Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 5759506" data-attributes="member: 11697"><p>This is largely an academic exercise, since I'm pretty dang happy with Pathfinder as my D&D edition of choice and unless a majority of 4e tropes are disowned by a WotC 5e, I probably won't give it more than a glance. But here's my thoughts on designing a potential 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would want them to include input from as wide an audience as possible, not just from the echo-chamber of DDI, organized play (God forbid "Lair Assault" feedback is a serious input), or CharOP, or what they personally like in their home games.</p><p></p><p>I would hope -expect actually- that if they decide not to include something from classic D&D that they don't bring it out and publically mock it in elitist and disrespectful podcasts. Additionally, if you change something flavor-wise, for God's sake actually know and understand the material, especially when you're paid professionally for this. Thirdly, don't change something just because you aren't familiar with it and the original source material "was really hard to find".</p><p></p><p>Support multiple playstyles with the game. Don't pick one playstyle, ramp it up to 11 and ignore everything else.</p><p></p><p>Don't make mini use mandatory.</p><p></p><p>Make the rules serve the flavor and not the other way around. Also, don't ram rules changes down the throat of existing settings in such a way as to necessitate blowing them up in order to accomodate everything from the vanilla core game. That's lazy design and disrespectful to the material.</p><p></p><p>Don't assume that the trademark is the only thing that matters. You could brand Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker as D&D, but if it only resembles D&D in name, you aren't fooling anyone and you'll notice when you fracture the market so fast it'll make your head spin and necessitate a rushed, vaguely backpeddling stealth Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker.5 edition release.</p><p></p><p>Setting Support - fire and forget settings failed utterly. Don't ever do it again if you want those settings to actually be worth something as IP for the future, otherwise in a decade nobody will be playing them and in 15 years nobody will remember them.</p><p></p><p>However I think that they're going to be stuck between having to go back towards a 3.x game to reclaim the market (thereaby alienating their 4e players) or sticking with 4e'isms heavily (and not gaining back any of the market share they lost with 4e, and probably only then having a smaller piece of the pie with less than universal 4e -> 5e adoption). It's not a good place to be.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shemeska, post: 5759506, member: 11697"] This is largely an academic exercise, since I'm pretty dang happy with Pathfinder as my D&D edition of choice and unless a majority of 4e tropes are disowned by a WotC 5e, I probably won't give it more than a glance. But here's my thoughts on designing a potential 5e. I would want them to include input from as wide an audience as possible, not just from the echo-chamber of DDI, organized play (God forbid "Lair Assault" feedback is a serious input), or CharOP, or what they personally like in their home games. I would hope -expect actually- that if they decide not to include something from classic D&D that they don't bring it out and publically mock it in elitist and disrespectful podcasts. Additionally, if you change something flavor-wise, for God's sake actually know and understand the material, especially when you're paid professionally for this. Thirdly, don't change something just because you aren't familiar with it and the original source material "was really hard to find". Support multiple playstyles with the game. Don't pick one playstyle, ramp it up to 11 and ignore everything else. Don't make mini use mandatory. Make the rules serve the flavor and not the other way around. Also, don't ram rules changes down the throat of existing settings in such a way as to necessitate blowing them up in order to accomodate everything from the vanilla core game. That's lazy design and disrespectful to the material. Don't assume that the trademark is the only thing that matters. You could brand Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker as D&D, but if it only resembles D&D in name, you aren't fooling anyone and you'll notice when you fracture the market so fast it'll make your head spin and necessitate a rushed, vaguely backpeddling stealth Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker.5 edition release. Setting Support - fire and forget settings failed utterly. Don't ever do it again if you want those settings to actually be worth something as IP for the future, otherwise in a decade nobody will be playing them and in 15 years nobody will remember them. However I think that they're going to be stuck between having to go back towards a 3.x game to reclaim the market (thereaby alienating their 4e players) or sticking with 4e'isms heavily (and not gaining back any of the market share they lost with 4e, and probably only then having a smaller piece of the pie with less than universal 4e -> 5e adoption). It's not a good place to be. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
Top