I figured this would have its own thread already (maybe I'm missing it?), but Wizards announced this week that they have begun working on yet another edition.
I didn't mind 4th edition as much as most, it was good at what it set out to do. I've mostly moved on to "indie" story game stuff, but this is interesting nonetheless.
What are your thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
I had some interest right before 4E came out in starting a campaign, but 4E to me just seemed like pen-and-paper rules for World of Warcraft, at which point I'd rather just play one of the D&D board games like Wrath of Ashardalon.
I think WotC is making the right move by going for a new edition, especially because it looks like they've lost quite a bit of business to Pathfinder over the last couple of years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Given the general theme of the "Legends & Lore" articles, I've been expecting this announcement for a while now. I wouldn't sell my 4E books just yet, though - it sounds like the new edition is still a long way off.
The "Legends & Lore" articles are pretty interesting, by the way. If you haven't read them and are at all interested in tabletop RPG design, I recommend you give them a glance.
I think WotC is making the right move by going for a new edition, especially because it looks like they've lost quite a bit of business to Pathfinder over the last couple of years.
I've got no idea what the account books look like, but Wizards doesn't seem to mind Pathfinder being around - indeed, they and Paizo are apparently on very friendly terms, and a number of writers do work for both companies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've got no idea what the account books look like, but Wizards doesn't seem to mind Pathfinder being around - indeed, they and Paizo are apparently on very friendly terms, and a number of writers do work for both companies.
Well, from a purely legal standpoint Wizards doesn't have a choice. Pathfinder has been VERY careful to not violate any IP of Wizards. It strikes me as Wizards playing nice becuase there is no benefit to not playing nice.
Personally, I enjoyed 4e because it gave me a chance to play with new people. Sane people, with normal lives, and regular hobbies. It was so refreshing to play with a bunch of people who were well washed, and very courteous for once. Not that I have anything against my regular playgroup, but sometimes it's nice to play DnD while drunk.
That said; I hope the next edition is closer to 4e than 3.5. 3.5 was a nightmare to DM. Banning books, scanning for classes...ugh. Just no. I like having all the information centralized. Even the rules for combat made more sense! Literally the only change I feel is necessary, is in character creation. There should be more flexibility. We need a middle ground between the "Mix and Match a couple different skillsets," of 3.5, and the "Choose a path," of 4e.
I despise 4th edition with a passion. We need something close to 3.5.
Pathfinder.
No seriously you want closer to 3.5 stick to Pathfinder, it works for you so great, but 4e was not a bad idea it was badly executed but in itself the edition was solid and solved a lot of the problems 3.5 has and that not even pathfinder can solve.
Personally, I enjoyed 4e because it gave me a chance to play with new people. Sane people, with normal lives, and regular hobbies. It was so refreshing to play with a bunch of people who were well washed, and very courteous for once. Not that I have anything against my regular playgroup, but sometimes it's nice to play DnD while drunk.
That said; I hope the next edition is closer to 4e than 3.5. 3.5 was a nightmare to DM. Banning books, scanning for classes...ugh. Just no. I like having all the information centralized. Even the rules for combat made more sense! Literally the only change I feel is necessary, is in character creation. There should be more flexibility. We need a middle ground between the "Mix and Match a couple different skillsets," of 3.5, and the "Choose a path," of 4e.
Agreed, oh by the gods how i agree with this!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Yeah, Wizards' decision to release the OGL has been one of the most revolutionary and far-reaching events in gaming history. I'm still amazed by it.
I'm too was amazed by it, but also I am confused by it. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish? Whatever it was it clearly didn't work out the way they wanted it to given that the recanted and went back to a super locked down system in 4th edition.
Really, the only "flaws" I've seen in 4th edition is the lack of depth in non-combat rules and the balance problems that result form adding in all the feats and powers from later books in odd ways.
What I'd kill for, though, is a 3.5/pathfinder character Creator like the character creator Wizards made for 4th edition. Man, that thing is nice.
(all that said, we don't play D&D all that often. We tend to rotate our games a lot.)
pathfinder is NOT the answer for 3.5. Not by a long shot.
Sure it is. Pathfinder is the answer to the question: I want to keep playing a fantasy RPG game that uses the D&D 3.5 rules. Heck, d&d 3.5 characters are 100% portable to pathfinder, thanks to the OGL.
The only reason to say its *not* the answer is out of some (IMO misguided) loyalty to the "dungeons and dragons" brand.
Sure it is. Pathfinder is the answer to the question: I want to keep playing a fantasy RPG game that uses the D&D 3.5 rules. Heck, d&d 3.5 characters are 100% portable to pathfinder, thanks to the OGL.
The only reason to say its *not* the answer is out of some (IMO misguided) loyalty to the "dungeons and dragons" brand.
That and if you already bought the books and have content built up it's like way cheaper. It's sort of interesting to play in old mega dungeons that you haven't played in for like 10 years with a few newer mechanics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I despise 4th edition with a passion. We need something close to 3.5.
What Sepiriel said. A new edition should try something new. If you want an old edition, that's fine, just play the old edition.
I really respect 4th Edition for this: they were not afraid to question and modify the old. Not all of their new ideas were good ones, and they even eventually reanimated one or two of the sacred cows they'd slaughtered (oh, autohit magic missile, how we missed ye!). But the design philosophy on display, of experimentation and innovation, of taking nothing for granted, tells me that this is still a company I can trust to write a good new game. I think the D&D franchise is fundamentally healthier because of 4th Edition than it would have been if the Edition had been a more timid tweak on 3.5 rules.
That said; I hope the next edition is closer to 4e than 3.5. 3.5 was a nightmare to DM. Banning books, scanning for classes...ugh. Just no. I like having all the information centralized.
That doesn't really have much to do with the actual rules, though, does it? You could reorganize the 3E rules, or even the 2E rules, and present them in a 4E-like format. And of course Wizards has learned from 3E and 4E in how to present a game. Whether 5E as a ruleset ends up looking more like 3E, 4E, or, hell, Vampire, I have no doubt whatsoever that it's going to be presented in a 4E style or something even better.
I'm too was amazed by it, but also I am confused by it. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish? Whatever it was it clearly didn't work out the way they wanted it to given that the recanted and went back to a super locked down system in 4th edition.
I think they were being subtler than you give them credit for, and I think they achieved what they wanted. Think about it. All games rip off rules and ideas from each other a little, but Wizards gave other devs the license to rip off D&D to their lazy little hearts' desire. And as a result, all other games looked even more like D&D. They basically tempted the entire industry into branding themselves as WotC's *****.
Or, to put it less connivingly, they ensured that every other product played well with their own, so consumers could and would use D&D stuff even if they were more interested in, say, swashbuckling piracy than swords and sorcery.
The only reason to say its *not* the answer is out of some (IMO misguided) loyalty to the "dungeons and dragons" brand.
And I for one don't say, "Let's play Pathfinder"; I say "Let's play D&D (and use the Pathfinder rules)." Under normal circumstances I'd say poor Paizo, but this is clearly exactly what they wanted. Funny thing, branding.
What Sepiriel said. A new edition should try something new. If you want an old edition, that's fine, just play the old edition.
I really respect 4th Edition for this: they were not afraid to question and modify the old.
The problem is the mindset of "there are no sacred cows" is what lead to New Coke.
Which I think is applicable here. It seems like people here are huge fans of 3rd Edition, and I don't blame them. It made huge changes to D&D while staying true to what D&D was, and its changes were things that improved upon the game and made it easier to manage and more accessible.
4th Edition, on the other hand, was what many consider to be a great departure from a core D&D experience, and elements that made 3rd and 3.5 Edition work so well.
I think the D&D franchise is fundamentally healthier because of 4th Edition than it would have been if the Edition had been a more timid tweak on 3.5 rules.
Well, that remains to be seen in 5th. If Wizards learns from their mistakes, then yes. If it continues in the direction 4th did (which I doubt it will) then no.
But I credit Wizards with a good deal more intelligence than that. I think we have every reason to expect good things from 5th Edition, and if part of the process of getting there was making mistakes in 4th edition to learn what things can be changed and what things make up the core of what people have come to expect of D&D, then fantastic.
The problem is the mindset of "there are no sacred cows" is what lead to New Coke.
Also: Casino Royale.
An entertainment franchise isn't like a beverage. Coca-Cola can keep selling us exactly the same product for decades, and we'll like it, because we have to buy it anew every time we want to enjoy that product. But Wizards of the Coast can't sell us the same book over and over again; we've already got the book, we can go read it whenever we want. So it has to come up with new material for each release. In my mind, it's better to see new material that is in some places flawed, and know that they can still innovate, than to see a retreading of the stuff that sold in the past. It bespeaks a healthier development team.
If it continues in the direction 4th did (which I doubt it will) then no.
I'm not going to get into the 3E vs. 4E war, but I would like to ask for more specificity on what you see as 4E's "direction" and thus what you think 5E will and won't look like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think 4E's direction is a focus towards combat and away from roleplaying elements. This has been the main complaint I have continually seen made against it.
I'm too was amazed by it, but also I am confused by it. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish? Whatever it was it clearly didn't work out the way they wanted it to given that the recanted and went back to a super locked down system in 4th edition.
I think that the idea of the OGL was scary to a lot of people in the company, and that the people who had championed it had mostly left so it got rolled.
Seriously, the OGL was genius. There were, pre-pathfinder, really no companies which reproduced whole PHBs and DMGs (ok, a few, but hardly any) which meant that all those adventures people wrote were selling books for wizards. What's more, even for those whole re-dos of the system, people could and did by a pile of the splat-books.
But open source is inherently scary to executives.
Unfortunately, moving away from the OGL, not moving to 4e, is what created the nightmare for wizards that is pathfinder. Once you open the open source bottle it's damn hard to re-cork.
Of course, I also dislike a number of things wizards did with 4e; I find it is harder to create interesting characters and that skills are less important - and they are already not important enough in 3.5!
I also, by the by, don't think that pathfinder's solutions to the problems of 3.5e are the correct ones. Some of them are good - the 'combat maneuver bonus' system subtracts little and adds a lot. But the game feels a lot more munchkiny - so many of the classes which were already good have a pile of stuff added to them unnecessarily.
I think the scariest thing about the upcoming 5e is the time frame that 4e has been released and is already getting replaced. DnD has fans that can play a game for years, sometimes trying to span a story from level 1 to 20 (or 30 in 4e). But, in six years or so, Wizards is pulling up stakes on 4e. Unfortunately, this comes shortly after their great shift to Essentials, which is an entire new take on 4e pc design. So, in all, 4e was around for 4 years, essentials will be for about 2 or 3 years, and 5e will come out, damning 4e to no more updates or product. It just feels terrible from a gamers viewpoint.
In the end, the biggest problem with Wizard's handling of 4e is they seem to think it can make money like Magic or any other collectible thing. DnD just isn't that type of game, nor does it have that type of fanbase. I doubt an edition change will do much to fix this.
One thing I hope now, as a recent Kindle-er is that they actually support ebook formats this time around - I started scanning/OCRing and then converting my books to the Fire taking tons of effort only to find they look like crap afterwards.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109
I didn't mind 4th edition as much as most, it was good at what it set out to do. I've mostly moved on to "indie" story game stuff, but this is interesting nonetheless.
What are your thoughts?
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
I think WotC is making the right move by going for a new edition, especially because it looks like they've lost quite a bit of business to Pathfinder over the last couple of years.
The "Legends & Lore" articles are pretty interesting, by the way. If you haven't read them and are at all interested in tabletop RPG design, I recommend you give them a glance.
I've got no idea what the account books look like, but Wizards doesn't seem to mind Pathfinder being around - indeed, they and Paizo are apparently on very friendly terms, and a number of writers do work for both companies.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, from a purely legal standpoint Wizards doesn't have a choice. Pathfinder has been VERY careful to not violate any IP of Wizards. It strikes me as Wizards playing nice becuase there is no benefit to not playing nice.
Yeah, Wizards' decision to release the OGL has been one of the most revolutionary and far-reaching events in gaming history. I'm still amazed by it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
sig by DarkNightCavalier
Avatar by perv90210.
Currently Running
Cryffyl
That said; I hope the next edition is closer to 4e than 3.5. 3.5 was a nightmare to DM. Banning books, scanning for classes...ugh. Just no. I like having all the information centralized. Even the rules for combat made more sense! Literally the only change I feel is necessary, is in character creation. There should be more flexibility. We need a middle ground between the "Mix and Match a couple different skillsets," of 3.5, and the "Choose a path," of 4e.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Pathfinder.
No seriously you want closer to 3.5 stick to Pathfinder, it works for you so great, but 4e was not a bad idea it was badly executed but in itself the edition was solid and solved a lot of the problems 3.5 has and that not even pathfinder can solve.
Agreed, oh by the gods how i agree with this!
I'm too was amazed by it, but also I am confused by it. What, exactly, were they trying to accomplish? Whatever it was it clearly didn't work out the way they wanted it to given that the recanted and went back to a super locked down system in 4th edition.
Really, the only "flaws" I've seen in 4th edition is the lack of depth in non-combat rules and the balance problems that result form adding in all the feats and powers from later books in odd ways.
What I'd kill for, though, is a 3.5/pathfinder character Creator like the character creator Wizards made for 4th edition. Man, that thing is nice.
(all that said, we don't play D&D all that often. We tend to rotate our games a lot.)
They need to come up with a proper conversion from 1,2,3,4,5 so we can go in between the editions.
Sure it is. Pathfinder is the answer to the question: I want to keep playing a fantasy RPG game that uses the D&D 3.5 rules. Heck, d&d 3.5 characters are 100% portable to pathfinder, thanks to the OGL.
The only reason to say its *not* the answer is out of some (IMO misguided) loyalty to the "dungeons and dragons" brand.
That and if you already bought the books and have content built up it's like way cheaper. It's sort of interesting to play in old mega dungeons that you haven't played in for like 10 years with a few newer mechanics.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What Sepiriel said. A new edition should try something new. If you want an old edition, that's fine, just play the old edition.
I really respect 4th Edition for this: they were not afraid to question and modify the old. Not all of their new ideas were good ones, and they even eventually reanimated one or two of the sacred cows they'd slaughtered (oh, autohit magic missile, how we missed ye!). But the design philosophy on display, of experimentation and innovation, of taking nothing for granted, tells me that this is still a company I can trust to write a good new game. I think the D&D franchise is fundamentally healthier because of 4th Edition than it would have been if the Edition had been a more timid tweak on 3.5 rules.
That doesn't really have much to do with the actual rules, though, does it? You could reorganize the 3E rules, or even the 2E rules, and present them in a 4E-like format. And of course Wizards has learned from 3E and 4E in how to present a game. Whether 5E as a ruleset ends up looking more like 3E, 4E, or, hell, Vampire, I have no doubt whatsoever that it's going to be presented in a 4E style or something even better.
I think they were being subtler than you give them credit for, and I think they achieved what they wanted. Think about it. All games rip off rules and ideas from each other a little, but Wizards gave other devs the license to rip off D&D to their lazy little hearts' desire. And as a result, all other games looked even more like D&D. They basically tempted the entire industry into branding themselves as WotC's *****.
Or, to put it less connivingly, they ensured that every other product played well with their own, so consumers could and would use D&D stuff even if they were more interested in, say, swashbuckling piracy than swords and sorcery.
Why not?
And while they're at it, they also need to figure out whether P = NP.
That is not a question.
And I for one don't say, "Let's play Pathfinder"; I say "Let's play D&D (and use the Pathfinder rules)." Under normal circumstances I'd say poor Paizo, but this is clearly exactly what they wanted. Funny thing, branding.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem is the mindset of "there are no sacred cows" is what lead to New Coke.
Which I think is applicable here. It seems like people here are huge fans of 3rd Edition, and I don't blame them. It made huge changes to D&D while staying true to what D&D was, and its changes were things that improved upon the game and made it easier to manage and more accessible.
4th Edition, on the other hand, was what many consider to be a great departure from a core D&D experience, and elements that made 3rd and 3.5 Edition work so well.
Well, that remains to be seen in 5th. If Wizards learns from their mistakes, then yes. If it continues in the direction 4th did (which I doubt it will) then no.
But I credit Wizards with a good deal more intelligence than that. I think we have every reason to expect good things from 5th Edition, and if part of the process of getting there was making mistakes in 4th edition to learn what things can be changed and what things make up the core of what people have come to expect of D&D, then fantastic.
Also: Casino Royale.
An entertainment franchise isn't like a beverage. Coca-Cola can keep selling us exactly the same product for decades, and we'll like it, because we have to buy it anew every time we want to enjoy that product. But Wizards of the Coast can't sell us the same book over and over again; we've already got the book, we can go read it whenever we want. So it has to come up with new material for each release. In my mind, it's better to see new material that is in some places flawed, and know that they can still innovate, than to see a retreading of the stuff that sold in the past. It bespeaks a healthier development team.
I'm not going to get into the 3E vs. 4E war, but I would like to ask for more specificity on what you see as 4E's "direction" and thus what you think 5E will and won't look like.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I for one can't wait to see what happens...
I think that the idea of the OGL was scary to a lot of people in the company, and that the people who had championed it had mostly left so it got rolled.
Seriously, the OGL was genius. There were, pre-pathfinder, really no companies which reproduced whole PHBs and DMGs (ok, a few, but hardly any) which meant that all those adventures people wrote were selling books for wizards. What's more, even for those whole re-dos of the system, people could and did by a pile of the splat-books.
But open source is inherently scary to executives.
Unfortunately, moving away from the OGL, not moving to 4e, is what created the nightmare for wizards that is pathfinder. Once you open the open source bottle it's damn hard to re-cork.
Of course, I also dislike a number of things wizards did with 4e; I find it is harder to create interesting characters and that skills are less important - and they are already not important enough in 3.5!
I also, by the by, don't think that pathfinder's solutions to the problems of 3.5e are the correct ones. Some of them are good - the 'combat maneuver bonus' system subtracts little and adds a lot. But the game feels a lot more munchkiny - so many of the classes which were already good have a pile of stuff added to them unnecessarily.
In the end, the biggest problem with Wizard's handling of 4e is they seem to think it can make money like Magic or any other collectible thing. DnD just isn't that type of game, nor does it have that type of fanbase. I doubt an edition change will do much to fix this.
"Can you apply the penal code to demons?"
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.