WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

catsclaw227 · Jan 10, 2012

DaveMage said:
3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.

Now... I see the editions noted like this occasionally. Sometimes from 4e players, but mostly from people who don't play 4e (or at least don't play much).

Yes, there are some threads started asking questions about compatibility, but for each naysayer, there are a flood of experienced 4e players that debunk the notion that Essentials is a different "version" or "edition" of 4e.

I've been DMing and playing mixed core 4e and essentials games since Essentials came out and there are really very, very few issues that aren't easily fixed.

It is absolutely NOTHING like the switch between 3.0 and 3.5 where we had whole huge subset compatibility issues and therefore the reprinting of splat and monster books with the same monsters and splat classes rebuilt for 3.5. 3.5 was reprinted and positioned as a new edition of D&D.

talok55 · Jan 10, 2012

Erdrick Dragin said:
First off, I like to state that I called this a long time ago and it's actually announced. My predictions with WotC have always been spot on. They're so insanely predictable.

Second, clearly 4E failed. Another thing I called when I heard just one paragraph of the changes coming to D&D with that edition.

Next, this piece of news says one thing to me: "We don't know what the hell we're doing anymore, so we're going to have you do the work for us!"

Is that what WotC has come down to with D&D? Seriously, sell the damn brand already. It's worthless in their hands. Paizo or some other company can do a much better job. Heck, White Wolf could do a much better job! They talk about unity across all editions with the gamers who are split apart from the Edition Wars by --- wait for it --- making ANOTHER edition!? Where is the logic in that?

Were I in control of D&D, I know exactly how to bring this "unity" they speak of while being very profitable. WotC, if you're reading this, please consider this suggestion. I'll also be involved in the playtest, if possible, to repeat this suggestion again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO FIX D&D in 3 EASY STEPS
[Number One]
Never create a new edition. Ever. Keep the 4 you have. The reason is explained below.

[Number Two]
Redistribute and release PDFs across all editions along with print-to-order hard copies of any D&D product of any edition of the game.

[Number Three]
Spread resources throughout the 4 editions, giving each their share. The newer edition receives the bigger share, and then scale down. Maybe switch it up now and then.

That's pretty much it. Keep the bases you have now and just cater to them. Rely on these 4 Editions to bring in new customers, because they will. Why?! Because they not only have reason to play D&D (because you're now supporting their edition with new material), but they're also spending money on you again in utter ecstasy to see their favorite edition "revived".

Making an edition where the customers give all the input is not going to solve jack. You're going to get too many divisive suggestions and 5E is going to be a horrendous mess. No one is going to like 5E if it doesn't incorporate most of the rules of the edition they play, it's that clear and simple.

So be simplistic and give them what they want. THEIR EDITION OF THE GAME! Clean up the first 3, have separate divisions for each edition, and just craft away, using input from the customers to determine what products you'll need to release for each edition.

That's how I'd handle it. I'd not only gain back many fans that have left, but I'll be getting new ones from 4 different styles of play which means I'll have tons of new gamers coming in.

I sometimes believe gamers really have no business sense at times. And business people seem to have no gaming sense. Mold the two together and you'll be fine.

Dude! They aren't having fans write the system. They are asking for input. They might as well because doing it the "us designers know better than you gamers" way resulted in the massive failure that 4E became. Paizo had three rounds of open playtesting for their core rule and several rounds of open playtesting for new classes. Clearly Pathfinder is performing better than 4E ever dreamed about, so I wouldn't discount feedback and input from customers.

talok55 · Jan 10, 2012

Scott_Rouse said:
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 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.

I have to ask. At what point in 4E's life cycle did you come to personally realize that the game was completely , irrevocabley borked?

Alan Shutko · Jan 10, 2012

bhandelman said:
Also, it seems almost everyone playing Pathfinder also plays 4e and vice versa, the only exception being certain DMs only run one type or the other, but even they still game in both.

Not in my circle of friends. A whole bunch of split off from the 4e game and went pathfinder. Right now, neither the 4e players nor the PF players are playing in the others' games.

talok55 · Jan 10, 2012

Nemesis Destiny said:
To be honest, the statement you make in the sentence immediately preceding this one does, too:
As a business / business model - I'll buy that. As a game? That smacks of the same kind of "you're Doing It Wrong" arrogance that turned folks sour around the launch of 4e in the first place. For WotC's sake, and D&D as an entity, it's probably a good thing that you're no longer involved if that's how you truly feel.

I'm not attacking you personally here. I gather that you had a rough time with them, so your bitterness is understandable. That said, I don't think your assessment of 4e is all that fair.

I don't know. If a guy who used to be the brand manager for the game says it's broken, that's hard to argue with.

talok55 · Jan 10, 2012

bhandelman said:
Has it been stealing players from 4e? Where I game, Pathfinder just replaced all the 3.5 games that were still being played, we have the same number of 4e games as we did before. Also, it seems almost everyone playing Pathfinder also plays 4e and vice versa, the only exception being certain DMs only run one type or the other, but even they still game in both. I think forums like ENWorld make the Edition Wars seem a lot more rabid than they are in real life.

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.

Remathilis · Jan 10, 2012

BrooklynKnight said:
No Sean K Reynold's Fail!

Fixed it for you

Nemesis Destiny · Jan 10, 2012

talok55 said:
I don't know. If a guy who used to be the brand manager for the game says it's broken, that's hard to argue with.

If you'll read the response he made to that post, he indicated that he was referring to the community and the business model, not the game itself.

It's a pretty annoying comment for him to have made though, in the context that it does nothing to help said community (especially out of context, as most people will take it) - all it will do is fuel the fires for more warring.

How many anti-WotC people are now dancing in the streets saying, "I told you so!" right now? Quite a few. These are the same folks that were alienated and annoyed by the piss-poor marketing surrounding 4e's launch. Now they're saying, "we were right all along; 4e is badwrongfun. haha!"

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Argyle King · Jan 10, 2012

<big><big>"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls

Ok, cool, but how's that different from what these guys are doing?
GURPS Tactical Shooting
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
GURPS Mass Combat

Or like these guys?

Welcome to Pinnacle's Weird Website!

Or maybe like...
Basic Role Playing System

I'm not naysaying. I'm simply curious if that's the type of model WoTC has in mind. If yes, then what will prompt me (or what does the design team hope will prompt me) to purchase D&D 5E over some of the other games which have already been doing this for a while. If no, then I'm curious what makes the WoTC vision different.

I'm also curious if the modular rules idea hopes to allow someone wanting to play 3rd edition to sit at the same table with someone wanting to play 4th. Some of the other comments seem to imply that is the case. If I have a first edition character who does not have a will save and a 4th edition monster attacks my will defense, how does that work?

More importantly, how do you make all of this work with the idea of D&D levels while still keeping it balanced?

</big></big>