3x with little conversion work needed). I don't think anyone will dare do that on any scale because of the restrictive nature of the GSL.
However, WotC appears to be targeting people who never jumped to 4e. That is, the people playing OD&D, AD&D and 3.5/Pathfinder. That's a pretty big slice of the RPG market.
And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion.Interesting lets discount a segment of the fanbase because they don't fit into how I want to view things argument. I'm not even sure you care that you just insulted your fellow famers.Um, they are irrelevant. Pathfinder, because of their business model and expectations, didn't need every 3.5 player to convert. Paizo exceeded their sales expectations, so enough converted to make them successful. WotC DID need those players to convert (and a lot of the people who eventually chose Pathfinder), they didn't, and 4e did not meet expectations, which, in business terms, makes 4e a failure. Which is why they started on 5e in 2010. A mere two years after 4e was released. Not a good sign that, after the initial curiosity sales, enough people were buying very near the beginning of the run to make 4e seem like a good idea to continue. I'm guessing Essentials didn't come close to meeting expectations either.
If 4e were a game more people wanted there would have never been a Pathfinder.You really like making broad claims. Really PF would not have existed if more people wanted 4E. Last time I checked we had a whole bunch of other rpgs that people play beyond PF.There are. But, were 4e a rousing success, who knows what path Paizo would have taken? Had they not had a huge potion of their fanbase saying they'll never adopt to 4e, they might not have taken a chance on publishing a $50 rule book. A company doesn't just make a major decision to bring out a new line of products unless they have a decent idea they'll be able to sell enough units to pay the bills and make a profit.
|
|
Nope. Jacobs actually came on the boards and confirmed my opinion as pretty much fact. TSR had warehouses full of unsold 2e stuff they couldn't push, and they ate a ton of product because of a very liberal buy back (from vendors and distributors) policy. You confuse not knowing the story with thinking what I said is an opinion. What I said is what happened. Your opinion otherwise is irrelevant.
Right because you know other factors beyond the glut of 2E produicts on the market just can't be included in your narrative. Second who are you to tell my post is irrelavent. I respect your opinion your just tossing mine aside. You must be a blast to have disccusions with in person. Third saying anything you disagree with as being irrevalent is a cop-out as far as i'm concerned
Again, I have the advantage of actually knowing what happened. I never said fans weren't alienated. I said that some editions succeeded and some failed in spite of or because of fan alienation. 4e didn't sell what WotC needed it to, that is the only reason they'd come out with a new edition so quickly. 2e sold ok, but they printed way too much product and bought back unsold stock from distributors and it sunk TSR. This is a fact, not an opinion. That you are unfamiliar with the facts and dismiss those that do not fit what you want the truth to be is irrelevant
So because you heard one person versions of the facts means that person might not be mistaken or not know all the facts. And no I'm not accusing James Jacobs of lying. I just think imo their is more to 2E demise than a glut of product. After having been burned by somone who told me he had all the facts. I no longer trust one source. So I think there is more to the story and find what you think on the matter irrelevant.
Um, they are irrelevant. Pathfinder, because of their business model and expectations, didn't need every 3.5 player to convert. Paizo exceeded their sales expectations, so enough converted to make them successful. WotC DID need those players to convert (and a lot of the people who eventually chose Pathfinder), they didn't, and 4e did not meet expectations, which, in business terms, makes 4e a failure. Which is why they started on 5e in 2010. A mere two years after 4e was released. Not a good sign that, after the initial curiosity sales, enough people were buying very near the beginning of the run to make 4e seem like a good idea to continue. I'm guessing Essentials didn't come close to meeting expectations either.
You do realize that PF could have been a failure right. Whioh is why Paizo unlike yourself is taking a more respectful and smarter attitude towards 3.5 players then you are. Espcially with the rpg market as is taking your fanabse for granted is not a good thing. As for 4E well Wotc kind of did the same thing. Hopefully with 5E they can unite the fanbase. Though from what I'm seeign so far of 5E and with them trying to recruit the older players of previous editions well I'm not sure if Paizo needs to worry. To me anyway it seems like they are trying to rerelease AD&D and hope no one notices. I do disagree that 4E was a complete failure. As long as some gamer enjoy it to me it does still have a measure of success.
|
|
I don't worry about things that didn't happen. Completely pointless. Yes, it could have been a failure. Paizo didn't take anything for granted, and they had very modest goals. But they succeeded.
And, again, I'm not saying 4e is a bad system, and I'm not saying people don't like it. I'm saying WotC doesn't think it is a success. They didn't meet their sales goals. They have to answer to corporate overlords.
And, to be honest, I really don't care. I'm just tickled that, after all of the shouting down and attacking anyone who said "hey, maybe 4e isn't doing as well as people think", even people who didn't have a stake and were just comparing anecdotal stories, 4e fans are STILL going at it.
Seriously, WotC wants to get back old gamers, like they did with 3x in 2000. And all those sacred cows that 4e fans hate, a lot of whom didn't start until 3x and have no emotional attachment to them, are what is going to bring the players they lost back into the fold.
And, you know what? I didn't start posting in this thread until y'all started going on about how the older generation should, and I'm paraphrasing, shut the f~$! up because they're nostalgic fatbeards who don't matter. That pissed me off. So, here I am.
So.......Vancian Magic.....what place does it really have in 5E and how can it be used in a way that pro-4E people (like myself and others of this sub-forum) won't vomit on? (i jest)
Joking aside,
I think I could get back into that sort of thing as long as I have clerics that can heal outside of that mechanic (or spontaneously heal), have wands that don't force me to burn though my daily allotment, and give me some sort of reputable At-Will spells/powers/features so I won't go through rounds of combat doing useless things or "I attack with sharp pointy thing and carve a bit off your 174 HP total."
They find a way to do that, and I'll have less of a hard time thinking "why am I buying this when I can just play v3.5/PF/4E?"
Two points:
1.) Houstonderek is right. Having a person (or people) essentially say the opinions of others don't matter because they played older editions (in a nutshell; I'm not claiming this verbatim) is not only downright insulting, it's short sighted. Starting debates that preclude the other side's ability to even have a stance serve no purpose beyond pissing people off, to be blunt.
2.) I don't think Memorax is one of the posters who were doing this. Seems like he's being unfairly lumped in with the "How dare you old hats ruin my game!" crowd.
And just because I'm feeling so generous, here's a third point: 2E's failures were due to mismanagement. That's indisputable fact, and will be backed up with empirical data from any one who was involved with TSR's decline (and sales figures, though I don't claim to have access to that kind of information by any means). That's what happens when you strong arm the father of the game out of the equation and focus on nothing but sales, sales, sales! How much more content can we try to cram down their throats? Who cares about product quality, sell more books! Obscure settings? Print it! Print, print, print! Oh crap, it's not working; just lump it into Faerun -- people like Forgotten Realms, so they'll buy it if we lump it into Faerun, right?
|
|
So.......Vancian Magic.....what place does it really have in 5E and how can it be used in a way that pro-4E people (like myself and others of this sub-forum) won't vomit on? (i jest)
Joking aside,
I think I could get back into that sort of thing as long as I have clerics that can heal outside of that mechanic (or spontaneously heal), have wands that don't force me to burn though my daily allotment, and give me some sort of reputable At-Will spells/powers/features so I won't go through rounds of combat doing useless things or "I attack with sharp pointy thing and carve a bit off your 174 HP total."
They find a way to do that, and I'll have less of a hard time thinking "why am I buying this when I can just play v3.5/PF/4E?"
+1
Agreed and seconded.
2.) I don't think Memorax is one of the posters who were doing this. Seems like he's being unfairly lumped in with the "How dare you old hats ruin my game!" crowd.
I don't know why he grouped me into the same group. Then again he's angry and that justifies anything and everything.
So.......Vancian Magic.....what place does it really have in 5E and how can it be used in a way that pro-4E people (like myself and others of this sub-forum) won't vomit on? (i jest)
Joking aside,
I think I could get back into that sort of thing as long as I have clerics that can heal outside of that mechanic (or spontaneously heal), have wands that don't force me to burn though my daily allotment, and give me some sort of reputable At-Will spells/powers/features so I won't go through rounds of combat doing useless things or "I attack with sharp pointy thing and carve a bit off your 174 HP total."
They find a way to do that, and I'll have less of a hard time thinking "why am I buying this when I can just play v3.5/PF/4E?"
Haha, pulling it off is the easy part, I think. Pulling it off in a manner that won't make one or the other feel underwhelming/overwhelming seems like it's going to be the snag. They're trying to pull it off, though, if information given thus far is accurate, so kudos to them for at least attempting to diagnose and remedy the problems (as perceived by both sides). Honestly, reading back through it, this thread's heated moments are kind of nonsensical. Whether you hate Vancian or love Vancian, they have done nothing to indicate that either preference will be hung out to dry.
Having said that, the discussion would make more sense if funneled in the direction of "How can Vancian and non-Vancian coexist in a balanced, exciting fashion."
And, again, I'm not saying 4e is a bad system, and I'm not saying people don't like it. I'm saying WotC doesn't think it is a success. They didn't meet their sales goals. They have to answer to corporate overlords.
I've been hesitant to get involved (since I couldnt really care less about Vancian magic/nostalgia or anything else germane to the original thrust of this thread) however, from the tiny things I've been able to glean from WoTC comments, I dont think 4E's failure was sales figure related.
.I'm basing that on comments by the WoTC CEO (who said D&D* was selling well as recently as the middle of last year) and from the fact that the red box beginner set went out of print for a while (at least at the distributor level) - which seems to indicate to me that it sold better than expected. Also from the comments they have been making regarding their professed goals with D&D:Next and the fact they will continue to provide some level of DDI support for 4E.
I think the central theme which shines through their comments is an acknowledgement of the divide in the fans between various editions (but principally the 3.5-4E divide) and a further acknowledgement that WoTC missteps contributed significantly to those ill-feelings. Every company want to make more money, of course - but it doesnt sound to me like this is a revenue based decision (at least in the short term) but a belated recognition that a strong, united D&D community is good for business and that their customers enjoy and expect active involvement in the development of the game. I see similar trends in their renewed devotion to organised play and getting people into local gaming stores.
I dont claim any special knowledge, but in general, executives do feel comfortable publically stating when revenues are lower than expected and that hasnt been the gist of the comments I've heard from WoTC. What I have heard is repeated comments along the lines that 4E focussed on one style of gameplay and that fans of other styles didnt feel their preferences were catered too.
* Albeit, he was probably including boardgames plus DDI subscription income and maybe even DDO revenue, I guess.
|
Two points:
And just because I'm feeling so generous, here's a third point: 2E's failures were due to mismanagement. That's indisputable fact, and will be backed up with empirical data from any one who was involved with TSR's decline (and sales figures, though I don't claim to have access to that kind of information by any means). That's what happens when you strong arm the father of the game out of the equation and focus on nothing but sales, sales, sales!
Although, with due respect to Gary Gygax-- When he got axed at TSR, he had it coming after the way he strong-armed Dave Arneson out of the way and denied him any share in AD&D (even though it's recognizably derived from the game that Arneson and Gygax-- working together-- originally made). More tellingly, Arneson, NOT Gygax, was the one who came up with the idea of having people play individual characters, and thus created the role-playing game out of the war-game it was originally rooted in. Arneson's decisive role seems to have been forgotten by a lot of people while everyone remembers Gygax, yet Arneson's contribution was arguably more important to the future of the hobby.
Truth. And this is by no means a discredit to Arneson, but Gygax had a vested interest beyond monetary gains in the company, whereas he was ousted by people who were essentially looking for a budding market/community to milk funds out of.
|
|
I'm basing that on comments by the WoTC CEO (who said D&D* was selling well as recently as the middle of last year) and from the fact that the red box beginner set went out of print for a while (at least at the distributor level) - which seems to indicate to me that it sold better than expected. Also from the comments they have been making regarding their professed goals with D&D:Next and the fact they will continue to provide some level of DDI support for 4E.
Steve--
I'm not so sure that CEOs of corporations that are wholly owned and operated by other corporations are comfortable with saying "we're not meeting expectations" when they want to keep their jobs... Plus, I know how to read propaganda-- one of the skills I learned in the military. :)Seriously-- D&D 4E may be selling well (when you take in everything involved) AND still not be selling well enough to keep Hasbro happy. I wouldn't be surprised if we got the real numbers someday, and it shows that 4E is making a nice profit (by, say, the standards that a smaller game company would use); yet WotC is still being driven by Hasbro's demand that there is more profit to be made out there-- "look at all those customers who aren't buying your game! You need to get those people back, and get them buying our products again.... or we'll keep replacing you until we find somebody who will..." (or until they just shut down the unit because it's not profitable enough, compared with their other ventures.
I'm not sure if that's what's really going on behind the scenes, but it sure looks like that to me.
|
|
You may have a point, but I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure Hasbro would green light a project to replace a profitable product line that's meeting expectations on what would basically be a PR move.
And CEOs of publicly traded companies rarely disclose poor sales figures. Lots of publicly traded companies talk about how well they're doing until they lock the doors. Now, WotC is in no danger of that, being a division of Hasbro, but their D&D wing is second fiddle to the CCG side, and never gets mentioned in quarterly reports.
And that they admit to have been working on it since 2010 is also indicative that perhaps sales aren't as rosy as they were letting on. They're not going to say the reason was bad sales, because that would just add more fuel to the fire, they're going to say they want old players back because it looks like they're being contrite and admitting they were wrong. I.e. good PR.
They want old players back, so they're going to say whatever it takes to convince us they won't dismiss us again. And I hope they make a great game. If they can pull off what they're trying to do, it would be pretty amazing, and only an awesome game would do it.
Steve--
I'm not so sure that CEOs of corporations that are wholly owned and operated by other corporations are comfortable with saying "we're not meeting expectations" when they want to keep their jobs... Plus, I know how to read propaganda-- one of the skills I learned in the military. :)
I dont know what your rules are in the US, but in Australia you're personally liable as a CEO if you say "Sales are doing great!" when they're not.
The acknowledgements of errors in the 4E launch and the legends and lore article dont read like propaganda to me - do they to you? I've heard WoTC employees directly comment on Pathfinder's success - they'd obviously be mad to attack such a successful brand (especially one which still carries the mantle of underdog) but they could easily not mention the competition. Things like that make me think this is a genuine mea culpa - without going so far as to say "4E was a failure" which I think is an oversimplification.
Seriously-- D&D 4E may be selling well (when you take in everything involved) AND still not be selling well enough to keep Hasbro happy. I wouldn't be surprised if we got the real numbers someday, and it shows that 4E is making a nice profit (by, say, the standards that a smaller game company would use); yet WotC is still being driven by Hasbro's demand that there is more profit to be made out there-- "look at all those customers who aren't buying your game! You need to get those people back, and get them buying our products again.... or we'll keep replacing you until we find somebody who will..." (or until they just shut down the unit because it's not profitable enough, compared with their other ventures.
I'm not sure if that's what's really going on behind the scenes, but it sure looks like that to me.
I have no knowledge of gaming companies or Hasbro in particular - so I also dont pretend to have anything more than opinion. Having said that, I would be astonished if Hasbro pay any attention to D&D. It's just not big enough to warrant their interest, as far as I can see, let alone for them to be issuing any directives. I'm sure they know about Magic - but, imo, parent companies have too much to do to be bothered micromanaging their subsidiaries.
I'll second that Finn.
It always seemed to me that WotC Felt a need to push 4E out because they didn't really get how to deal with OGL material and felt an entitlement to all things d20, no insult to the 4E system.
And now with 5E they seem to be banking on selling everything they produce to everyone who played D&D of any edition, ever; don't get me wrong, I'm curious about 5E and will buy at least the first few core rulebooks, but I'm also curious as to whether the people holding the purse strings have realistic expectations.
A few years in the past now, but: "Okay, we're getting some traction with this new edition of D&D, do you guys think making the worst movie ever will help or hurt with that?"
Sometimes the whole thing just feels like an ugly mess of a business plan.
I have no knowledge of gaming companies or Hasbro in particular - so I also dont pretend to have anything more than opinion. Having said that, I would be astonished if Hasbro pay any attention to D&D.
Had to edit due to length, sorry.
I think D&D may be a very frustrating property to own for the bean counters. I can't speak about Australia, but here in the US D&D is simultaneously the genre name for every tabletop RPG to the uninitiated, and a (guessing now) low earning property where one person buys a copy of each book and shares with all their friends as needed.
|
|
I dont know what your rules are in the US, but in Australia you're personally liable as a CEO if you say "Sales are doing great!" when they're not.The acknowledgements of errors in the 4E launch and the legends and lore article dont read like propaganda to me - do they to you? I've heard WoTC employees directly comment on Pathfinder's success - they'd obviously be mad to attack such a successful brand (especially one which still carries the mantle of underdog) but they could easily not mention the competition. Things like that make me think this is a genuine mea culpa - without going so far as to say "4E was a failure" which I think is an oversimplification.
I don't know much about business law or legal requirements in that arena.... so I could be entirely wrong.
However-- yes, those acknowledgements read like propaganda to me-- whole lot'a "mea culpas" as part of the PR operation to win people back again. "Mea culpas" on areas where "everybody already knows" they screwed up-- so it looks genuine, influences people, starts generating interest... without bringing up any mistakes or problem issues that people don't either already know about, or could really easily guess. The subtle propagandist doesn't try to cover up the flaws and mistakes you already know about-- he uses careful admission (with full spin control) in order to build up his credibility as an honest source. He also admits mistakes you don't know about yet, but are certain to find out about sooner or later, so that he can get the story out first (with his spin on it from the beginning) instead of having to play 'damage control' when you find out about it through an uncontrolled, other source later.
The press releases and columns I have read so far (I'm certain I haven't delved into all of them) do read like there's a good PR expert running over-watch, content, and spin control on every piece.
I have no knowledge of gaming companies or Hasbro in particular - so I also dont pretend to have anything more than opinion. Having said that, I would be astonished if Hasbro pay any attention to D&D.Had to edit due to length, sorry.
I think D&D may be a very frustrating property to own for the bean counters. I can't speak about Australia, but here in the US D&D is simultaneously the genre name for every tabletop RPG to the uninitiated, and a (guessing now) low earning property where one person buys a copy of each book and shares with all their friends as needed.
The brand-name strength is the same here (most of my games of "D&D" have actually been rolemaster).
My point is more related to how corporations work and my perception of the relative economic value of D&D - parent companies rarely care about the functioning of their subsidiaries beyond the core products. As I understand things, Hasbro bought WoTC for pokemon (?) and Magic:The Gathering. I can't imagine they have any time to go sifting through WoTC's other products examining them for profitability or otherwise - their time is better spent on consolidation, acquisitions and developing synergies across their various subsidiaries.
Unless WoTC begins hemorrhaging money through D&D, I can't see how they'd care or notice. They own Parker Brothers too, tonka toys,...far too many companies to be across all the insignificant brands. I suspect they look at WoTC as 'the producers of M:TG' and that the value of that company is determined almost exclusively by the value of that brand.
However-- yes, those acknowledgements read like propaganda to me-- whole lot'a "mea culpas" as part of the PR operation to win people back again. "Mea culpas" on areas where "everybody already knows" they screwed up-- so it looks genuine, influences people, starts generating interest... without bringing up any mistakes or problem issues that people don't either already know about, or could really easily guess. The subtle propagandist doesn't try to cover up the flaws and mistakes you already know about-- he uses careful admission (with full spin control) in order to build up his credibility as an honest source. He also admits mistakes you don't know about yet, but are certain to find out about sooner or later, so that he can get the story out first (with his spin on it from the beginning) instead of having to play 'damage control' when you find out about it through an uncontrolled, other source later.
The press releases and columns I have read so far (I'm certain I haven't delved into all of them) do read like there's a good PR expert running over-watch, content, and spin control on every piece.
I see. I wonder if it's a familiarity with the people. I've been reading comments from Mearls for a while, so perhaps I'm more inclined to trust him as being genuine.
|
|
Steve, you kind of answer your own question about disclosure and stuff above. WotC's people can pretty much say what they want about how well things are selling, as their D&D sales don't affect what Hasbro stock sells for. The CCgs are the only thing ever mentioned in Hasbro's quarterlies, so D&D doesn't even register as a blip to their stock holders. The SEC isn't going to go "Enron" on Hasbro because a WotC guy said "sales are good!". That statement is completely subjective and not legally actionable in a court anyway.
I'm about 100% sure D&D is profitable. I just don't think it's as profitable as they projected. And, like Finn pointed out, if they say they're changing editions because sales didn't meet their projections, the change is going to be seen as desperation, not a stab at reconciliation. Really bad PR.
I don't exactly disagree steve, but from an American profit income expectation standpoint, if you aren't getting profits equal to your brand saturation level, you're doing it WRONG, and should have to live under a bridge like a common troll, cause that's what you get in a capitalist economy.
Edit: that is, it's a question of whether they'll go for a sell rulebooks or sell adventures business model.
Steve, you kind of answer your own question about disclosure and stuff above. WotC's people can pretty much say what they want about how well things are selling, as their D&D sales don't affect what Hasbro stock sells for. The CCgs are the only thing ever mentioned in Hasbro's quarterlies, so D&D doesn't even register as a blip to their stock holders. The SEC isn't going to go "Enron" on Hasbro because a WotC guy said "sales are good!". That statement is completely subjective and not legally actionable in a court anyway.
No - but as a subsidiary, the board of Hasbro can take action - that's what I meant. The WoTC CEO didnt have to say D&D was selling well, he could have used any number of weasel words or argued a 'maturation of editions' as some kind of natural ebb and flow. After all, over the last few years, there's been a pretty obvious 'out' for anyone trying to lure discretionary spending out of consumers and failing to generate revnue growth.
I'm about 100% sure D&D is profitable. I just don't think it's as profitable as they projected. And, like Finn pointed out, if they say they're changing editions because sales didn't meet their projections, the change is going to be seen as desperation, not a stab at reconciliation. Really bad PR.
That's probably true. However, I dont think it follows that they wouldnt be releasing a new edition unless sales were disappointing.
(Btw, since I've been misunderstood before - I dont actually have a view on this, I'm just skeptical of claims made by people outside of the industry. I was never a fan of the ICV2 reports, for example - largely because I figured they underestimated PF sales enormously due to excluding sales through Paizo, but also because they ignored DDI revenue and sales through mainstream outlets.
My 'best guess' would be that PF is outselling D&D and that would be a disappointment to WoTC. I'm nonetheless aware that my grounds for thinking that are pretty slim).
Edit: that is, it's a question of whether they'll go for a sell rulebooks or sell adventures business model.
I'm very interested in where they go with this decision. I can easily see them 'sticking to their guns' and focussing on rules rather than flavor (my preference, as it happens given my like of WoTC rules and Paizo flavor material). However, it must be hard to look at Paizo's success (and I would argue Fantasy Flight Games as well) and not feel like high production value flavor material is something of a golden goose.