WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

[Jan van Leyden]

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

Actually, my main concern is that regardless of their stated intent they'll ignore popular demand and end up making the same mistakes they made last time. Democracy has its problems but anyone in the entertainment industry needs to play to their audience.

Which leads to the question of how they want to define their audience.

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

OTOH, I agree that the divisions in place now are quite fundamental and not tied to brand loyalty. I'm also skeptical that any attempt at unification will succeed. For my part, if I see anything "per day", "per encounter" or "per [any unit of time]", I'm done. I'm sure there are people who feel the reverse.

Judging by the frequency and intensity of the flame wars raging more than three years after the release of 4e, you're probably right. It's a tough order to re-unite the D&D players. A lot of players seem to be hunting for and emphasizing things they don't like. Any attempt to create The One Edition will lead to people complaining over certain things. And no open playtest can ever hope to reconcile those differing positions.

Oh, by the way: You don't like "spells per day" for wizards

[howandwhy99]

Originally Posted by Steel_Wind

Now, that said, I’m not so sure that WotC is inclined to provide the ongoing game world and adventure material support that I have come to expect from Paizo and its material published for Golarion, its Adventure Paths and for Pathfinder Society. It isn’t that WotC can’t do it if it wanted to --- but I just don’t see that WotC is going to make that sort of ongoing support part of its core business anytime soon - or ever. Certainly, I have not seen any indication that they want to change their business approach and choose to make those kinds of products as part of their core business for the D&D brand.

Right now there are a few schools of thought on adventure design and I think WotC could benefit from going a different direction from Paizo. They do and have released adventures for 4E, but I don't know how profitable they have been.

Paizo is not going to be beat at their own game. The adventure path paradigm is their bread and butter because it naturally works with a subscription based book selling model - very lucrative for a small bookseller. Not to mention they have been cultivating authors and running contests to find more. It is every bit as much if not more important to their success IMO as the updated ruleset with a legacy audience.

The indie model doesn't really work well in regards to adventure publishing. Most games are very much focused on at the table improvisation by all players. The games themselves can sometimes be construed as single adventure booklets in some cases. In other cases adventures would be contrary to the design of the games.

What Wizard could do is go with alternate adventure designs until they find something that hits. Traditional modules can be every bit as complex as any finely written novel, but they are simply a different beast. Imagine a basic module-sized situation (an adventure territory) and tie all of the piece together in their relations. Then spin out a potential future of dynamic change within it. The key is, let the players change the world and the future timeline and enable DMs to construct alternate ones easily on the fly and between sessions without ignoring the starting relationships. - Well, that's one way. But just because adventures may not be selling or be seen as a weakness now doesn't mean they don't support play or cannot be reinvigorated.

[Mercurius]

Originally Posted by howandwhy99

I'm wondering how much this will be possible. To really make that happen would require an exceptional core game. It will be interesting to see what comes out though. I'm all for a more united community.

It is certainly tricky, but that's why game designers get paid the big bucks!

But seriously, there is no way that they're going to please everyone, but I think they can go a long way towards offering the "feel" of older edition play except to those that are super-attached to specific rules, who will always miss the forest for the trees and get hung up on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

For instance, there is really no way to please those for whom the "Old School feel" is contingent on making a save vs. Polymorph and Petrification and an attack vs. Fortitude is a sin against Gygax. It is very unlikely that we're going back to that sort of hodge-podge rules system, just as it is very unlikely that eight-track players or rotary phones will make a comeback.

But it may be that there are more ways to get to Rome than the previously trodden path; that is, the "Old School feel" may be possible through other means including a stream-lined modular rules system that facilitates the type of game experience that was the hallmark of pre-WotC D&D.

I would suggest that the rules don't limit or force a specific type of game experience, but they do encourage (or discourage) a certain kind of experience. The main issue that many had (and have) with 4E is that for various reasons it was more difficult to create the type of experience that long-time D&D players associate with D&D.

The key then, in my view, is to create a 5E that doesn't focus on the past in any form--whether we're talking about OD&D, AD&D, BECMI or even 4E--but forms a strong basis for as wide a variety of D&D experiences as possible, while remaining connected to the overall legacy of the game. So if I were designing 5E I would make sure that, in the context of this discussion, all of the following were true:

*It is possible to play an "Old School-esque" game.
*It is possible to play a 3.5esque game.
*It is possible to play a 4Esque game.
*It brings something uniquely its own ("5Esque") to the table.

The key being that "esque" is less a function of the actual rules than it is what the rules are capable of facilitating. It is a subtle, but crucial, difference.

[Osgood]

Based on many of the comments in this thread alone, I'd say WotC has a serious uphill battle in any attempt to unify the fan base. A lot of folks are very invested in their chose edition/company. I'll be interested to see how the play test shakes out, but with any group this divided compromise will leave neither side particularly pleased.

[tecnowraith]

I have a few questions:
What makes D&D game feel old school-esque?
What was good about 3.5 that fans liked?
What was good about 4.0 that fans liked?
D&D all about Classes if not, it is possible to do D&D without classes? That players can make any character they want without the hassle? Some publishers (and even producers) think kids are stupid or unimaginative to come up with character on their own.

What I liked from 4.0 was the powers system if they can improve on it, then cool.

[Scott_Rouse]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?

Scott Rouse said 8-10 years between editions. That was in 2008.

He doesn't work there anymore. In fact, all the people on the current design team may not be there next year (much less in 4 years).

Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).

Yes I did say that and at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers? 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

Edit for the sake of clarity that I am talking about the game as it stands now:

My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business). The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.

And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success. To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away.

Yikes, man! I know you don't work there any more, but wow!

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?

They aren't asking you to extend them a loan, or something. You're putting no money down, need to expend zero effort, have nothing on the line, have no skin in the game. You are perfectly free to sit back and wait and see if you like the final product.

If and when you're putting something at risk, when you have to choose to make an investment, then you need to worry about trusting them.

[pauljathome]

Originally Posted by Steel_Wind

Now, that said, I’m not so sure that WotC is inclined to provide the ongoing game world and adventure material support that I have come to expect from Paizo and its material published for Golarion, its Adventure Paths and for Pathfinder Society. It isn’t that WotC can’t do it if it wanted to --- but I just don’t see that WotC is going to make that sort of ongoing support part of its core business anytime soon - or ever. Certainly, I have not seen any indication that they want to change their business approach and choose to make those kinds of products as part of their core business for the D&D brand.
.

In my mind the ideal situation would be if

1) 5th edition is sufficiently flexible to mostly unite the D&D base (it absolutely will NOT be able to completely please EVERYBODY.)
2) That WOTC, at a minimum, comes to some deal with Paizo and other significant 3PP so that Paizo can concentrate on what it arguably does best (settings, modules, organized play, Adventure Paths, game aids)

I don't expect anything as open as the OGL to be adopted by WOTC. And, quite frankly, I really don't mind if the bar to writing adventures is sufficiently high that BasementJoe cannot compete (as most of what he writes is crap :-)).

But I really, really hope that whatever license comes out is sufficiently loose that Paizo (and others) can commit their business to making supplements for 5th Edition AND that 5th Edition is sufficiently good and flexible that they'll want to do so.

I'm sceptical that all of this will occur but I certainly HOPE that it does and certainly am NOT going to prejudge WOTC before I see what they produce.

[Scott_Rouse]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Yikes, man! I know you don't work there any more, but wow!

My therapist tells me admitting this kind of stuff is healthy.

[jaerdaph]

I don't think "unite all players" with 5e is an obtainable or realistic goal. I do, however, think it's awesome that it is a stated goal for 5e, because even if they fall short of that mark, I'm sure some good design and development will come out of it anyway. More so when you combine that with their other stated goal - massive fan input and playtest.

I don't think we'll ever see the OGL as it existed during 3e/3.5e ever again, at least not from WotC/Hasbro. I think they see that as part of the reason 4e failed to live up to their expectations both financially and with regards to edition lifespan and carrying over fans of the previous edition. Note I said "failed to live up to their expectations", not "4e is a failure". I also think you could argue that by failing to open up 4e with an OGL like they did 3e, WotC/Hasbro contributed to their failure to meet their expectations.

Now my data point: Don't spend too much time, money or effort trying to win me back, WotC/Hasbro. I'm in that 45 and older crowd, and while I know I don't speak for everyone in that age group, I've moved on. I already have what I need in 3 1/2 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, a few d20 "spin off" and OSR retro-clone games, not to mention the non-d20/non-D&D games I play now as well. Spend that time, money and effort appealing to my younger nephews and nieces (ages 11, 9, 6 and 6) instead. Take D&D well into the 21st century by getting them on board. Take almost 40 years of D&D and revamp and refresh it for the younger generation. Make them feel that same magic that I felt in 1979 when I first discovered D&D. But don't just package up 1979 D&D and resell it. Use every modern technology and tool that has been developed since D&D first came out and are such an integral part of the younger generation's lives, and integrate that into the the new game. Keep in mind their preferred way of getting information - sound bites, text messages, short and to the point. Don't overwhelm with countless tomes filled with pages and pages and pages of information. Let them pick up the game and be up and running and playing in 10 minutes or less. Do that, and people will still be playing D&D another 40 years from now.

[Alzrius]

Based on the tone of their press release, I'm worried that WotC is going to go too far in trying to make a game that appeals to everyone.

My concern is that their approach will take the form of designing "meta-rules" - entire systems for various aspects of the game that can be added or subtracted without crippling game-play - and that this will lead not only to divisiveness, but also to the demise of the unified d20 mechanic that characterized the Third and Fourth Editions.

To be clear, when I talk about "meta-rules," I'm thinking of, for example, things like feats and skills in Third Edition. Imagine if you tried to run a 3E game without those; you'd run into problems with prestige classes (prerequisites), magic items (skill boosters), class abilities (bonus feats), racial abilities (skill bonuses), etc. Now, try and design 3E so that feats and skills could be easily removed from the game without causing those problems...that sounds like what 5E wants to do.

That worries me because it has built-in fault lines for community fragmentation. Forget about play-styles...if there's no specific set of rules, things will only grow more factionalized among players.

The other part of this is that it's easier to design a game where rules sets can be added and subtracted if all of those sets run independently. If nothing else references feats, then it's easier to drop feats. This, however, tends to lead back towards the earlier editions of the game (e.g. 2E and previous) wherein the game was effectively a collection of sub-systems...something that was (not without merit, I think) indicted as poor design when Third Edition came out.

If the D&D guys can find a way to pull this off while avoiding those pitfalls, I'll be impressed. But until I see the end result, I'm nervous about what 5E will look like.

[ShinHakkaider]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

Well to be fair they DID kill 3.x, at least support for it. Which at that point was to be expected since they were introducing 4E. It's also the reason that Pathfinder and other OSR games became havens for people who wanted nothing to do with WOTC's new and shiny.

I find it incredible and also a little galling that with WOTC is still going to support both 4E and whatever the new edition is though. I understand that the DDI is in place and if they pulled the plug on it for their 4E players there would be absolutely no reason for 5E players to trust them at all.

I'm also saying this as someone who's not a huge fan of 4E: I think that this is a mistake. Theyre going to try and do with the fans what they did with thier properties back in 2007-2008: Pull everything back in house. I think the hardcore 4E people are going to resent having their edition end about as much as the hardcore 3.x people did (or maybe not as much because they'll still have support...). The dedicated Pathfinder people dont trust WOTC enough to boil water for tea much less a new system. The OSR fanbase for the most part shuns BOTH of the later systems so anything resembling them gets poo-pooed.

the design team and WOTC REALLY has their work cut out for them. I dont envy them at all. Especially with this upcoming playtest. If they experience anything close to the complete douchelike behavior that came out of some of the playtester forums on Paizo? I expect Monte and Mearls to start drinking HARD.

[Ahnehnois]

Originally Posted by Jan van Leyden

Oh, by the way: You don't like "spells per day" for wizards

Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd

Do you mean no Vancian magic as there was pre-4E? That was per day. Or do you refer to the structure from 4E alone?

Should have seen that coming. It's an aside, but I'll answer the question (thoroughly). I think that Vancian magic is a problem; the game has largely been balanced by the idea that mages can do incredible things a few times per day and fighters can do decent things indefinitely. This didn't achieve balance very well, less so as spells became more plentiful and easy to cast. Spells aren't difficult enough to cast. The fighter and the fatigue and wounds of combat were not modeled well, and his infinite reserves of stamina aren't that useful.

4e tried to fix this by adding an abstraction to where fighters and mages used the same power system. This also didn't model fatigue very well, robbed spellcasters of their diversity, and, even worse, created a "per encounter" distinction, even though an encounter is not an objective time unit. There's also the "homogeneity" and "grind" that even 4e advocates often complain about. Even if it was more balanced, it's hard to say that's worth it.

My take on the whole thing is that limiting an ability by "X uses per unit time" is an anachronistic game mechanic. It doesn't achieve balance, because the amount of adventuring in a day varies enormously by group, and it creates cheesy attempts to rest and regain uses (15 minute adventuring day). In addition, it doesn't model reality very well. You could get away with it with mages because magic isn't real, but the problem was there even before the mechanics migrated towards fighters. People fatigue over time, but they aren't fine one minute and unable to swing their sword a certain way the next. If you're going to release a new edition of D&D, an "upgrade" this is one of the prime things to fix.

And yes, I have some ideas on other ways of doling out spells and other abilities (which I'm sure I'll be posting at length somewhere else).

And no, I never liked 3.X barbarian rages, PF barbarian rage points, the 3.0 version of power critical, anything from the Tome of Battle, or any of the other "per day" or "per [unit of time]" mechanics that made their way into the rules during 3e. This is an edition-neutral issue. I hate "per day" in all editions, and I see it as a nexus of problems that many different people have with the game, along with hit points, magic items, combat maneuvers, and some other things.

And no, I don't think Trailblazer's "per rest" solution works, that's a band-aid.

Bottom line, unless you're going to take problematic rules and replace them with innovative and better mechanics that are actually better than the old ones, why would I buy a new game?

[DaveMage]

Originally Posted by billd91

But how can a corporation like WotC regain people's trust? Should they be forced to shoulder a burden that isn't working out for them because they need to wait 4 more years before you trust them? Do they have that kind of time? Or should they scrap the stuff that isn't in working in an effort to better serve dissatisfied customers?

I haven't had much confidence in WotC's decisions in some time, but I'll still review them individually in the hopes that they're successfully learning something.

To regain trust, the cycle of terminations of WotC employees has to stop. Otherwise there is no accountability and what's said today is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).

Yes I did say that and at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers? 4e was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

The point is that the people there today may (and one might even say it's likely that they will) be gone tomorrow and WotC has a terrible record with regard to staffing. Therefore, anything said, any time spent on the process, may become meaningless when the next "leader(s)" come in to do their thing.

I'm not saying you weren't being honest when you said 4E would last 8-10 years. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that there are forces within (and above) WotC that make any statements by any staff member dubious.

Today they want an all-inclusive game. Tomorrow they may all be fired.

Now granted, it's possible in any business that the climate may change forcing decisions to be made, but WotC seems to bring the changes on themselves and they don't seem to be getting better - but worse in this regard.