The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

billd91 · Dec 30, 2011

Dragonhelm said:
Fair enough, I guess. Still, I would think that even in an op-ed piece, they would try to get WotC’s current POV.

I know that’s what they were aiming for with Andy Collins, but that’s like asking a retired general about the current state of a war. The general knows of the situation a while back and can give that perspective, but he is not involved in the current state of affairs.

They may not have had the option. Former WotC employees may be able to comment as they desire, but WotC can control the author's access to current employees.

Mark CMG · Dec 30, 2011

technoextreme said:
Also I find it hilarious that 4th edition gets knocked as being a tactical combat game which if you read previous editions was always what the game was.

Anyone who knocks 4E as a tactical combat game doesn't realize just how good a tactical combat game it is, certainly has much more focus on that aspect of gaming than previous editions as I have made clear.

Gentlegamer · Dec 30, 2011

technoextreme said:
Also I find it hilarious that 4th edition gets knocked as being a tactical combat game which if you read previous editions was always what the game was.

Minute long combat rounds are not indicative of tactical combat.

technoextreme · Dec 30, 2011

Gentlegamer said:
Minute long combat rounds are not indicative of tactical combat.

Probably more indicative of how bad previous editions were because holy crap was there ever a focus on combat.
Edit
In fact the first version of D&D was a rebranding of a tactical wargame.

Rechan · Dec 30, 2011

delericho said:
But I find this thread rather more worrying. If the divisions in the Edition Wars are still as deep as they seem to be, then any 5e is almost certain to fail. And that would mean the end of D&D. Shame.

If you want more worrying, just look at what folks want for 5e.

Complexity to a single page of rules to dials of complexity, from no character creation at the start to full complication, no Vancian vs. all vancian, no classes to hard class definitions.

It's all over the place with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.

Umbran · Dec 30, 2011

Rechan said:
It's all over the place with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.

Yah. If they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing noone.

M.L. Martin · Dec 30, 2011

Umbran said:
Yah. If they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing noone.

If I were in charge of D&D, I'd stick with the 4E direction, put most of the backstock up in PDF/PoD format, do a "Classic/Collector's Edition" reprinting of OD&D and/or 1E with the best of the old adventure modules, and accept that most of the fans who could have been brought back with a more 3E-esque system have signed their souls over to Paizo at this point.

Stalker0 · Dec 30, 2011

One thing I find amusing is that the article talks about the beauty of the OGL, but then in the next section talks about how WOTC now has a strong competitor in Paizo.

But the thing is, Paizo is only a competitor because the OGL exists.

I can understand the desire for the OGL as a way to increase the RPG market, but I think Paizo is a strong example of why a business would be so hesitant to do an OGL.

The one aspect in the article I found most interesting was idea that Dnd competing with itself is not a new thing. The developers felt that pressure even at the creation of 2e.

delericho · Dec 30, 2011

Stalker0 said:
One thing I find amusing is that the article talks about the beauty of the OGL, but then in the next section talks about how WOTC now has a strong competitor in Paizo.

Funny thing is that Paizo is one of the companies that isn't directly attributable to the OGL. They came into being because WotC decided they were going to cancel the mags. It is likely, but not certain, that they wouldn't exist without the OGL - it's just barely possible that we'd still have a Pathfinder without it, albeit a very different one.

But without the OGL, we wouldn't have Mongoose, or Green Ronin, or Malhavoc, or Necromancer/Frog God. Which means no Conan, or Babylon 5 RPG, or Dragon Age, or Mutants & Masterminds, or WFRP 2e (and, thus, no 3e or Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch), or...

Hell, there would be no EN Publishing, and quite likely no EN World.

All the supplements and games that those companies produced created massive excitement for 3e. Without them, 3e would not have been the massive success that it actually was.

So, there would probably be no 4e. It's likely that Hasbro would have cancelled D&D long since.

But, even if it survived, D&D would be very different. With no OGL companies to provide a way in, and with the magazines cancelled in 2003 (no Paizo, remember), there's no obvious route for people to get into the industry. Oops.

In particular, Mearls came to prominence due to his work for OGL companies (notably Mongoose, then Malhavoc, and then WotC). Remove his contributions, and 4e looks very different from what we have. And, since he's now effectively running the whole show...

It is easy to see the OGL as an error, and think that D&D would be better off without. But that is an easy mistake to make.

Morrus · Dec 30, 2011

Rechan said:
If you want more worrying, just look at what folks want for 5e.

Complexity to a single page of rules to dials of complexity, from no character creation at the start to full complication, no Vancian vs. all vancian, no classes to hard class definitions.

It's all over the place with very little consensus. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to cut the baby in half.

Oh, absolutely. With a bit of luck, 5E will hew mainly towards a single vision (even if it's not my vision).