WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

S'mon · Jan 10, 2012

BTW I'm surprised to have read through 14 pages of this thread on "WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition" and I'm surprised not to have seen any cracks about Mike Mearls = Little Annie Skywalker, bringing Unity to The Force.

Walking Dad · Jan 10, 2012

Matthew L. Martin said:
I believe the quote actually says "drop in"--i.e., add them. To be precise . . .

Thanks for the clarification. I misread ths.

Lanefan said:
That they seem to be trying to hearken back to earlier (as in, much earlier) versions - at least to some extent - gives me hope.

If the end result is merely a 3e-4e hybrid, however, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Lan-"and the number shall be five; not six, not four..."-efan

What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?

Rules? Flavor?

TrippyHippy · Jan 10, 2012

Walking Dad said:
What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?

Rules? Flavor?

Simplicity. In the original game there wasn't vast lists of Feats, Skills, Powers, and tactical maneuvres. There wasn't a need for grid based combat, you could roll up a character in 5 minutes, and the core books weren't 500 pages long.

There was a lack of balance, rules that didn't make sense and so on - but the core game could be grasped very quickly, and the character archetypes were pretty clear.

Nagol · Jan 10, 2012

Walking Dad said:
Thanks for the clarification. I misread ths.

What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?

Rules? Flavor?

Speed/simplicity of character creation, limited requirements for beginning player/DM knowledge (i.e. thin books -- this began to vanish under 2e). Limited choice/archtypes.

Speed of combat resolution with very limited emphasis on battlemat play. Most games I ran used a blackboard for the tactical map and basic positioning. Unless you got to gods on the battlefield, creatures had less than 100 hp -- usually a lot less.

DaveMage · Jan 10, 2012

Baumi said:
3E came out in the year 2000 and Essentials is not a new edition, so it's:

2000-2013 (13 Year Span): 3e, 3.5, 4E, 5E

Thats still a fast release of new editions, but not as bad as you have written. Also I want to point out that the shortest Edition from that was 3E and 4E will be 5 years in the market, which is the same as 3.5.

(Source: Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Oh, I know 3.0 came out in 2000. My point was that in 2002 we had 3.0, then the others. The debate whether essentials is a new edition notwithstanding, that's still a lot of edition turnover in a short period of time.

I grew up on AD&D (12 years) and 2E (11 years). I liked that pace.

Will Pathfinder be like that pace? I can hope. If Paizo is true to their word that the rules exist to support their adventures, then there should be very little need to change the rules going forward. I'm very interested in what stories they can tell with adventures and monsters. Not as much interested in new rules - there are already enough options in Pathfinder rules-wise to game with for decades (at least at the pace that I play).

(And, adding epic rules *ahem* would be the last thing that I need for a very long time.)

bhandelman · Jan 10, 2012

Spinachcat said:
So we are not getting the VTT? AKA, the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era?

I think it's highly debatable that a VTT is "the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era" or is even that relevant. There are tons of VTTs out there, some pretty decent, and they aren't making an impact. They also didn't say anything to lead one to believe there won't be a VTT, only that they consider tabletop gaming the most important part of their market.

Spinachcat said:
Wow. I guess Hasbro really has no faith in the D&D IP.

I would say flying out reporters from both fan sites like ENWorld and major news media like NY Times and Forbes lead one to believe they have a lot of faith in the IP.

Spinachcat said:
I can't see 5e succeeding in their "please everyone" fantasy. They can't make it Old School enough to please Old Schoolers at the same time pleasing fans of 3e and 4e.

Yeah, I'm not sure trying to please everyone is a good idea, but we'll see what they do.

Spinachcat said:
I wonder who will create the "Pathfinder" version of 4e?

Wouldn't that be a hoot that WotC would be forced to compete with Pathfinder, the OSR and a 4e clone plus all those people who didn't leave 3e and 4e!!!

Talk about a house divided.

Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen. This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.

Nagol · Jan 10, 2012

bhandelman said:
<snip>

Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen. This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.

0e, 1e, and 2e didn't even have a license and there are clones of those using the OGL.

It is possible to do though it'd be an awful lot of work. Probably won't happen unless there is a large enough disenfranchised segment.

TerraDave · Jan 10, 2012

Echohawk said:
...Picture that says way more then 1000 words

Awesome.

catsclaw227 · Jan 10, 2012

talok55 said:
Yeah, it is. I can't give numbers, but I've seen countless "I've left 4E for Pathfinder threads" on forums and am part of gaming group that left 4E for Pathfinder. I've heard it enough that is seems to be a fairly common occurance.

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but lately here at EnWorld, there have been quite a few posts of people saying that they left 4e for Pathfinder... and now are back playing 4e because they remember why they left 3.x in the first place.

It doesn't mean that one game sucks more than the other or one is badwrongfun, but that many of the frustrations many people had with 3.x still exist in Pathfinder.