Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars

[thecasualoblivion]

It was a hypothetical scenario of 4E not doing so well for Hasbro, and Pathfinder becoming very popular.

Also you have not answered my other question yet.

What led you to believe that I disliked 4E?

The ridiculousness of the statement you made.

 

[ggroy]

If you're still doubting my veracity, I'm looking forward to a possible version of d20 Modern with 4E style rules. That is if WotC ever gets around to releasing it.

 

[ggroy]

The ridiculousness of the statement you made.

Explain how exactly it is ridiculous.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Explain how exactly it is ridiculous.

4E failing and being replaced by Pathfinder seems pretty ridiculous at face value. Why wouldn't it be ridiculous?

 

[ggroy]

4E failing and being replaced by Pathfinder seems pretty ridiculous at face value. Why wouldn't it be ridiculous?

At the present time, your above statement may possibly be true.

In the future, it is anybody's guess what could happen.

Back in 1990, who would have thought that TSR would be almost bankrupt in 1997?

Also back in 1990, who would have thought that White Wolf would have became very big over the 1990's?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Imagine a scenario where Hasbro/WotC cancelled 4E and closed down the tabletop rpg division, while subsequently licensing the D&D brand name to another (hypothetical) company for tabletop rpg use only.

Do you believe this (hypothetical) licensee company has any obligation to maintain D&D in its 4E or 3.5E forms?

In principle, a (hypothetical) licensee company can create a completely different fantasy rpg game which doesn't resemble any previous editions from TSR or WotC, while calling it "5E D&D" on the front cover.

It would depend entirely upon the terms of the license granted.

If the license were silent on the nature of the underlying mechanics or fluff of the game, the licensee would be free to do as he pleased...

But if he were wise, he'd look at the structure of the market before committing to any design goals.

And I'm sure every person on this website would have different prejudices about which mechanics and fluff they'd prefer.

For instance, one complaint that dogged edition after edition is that once a Wizard is out of spells, he's useless. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a feature, but I understand and empathize.

3.5 and 4Ed had 2 different "solutions" to this- 3.5 had reserve feats, 4Ed had at will & encounter powers. Personally, I preferred the former, and would have liked to have seen an expansion and refinement of that design; I didn't really care for 4Ed's power system...especially for non-casting classes.

 

[ggroy]

For instance, one complaint that dogged edition after edition is that once a Wizard is out of spells, he's useless. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a feature, but I understand and empathize.

Back in the days of 1E AD&D, I houseruled the magic user to address this complaint. I allowed certain low level combat spells to have unlimited use with several caveats.

For example, I allowed a magic missile with unlimited use which did not always hit. I required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic user's intelligence score, for the magic missile to hit. So even with an intelligence score of 18, there was still a 10% chance of missing.

 

[Remathilis]

What do you think is the likelihood of Hasbro/WotC buying up Paizo in a friendly merger/acquisition, and then rebranding Pathfinder as 5E D&D?

Slightly worse than the odds the Moon crashing into Montana.

If a situation came that brought us a failing 4e and a thriving Paizo (and the odds of Paizo making a 3e-level dent in the market with essentially 3e-without-the-name is a long shot) you'd most likely see D&D 5e be a real WoW style MMORPG using the D&D brand-name as leverage than you would see Paizo absorbed and Pathfinder become 5e.