WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

Remathilis · Jan 9, 2012

Aw hell, just when I thought I was off the edition treadmill...

I'm excited to see their initial beta test. I hear a lot about "lessons learned" but I'm quite curious to see which lessons they learned. The only one I see implied is a de-emphasis of combat as rule-focus to the loss of everything else. It will be interesting though to see what elements return, which are kept, and what gets modified.

Specifically I wonder about

* Are classes going to run on a universal skeleton with only their power-choice really differing them, or will there be differences in ability acquisition speeds, advancement rates, etc.
* What is the role of fluff in this "modulal" system: Is the implied world dead?
* What is the role of OGL and the d20 Community beyond WotC? They lost a lot of good companies (Necro, Paizo, Goodman) to their own home-systems. Can they re-unify the clans?
* Are we going back to Vacian magic, or keeping magic a nebulus term to be defined by powers, feats and rituals?

I guess we'll here more as things progress.

Dragonblade · Jan 9, 2012

WotC is saying all the right things about it being modular and being able to take what you like from each edition.

I love 4e and believe it has a lot to offer. It has become my favorite D&D edition to date.

That said, I'm not a big fan of open playtests. I don't like the idea that a vocal contingent of fans can seize the design direction of a game. The open playtest is why I actively dislike playing Pathfinder and why it kept a lot of the worst aspects of 3e intact instead of fixing them.

Mark CMG · Jan 9, 2012

Son of Meepo said:
Bah! The OGL was just a poor excuse for small time companies to make money off the backs of a real game system. 90% of the 3rd party stuff was poorly conceived, utterly unbalanced, overpriced crap.

Feel free to have an OGL again WotC, but this is one consumer who won't touch it.

That's kinda funny. It's like saying if an ice cream shop allows other people to use sprinkles, I'll never by a cone of vanilla there anymore.

I doubt many people would reject a new D&D for using the OGL even if they had no personal interest in getting 3PP supplements, particularly if that ensured a much larger player base whence to draw more gamers to their tables. That's the whole point of making sure there are more oars in the water pulling in the same direction.

Ron · Jan 9, 2012

Morrus said:
WotC also wanted to emphasize its commitment to tabletop face-to-face gaming. There are many, many rumors flying round the web, and much speculation; a lot of this is centered around an expectation of a more digital, online focus. WotC stated clearly "[We are] extremely committed to tabletop gaming and the face to face experiences that D&D brings." There is clear recognition that although digital tools can enhance and supplement a game, the company has not lost sight of the fact that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game, and not a digital experience.

I liked this statement. I always thought it was a mistake to make D&D more similar to online games as it is like playing your weakness instead of your strengths.

c0c0c0 · Jan 9, 2012

Unifying Standard

Good luck on the new unifying standard. However, I can't help but think of XKCD's thoughts on new standards to address the failings of old ones:

xkcd: Standards

bouncyhead · Jan 9, 2012

Remathilis said:
* Are classes going to run on a universal skeleton with only their power-choice really differing them, or will there be differences in ability acquisition speeds, advancement rates, etc.
* What is the role of fluff in this "modulal" system: Is the implied world dead?
* What is the role of OGL and the d20 Community beyond WotC? They lost a lot of good companies (Necro, Paizo, Goodman) to their own home-systems. Can they re-unify the clans?
* Are we going back to Vacian magic, or keeping magic a nebulus term to be defined by powers, feats and rituals?

Also... will resources be based around the encounter?

Shecky · Jan 9, 2012

Kzach said:
Naysayer here.

I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.

The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.

Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.

I don't think it's so much a question of "design by committee" as it is "give us feedback, we'll collate and analyze it and we'll figure it out from there." Only reasonable logistical approach that includes both command decisions AND listening to the people who are actually intended to USE it.

S'mon · Jan 9, 2012

IronWolf said:
That seems pretty boilerplate and there for their protection. I believe Paizo has something similar for their forums?

It might be boilerplate, but it would appear to violate the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive under EU Law (including UK), so it would not appear to be enforceable in the EU, to me.

Son of Meepo · Jan 9, 2012

Mark CMG said:
That's kinda funny. It's like saying if an ice cream shop allows other people to use sprinkles, I'll never by a cone of vanilla there anymore.

I doubt many people would reject a new D&D for using the OGL even if they had no personal interest in getting 3PP supplements, particularly if that ensured a much larger player base whence to draw more gamers to their tables. That's the whole points of making sure there are more oars in the water pulling in the same direction.

You misunderstand. I just won't buy the sprinkles. I never said anything about the ice cream.

Umbran · Jan 9, 2012

S'mon said:
To announce a new edition so soon seems to be openly saying they take the view that 4e is a catastrophic failure.

There's going to be a strong temptation to use hyperbolic language (like "catastropic"). But I'm not sure it is warranted.

The issue at hand isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about how well 4e has done, to date. The past is the past. You don't set development strategies on the past. You base them on what you think you can do in the future. You compare what you can do with 4e, and what you can do with other things.

Both staying the course and trying a new course have some risk. You weigh the risks against potential gains, and you take an educated gamble.

None of this is predicated on 4e having been a "catastrophic failure".