Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Bedrockgames said:

I actually think a better approach would have been multiple edition lines. These would still be new editions (because new is still important) but they would go in different direction. You would have a 4e style line, 3e and Ad&D style line.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, I agree it would be great from a gamer standpoint, and from a size of customer base standpoint. However, from a business standpoint it kind of falls through. For your plan you would need three separate staffs, etc. So in order for it to be viable for WotC they wouldn't need you, I, new players, lapsed players and current players to buy just our preferred edition, they'd need us to buy at least two of the offerings, if not all three.

I agree with all of the design goals cited by the OP. 5e needs to include balanced classes, a clear and coherent design and purpose, have teamwork baked into the system, provide variety in play, offer ease of play, and feature distinctive and interesting monsters.

It also needs to offer distinctive classes that don't feel shoehorned into a single bland template, a design and purpose that doesn't elevate one portion of the RPG community over another, have teamwork baked into the system without requiring or favoring the use of miniatures, offer options and variety in customization rather than providing a fixed set of rarely-changed daily/encounter powers, and provide ease of play without assuming players can't perform simple mathematics or remember basic details about commonly used spells.

Creating a system for those who want simple character sheets, enjoy mini-based tactical combat, and want to "not open a rulebook in a year" (as the OP stated) is great -- that's a community that was clearly underserved in editions past. Creating a system that also serves the needs of those with different preferences is the challenge with which the 5e team is currently confronted, though. And framing the debate as one in which 4e fans are the only ones who care about balance, purpose, etc -- as rpgnet has so frequently done over the last year -- risks further dividing the RPG community rather than uniting it as the 5e team is seeking to do.

Herschel said:

Yes and no, I agree it would be great from a gamer standpoint, and from a size of customer base standpoint. However, from a business standpoint it kind of falls through. For your plan you would need three separate staffs, etc. So in order for it to be viable for WotC they wouldn't need you, I, new players, lapsed players and current players to buy just our preferred edition, they'd need us to buy at least two of the offerings, if not all three.

Click to expand...

I've doubted that they can successfully pull off "one game to rule them all" for a while now. Bearing the burden of multiple game lines is a better business standpoint than trying to make one game for everyone and failing at it.

Herschel said:

Yes and no, I agree it would be great from a gamer standpoint, and from a size of customer base standpoint. However, from a business standpoint it kind of falls through. For your plan you would need three separate staffs, etc. So in order for it to be viable for WotC they wouldn't need you, I, new players, lapsed players and current players to buy just our preferred edition, they'd need us to buy at least two of the offerings, if not all three.

Click to expand...

I think of smaller companies can pull it off, wotc can figure out how to make this work. It might require staggered releases if they don't have the manpower for it. But if they already have folks working on (presamably) at least three very different rules modules, i dont see why those same folks cant develop three seperate revisions of 4e, 3e, and Ad&d. In fact under this approach there is considerably less work because they are improving and revising rather than overhauling.

If they are going to release three smaller lines, and essentially divide the orofits up between them, then yes they have to rebudget. The money and resources are split. But in my opinion wotc books are kind of over produced in terms of art and stuff. Or they can simply tighten the pipeline, to make sure each line gets the funds it requires. It might not be feasible depending on the specifics of how wotc operates, but it is feasible to develop multiple lines (especially for a company with wotc's resources). It is merely a question of whether the profits will add up. I believe they will, because i am really starting to think that the notion of getting everyon under a single edition of D&D just isn't going to work (i want it to, but have my doubts).

I think the logic should be: if they still believe they can get everyone to buy one edition, they should procede. But if they think the core system will drive away players (even with the modules) better to scrap te core and embrace the modules for what they really are: different editions of D&D. It eliminates the problem of them having to share a core system (which could water them all down).

Neonchameleon said:

And I would add 9 times out of 10 that nine times out of ten blocking the rogue's sneak attack makes no damn sense at all.

Click to expand...

This is true, but that is more an issue with the Sneak Attack rules than the point in general.

Most people seem happy to accept Turn Undead with its restrictions because that makes sense and not the whole focus of the class.

Sneak Attack on the other hand is often nonsensical and the 3.x Rogue class is completely built around it.

thecasualoblivion said:

I'm not convinced at this point. The sort of modules I'd be looking for would be on the level(not the specifics) of removing the core magic system and replacing it with AEDU, or throwing out the entire monster system and building a more 4E-like replacement. Not these exact things, mind you, but something equivalent. The base core as revealed in the playtest is so far from my D&D tastes that I would require massive changes from the modularity, and I've seen no signs of that being in the pipeline. My issues with the core rules are beyond the realm of minor tweaks.

Click to expand...

But these feature-module could still be made.

Roles As Themes
4E Essential style class adjustment module
Monster Roles Module/Formulas

It is possible.


They just have to do it.

In Fact....


They might have to make the 4E modules BEFORE the core is finished.

Neonchameleon said:

I think most of the players of older editions are in practice more interested in the shape of the car than of the wheels. 4e players are generally interested IME in the wheels and the engine.

Click to expand...

In my case at least, this is an apt comparison. Unfortunately I still can't xp you.

Minigiant said:

They might have to make the 4E modules BEFORE the core is finished.

Click to expand...

i suspect the modules are all being developed in sync with the core. That seems the most effective way to do it.

CM said:

In my case at least, this is an apt comparison. Unfortunately I still can't xp you.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't want to drive a Volvo: "look out for me, I'm in a safe car!"

Pickles JG said:

Then you are presumably not a 4e player & the point of this thread, which most posters seems to have missed in their desire to snipe at the things they do not like in 4e, was how to make the new game appeal to 4e players.

My view is that I will have to treat it as a different game altogether. 4e has that "tactical minis game with in character chat" aspect D&D always has had when I play it; other games can offer other things.

The trouble is that "other things" I am interested in are now mostly rich settings or cool mechanics neither of which is evidence in the playtest (& the default setting was not exactly a strength of 4e either).

Click to expand...

Actually, I AM a 4th edition player and have been playing in two weekly 4th edition campaigns for over 2 and 1/2 years now. (Well actually one just ended and we've replaced it with Dark Heresy but that was just a bit over a month ago).