WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

Jan van Leyden · Jan 9, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
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.

Ahnehnois said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

Steel_Wind said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

howandwhy99 said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

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 · Jan 9, 2012

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 · Jan 9, 2012

DaveMage said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

Scott_Rouse said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

DaveMage said:
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 · Jan 9, 2012

Steel_Wind said:
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.