WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

Scott_Rouse · Jan 10, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
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 the 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.

qft.

gamerprinter · Jan 10, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
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.

Luckily, I didn't play 3x long enough to dislike it. So when PF came along, I found it scratched my gaming itch, actually better than 3x itself. I looked at, but never really played 4e, and 5e probably won't draw me in, no matter how good it is. WotC has never been my 'go to' game publisher. Even though they are gone, I have more loyalty to TSR. Now I put my trust in Paizo.

DaveMage · Jan 10, 2012

I'm still trying to process all of this and how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I'm thrilled that WotC has admitted that 4E's rollout and the way it treated those who really liked prior editons (and especially 3.5) was a mistake.

And, the predictions I made about 4E's viability as flagship D&D have come to pass.

But now that I've gotten to say "I told you so", what does that mean for the future?

I'm not at all interested in beta testing for WotC.
I'm very happy with Pathfinder and don't want another ruleset change for many years (if ever).
I like how Mike Mearls is handling things at WotC. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if WotC fires him next week. It's how they seem to roll.)
If 5E were released tomorrow I don't think I'd have any interest in it. (Again, very happy with Pathfinder)
I'm not interested in being unified with D&D players that prefer other rulsets. (And my 3.x/Pathfinder library ensures that I don't need to be unified with those who prefer other rulesets.)

I guess it will come down to this: can any WotC D&D product be used to improve my Pathfinder game. If the answer is yes, I'll buy it. If not, I won't.

howandwhy99 · Jan 10, 2012

I've been thinking about the essence of D&D comment.

Extrapolating from the Legend & Lore columns I believe the design team are planning on keeping some very central statistics of D&D throughout every edition and building them into the core game, something slimmed down yet essentially recognizable as D&D.

What does that account of? Likely levels, classes, and races along with the 6 ability scores. I also think they will probably build into it HP, AC, Saving Throws, move speeds, and a gold piece coinage system which can be used to buy equipment, arms, and armor (to begin with). Other elements may follow in supplements, or could even be built into the core, but the "essentials" comment may refer to the aforementioned.

What made me think of this was how 4e uses levels to refer to challenges and monsters. It is possible for these to be kept for a simple monster construction system for a 3.x compatible supplement. d20 Challenge Ratings can be somewhat overlaid into a level system. AD&D's monster rating by XP could also be converted into such a Level-based system. In fact, I think it may already have been done in one of the old Dragon magazines. For both pre-4e system the fraction or spread within a level, especially first, will probably need to be worked out, but I don't see why it couldn't work as an option. For instance, a 3.x kobold is 1/6 of a level 1 monster and 1/2 of one for AD&D (though I suspect they'll drop XP by HP and random HP generation for it. Lots of people don't know why it was ever there to begin with).

Walking Dad · Jan 10, 2012

Bagpuss said:
or just sense of nostalgia?

I fear this is the real appeal of the good ol' editions.

Incomplete rules and thin books seem not something that would be the future of gaming.

But starting with a real simple beginner's set would be maybe a good idea. But I love my crunch. (Crunch, not the endless tables I remember from 2e).

howandwhy99 · Jan 10, 2012

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

Rules? Flavor?

Mystery.
And a sense of agency and accomplishment.

Most of the theoretical understanding that was designed into the game during the 70s and early 80s had been forgotten. ...of course it had been forgotten in the 90s too, but there you go.

talok55 · Jan 11, 2012

DaveMage said:
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.)

I too hope they keep that pace. The older editions lasted longer because they focused on adventures and campaign settings instead of rules supplements. I think Paizo understands this as the bulk of their products are adventures and campaign setting fluff. Sure, adventures don't sell as well as martial power x, but they are vital to the game. Granted, an entity as big as WotC probably can't afford to focus as much on adventures since they aren't as profitable as splat books, but they can (like they did with the OGL) give third party publishers the ability to make adventures for the game. More focus on quality adventures and less focus on splat books is the way to extend the life of the edition and keep rules bloat manageable. WotC should take note of this fact.

TrippyHippy · Jan 11, 2012

Bagpuss said:
or just sense of nostalgia?

Considering that there are at least two other commercially successful versions of D&D currently competing with D&D on the strength of appealing to peoples' preference of older versions, I think we can safely dismiss the 'nostalgia' argument.