Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[Alan Shutko]

I think part of it is the shift in sales from setting and adventures to rules. When someone has bought a lot of setting materials a new edition of the rules may change the mechanics but everything they bought can still work. If most of what is being sold is rules, they aren't as easy to adapt.

WotC made it clear that one of the driving forces behind 4e was to clear out the mass of published work so they could start from a clean slate. There are some good reasons for that, but it does ask the folks who have bought so much of WotC's books to put them aside and ante up again. And following along seems of limited value: buy a new system so we can sell you the same kinds of rules supplements we sold you the last edition, all over again.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Of course, another aspect is "does this change need to be done?"

I think we need to be careful with our selectivity of memory--notice how you don't mention the jump from 2E to 3E, which at the very least is in the same ballpark as 3.5E to 4E, maybe even a greater jump. If I remember correctly, there wasn't a huge uproar and people were generally excited about 3E (like the good Eric Noah site!), but that may largely be because of the "Dark Ages" of D&D in the late 90s. 3E was a huge boost, it re-vivified D&D in an unprecedented way and in such a way that wasn't as necessary in 2008. However, what was necessary in 2008, at least for WotC as a company, I would guess, was a major new burst in sales and, it could be argued, a cleaning up of the vast mess/wealth of 3.5E and OGL product.

1st, a "cleaning up of the vast mess/wealth of 3.5E and OGL product." by WotC really isn't possible. Any OGL product is pretty much beyond their control. If there's (or was since the d20 license was scrapped) crap out there with the d20 logo, that's WotC's own problem and directly under their control. But not the OGL stuff.

2nd, a possible interpretation of what you've said would be that part of the point of 4E was to basically invalidate a swath of the existing rulebooks/supplements. Because "cleaning up" in this particular case doesn't really mean "fixing" or "revising" it means "get rid of the crap". With the understanding of course that the label of "crap" is rather subjective.

3rd (and my main point), is that revisions and editions based on need/desire is rather different from revisions and editions done because a company needs to improve their sales.

People might have a short memory (or a convenient one), but I remember that not everything was sunshine and light when it came to the 3.0 revision. Does "It's just like a videogame!!" sound familiar? Yeah, that's from 3.0. Moving to 4.0 the main difference was that instead of people citing "Diablo" as the vidoegame, it changed to "World of Warcraft".

Regardless, it's not like the community was 100% behind a new edition. However, there were _enough_ people that felt it was warranted that it was successful. 3.5 was a much murkier revision. While there were a fair number of people that felt that fixes were necessary, there's a number of others that felt it didn't warrant the full "edition" change that happened. It also didn't feel like the community as a whole were crying out for a new edition and the loss of system mastery (something that the 3.0 designers were pretty up front about being a part of the rules) annoyed people as well.

So, from some people's perspective, system mastery is explicitly designed as a part of the rules, WotC cheerfully churns out books, and then with little warning pumps out a new edition which forces people to re-master the system (because there's lots of little changes between the two) and then buy new versions of the books they already have.

They weren't forced you say? Well, there's a pressure to do so. Stores aren't going to carry old product, they're going to dump it because a new product/edition supercedes it. 3.0 brought an awful lot of people into the hobby that insist on (mostly) Rules As Written, as well as the usual collectors and brand loyalists. And since 3.5 was the new _official_ edition, if you want to talk about the game, you've got to talk about the current edition. There are individual choices yes, but the collective pressure from bookstores, the company itself, and many fans is that you have to play the newest edition. I mean, that's what edition wars are after all... "You need to play [latest edition], it's so much better than the crappy previous one!" with "No, it's not! It sucks and all [the old one] needed was some simple [errata, houserules, fixes]!!".

Plenty of folks felt WotC lied about 4e. It doesn't actually matter if you think they did or didn't, the fact is that there's enough perception that WotC lied about 4E being in development. Star Wars Saga was viewed as a "proto" 4E by some folks and some people point to various ideas in 4E which were explored in related but earlier and different fashion in SWSE. A lot of the press I've seen about SWSE is positive.

And then 4E hit.

Now, SWSE could be seen as a "revision" of the 3.5 engine. 4E is pretty clearly a new edition. The design assumptions behind how encounters work etc is sufficiently different. And of course, while some folks might have bought SWSE, not everyone did. So while it might not feel like a "new edition" going from SWSE to 4E, there's a fair chunk of people that were looking at it from the point of 3.5 to 4E. After all, some folks are genre monkeys (fantasy), some are rule monkeys (d20 system), some are brand monkeys (WotC), and then there's the chunk that just go with whatever the primary leader is in their game group. So there's a variety of reasons for people to have not necessarily followed the rule evolution.

An awful lot of what I saw leading up to the 4E announcement was folks wanting a revision, not a new edition. SWSE could be considered to be that revision on a number of fronts, but of course it's not tuned for the dungeoncrawling that is the 800 lb gorrilla of the RPG industry.

What they got was 4E. A further step along the rules evolution path and fed back into dungeoncrawling. But quite a bit different from what some people were hoping/expecting it to be.

Oh and in addtion to 4E as a rule set, there's the cancelling of Dungeon/Dragon magazines and the whole DDI "you don't get anything unless you're a subscriber" bit added to 4E as well. And a couple of years down the road, you've got DDI which has failed to deliver on all the promises made (game table) and a new... whatever you want to call it... in the form of "Essentials".

WotC has done an awful lot of stuff over the years, that there's a segment of the population that's rather cynical. While there might be _individuals_ like Mike Mearls that are big fans of D&D and want what's best for the game, it's foolish to confuse an individual designer/playtester as being representative of the goals of the company. For example, the whole "4E won't use the OGL" thing (No, the "GSL" is not the same as the "OGL" nor is it a new version of the OGL, and this isn't the thread to discuss what the GSL really is) is viewed by the more cynical folks as a direct response to games like Mutants & Masterminds (along with plenty of others) coming to compete with WotC. the fact that Scott Rouse at one point commented that 4E had taken 6 figures to develop and why would they just give that to everyone kinda supports the idea that WotC doesn't care as much about the hobby as a hobby, but it cares about the hobby as a source of profit.

I'm not opposed to people making money, but you should _never_ make the mistake of thinking that the company has the same goal as you the GM/Player. Just like you view commercials during TV as a necessary evil, and companies view the TV programs as the necessary evil "wrappers" for their ads, you and the company might be seeing similar things, but it's from a completely different viewpoint.

On the Paizo (and other companies) side of things...

Plenty of other people have already pointed out the difference between rules/settings. So no need to belabour that.

Things like Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, etc... they're fighting for a smaller segment of the market. While they've got many of the same considerations as WotC (including brand loyalty, system monkeys, etc) they're basically picking up the people that are dissatisfied with the already established system. So what they do is figure out _what_ it is that they want to cater to and then design for that audience.

So, where WotC tries to continue market domination of the d20-based fantasy, Mutants & Masterminds comes along and says, "I hear you dig supers and want to do some games using a system you're already familiar with. There's some differences, but... check us out." Spycraft comes along and says, "Excuse me sir, but I believe you're interested in the idea of spies and hi-tech equipment? Perhaps you should consider reading our materials" and later, "I believe that those of you that appreciate our approach to things would also be interested in exploring the fantasy genre. If such a thing is true, please consider reading these..." and Pathfinder is all, "You dudes! It blows that your game got cancelled. Check this, we dig it too, so what we're going to do is keep publishing it. I know, it's sick. On top of that, we're going to give you our own little take on it and help punch it up a bit. Check it..."

They're designing to already self-selected fans and people pre-disposed to accept their product. It doesn't mean they won't have detractors, it doesn't mean that everyone that gives their games a try will like them; it simply means that they've got a group of people _more_ inclined to give them a chance.

WotC is the 800 lb gorilla. No other company commands the market share of rpgs that they do. They've dominated the market and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. Because of the way they conduct business and the position they hold, they've painted a big ol' target on their chests. Asking why WotC gets picked on when other companies do "the same thing" is A) not accurate because other companies _aren't_ doing the same thing, and B) kinda like people complaining about Microsoft getting picked on.

And you know what? It _should_ get picked on. Any company that rises to dominance should be held accountable for its actions. It becomes a leader (whether it wants to or not) and sets an example. It's also providing a _product_ and people should demand that the product they purchase is actually up to the standards that they (the consumers) want. People complaining, people refusing to spend their money, people actively encouraging others to use different product... this is basic stuff people.

Do you really _want_ to go back to the days of AD&D/2E? I remember them pretty darn well. On the rpg front, it was slim pickings at times. And you had a company that basically did as it pleased, with little consideration for its fans. Remember TSR going bankrupt? Yeah, that came about because folks weren't spending their money. There wasn't the ability for instant feedback like there is now, and the company wouldn't have listened to it if it had been available in the first place. While there's a danger in paying too much attention to a vocal minority on the internet, WotC's (and most of its fans) push on the DDI mean that the internet _is_ a direct target market for them.

 

[DaveMage]

Yes, agreed. My view is that the 3E to 3.5E "debacle" was an overly hyperbolic knee-jerk reaction....

Have to disagree with you here.

The 3.5 switch had a very real impact on a number of 3rd party publishers that killed the ability of their 3.0 products to move. (See Atlas Games, Fantasy Bestiary for an example - Atlas was pretty much done with supporting D&D after that. Bastion Press fell soon after as well to name a couple.) Likewise it was reported that it very much affected game stores/distributors that were then stuck with tons of 3.0 product that they then couldn't sell at retail.

I would guess that part of the reason WotC is so vehement about making sure Essentials not being seen as a new edition is the fear of extreme backlash from retailers that have loads of 4E materials if it's even perceived by the public as a new edition.

Obviously, some fans were also not happy about having to buy new core rulebooks only 3 years after release of 3.0.

 

[Mercurius]

I think part of it is the shift in sales from setting and adventures to rules. When someone has bought a lot of setting materials a new edition of the rules may change the mechanics but everything they bought can still work. If most of what is being sold is rules, they aren't as easy to adapt.

Yes, good point. My Forgotten Realms grey box set will always be useful, while the "Complete Spoonwielder" has limited utility. But my point is even it is not invalidated as a useful product.

WotC made it clear that one of the driving forces behind 4e was to clear out the mass of published work so they could start from a clean slate. There are some good reasons for that, but it does ask the folks who have bought so much of WotC's books to put them aside and ante up again. And following along seems of limited value: buy a new system so we can sell you the same kinds of rules supplements we sold you the last edition, all over again.

Again, I don't really agree with this and have always found this to be a questionable response. OK, on one level it does "ask" people to ante up and drop some cash on a new edition, but if they don't they still have plenty of material to draw from to continue playing their edition of choice.

The one caveat, as I agreed with earlier, is the living campaign idea. But that's about it, and even that is surmountable if enough fans join together and create their own living campaign.

Because WotC matters.

n.b. while I'd love nothing more than to leave this as a short, tongue in cheek comment, I know that someone's going to take offense and accuse me of being a fanboy or something... so I'll simply add that this is my honest opinion as to the apparent 'hypocrisy.' Anything WotC does will have vastly more exposure, and vastly more of a reaction in both directions, than anything Paizo or anyone else does. But with that out of the way, can we pretend that this whole footnote doesn't exist, and all I said was "Because WotC matters." ?

I am still left wondering exactly what Wizards' market share is of tabletop roleplaying games. We know it is a vast majority, but is it 70% or 90% or 97%? I don't know. I would guess somewhere in the 80-90% range. Now while I hear your point and I know you are not saying anything against the fine folks at Paizo, Goodman, etc, there is something that you may be overlooking. Even if Wizards owns 80% or more of the tabletop RPG market, and 90%+ of the D&D market, that other 10-20% "matters" in that (among other reasons) they influence the designers at Wizards of the Coast.

You know that term "writer's writer" or "musician's musician"? They are the artists that might not be all that popular but are read or listened to by other artists, and other hardcore fans, and thus have an impact on the field that surpasses their sales figures. It is these folks that usually innovate the field in some way, which trickles down into a more popular medium.

I am not saying this is the case with RPGs, but it certainly could be. I mean, you really see this with the design of 3E, which was spear-headed by one of the "Indie Heroes," Jonathan Tweet. During the latter days of 2E AD&D was, in terms of game mechanics, a clunky anachronism. THAC0? Really? We all feel n0stalgic about it now, but at the time it was awkward and "so 1980s" game design. The 90s were extremely innovative in terms of game systems and AD&D was both the most popular game around and also one of the most archaic. It was those innovations of the late 80s and 90s that occured in small Indie games like Ars Magica that trickled down to AD&D, if 15 years later.

So yeah, I do hear your point but in another way, Paizo et al do matter, and not just to their fans (which is not an insignificant number).

There are a bunch of things that the OP said in his initial post that I disagreed with but the above statement just REALLY rubbed me the wrong way so I'm going to respond to it.

SNIP

I apologize if I offended and I appreciate your relatively mild response. I still don't see what's the big problem. A minor hassle to convert? Sure. A big hassle? I don't see it, especially if you are willing and able to wing it on the spot.

It has a lot to do with individual DM style. Some DMs play by the letter of the law, point by point, and everything that is rolled behind the screen and written on paper is in stone. If that's your approach I can see how what I'm saying wouldn't work for you. A "3rd level cleric" in AD&D is not the same as in 4E; a attack by a dozen BECMI kobolds is a different matter than an attack by a dozen 3.5E kobolds.

But is it really? I would say, no, not really. It just takes a little bit of number crunching, page turning, and ad hoc DMing. In the same way that when a creature has 42 HP left and a player scores a natural 20 and does 40 HP of damage, why not make it 42 HP and not tell he players, giving them the satisfaction of a dramatic final blow?

If you have Monster Builder converting monsters to 4E is easy. Running White Plume Mountain and you get to the manticore? Just type in "manticore" and adjust the level to make it a suitable challenge for the party--it really just takes a few seconds.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Azgulor]

Mercurius,

I think there are two other points to factor into the equation.

1. The "Current Edition" vs. the "Out-of-Print Edition"
Obviously, printed material isn't going to suffer from an expiration date. No one can force a group to abandon a rules system or campaign setting. For the high school or college gamer, it's not much of an issue as you can cast a wide net to attract new players. Once you're out in the real world, however, it's not always so easy to attract new players. Jobs, families, moving, etc. all can have an impact. If I want to continue to play RPGs, are my chances going to be better recruiting for a game that's no longer in print or the current version? Also, for many, if RPGs are your hobby, you probably are ok with spending disposable income on that hobby -- preferrably on a game your going to play.


2. The disconnect between "It's Time" vs. "Our Business Plan Tells Us It's Time".
Sometimes, especially when someone has heavily invested in something from a money-perspective, hearing that that product is being replaced can be viewed as a great thing or an attempt to bilk them for more money. Sometimes the changes don't provide the expected benefit or justify the expense to replace. Forget RPGs for a minute. Look at Windows. Microsoft went through a series of decreasing lifecycles on operating systems or new/modified OSs through the late 90's & early 2000's. By the time Vista rolled around, Windows users had had enough. Vista was largely a bomb. Customers threw up their hands and said "Not this time!". Some adopted of course, but the majority chose to stay with Windows XP.

When I bought my Xbox & PS3, I knew with each of those purchases they'd eventually be replaced by a newer console. But whether it's Windows-Compatability Mode or the ability to play Xbox or PS2 games on the latest console, backwards compatability can soften the blow.

I didn't come back to D&D until 3.5, so I wasn't "burned" by it but many feel they were (a large # of 3PP's among them). The OGL-limbo, the GSL debacle, the pulling of Dragon & Dungeon, the vaporware tabletop, the new subscription model for electronic content, the pulling of PDF product -- they've all contributed to the climate WotC now lives in. WotC, created the environment where many gamers (myself included) no longer take things they say at face value or have faith that it'll improve the game. Yet every one of those decisions may have been 100% correct moves for WotC to make from a business standpoint.

Microsoft had to adjust but they saw (& continue to see) alternatives such as Linux & Apple growing. Is Microsoft still the 800 lb. gorilla? You bet. Yet IT departments around the world emit a collective groan every time they hear that a new Windows OS is coming.

Is WotC held to a different standard? Perhaps. Being a market leader ain't all wine and roses. Personally, as I stated upthread, I don't think the Pathfinder campaign setting is a good example of a change on par with what WotC has done with D&D. Even if it were a comparable example, however, I don't think Paizo or any other RPG publisher could take scorched-earth-and-rebuild approach that WotC has done on occasion.

If WotC is being held to a different standard it could be because they've earned it. That doesn't mean it's populated by mean, evil, or greedy people. It just means that not all decisions are popular ones. What's best for a publisher doesn't always equate to what's best for a customer. Ultimately, you hope they're going to be cooperative, rather than competing interests in the end.

 

[Mercurius]

3rd (and my main point), is that revisions and editions based on need/desire is rather different from revisions and editions done because a company needs to improve their sales.

Yes, agreed, although as I said earlier the two aren't mutually exclusive and when they both align then you get a new edition. I also can agree that there is a palatable window of opportunity for a new edition, and if it comes before that window it is problematic. I would say that 2008 was at the early end of the window for 4E; it really couldn't have come any sooner, but could have come later, even a couple years. If it had come too late it would be even more problematic. More on that in a moment.

I like a lot of what you said and won't respond point by point. I will say that system mastery is one of the big things I disliked about 3.5E and the move towards balance in 4E is one of its (positive, imo) hallmarks.

I agree, of course, that a company's goals are quite different than my own, or even that of its game designers. It is unclear to what degree WotC is pushed by Hasbro to make profits or if they have people within the sub-company that are business people first, gamers second. One of the things I've always liked about the RPG industry is that it seems populated more by the latter than the former. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive but if you are in the industry on pretty much any level save, perhaps, the executive table at Hasbro, you probably love RPGs and almost certainly play them. If we move beyond WotC I would have a hard time believing that anyone at Paizo or Goodman, for instance, isn't a gamer.

Wizards may be the lone exception, but not because it is WotC but because it is owned by Hasbro. But I'm just speculating. I've heard different views as to the degree to which Hasbro lords over Wizards operations, anything from they are completely hands-off to dire whisperings that they have ninjas spying on Mike Mearls.

The 3.5 switch had a very real impact on a number of 3rd party publishers that killed the ability of their 3.0 products to move. (See Atlas Games, Fantasy Bestiary for an example - Atlas was pretty much done with supporting D&D after that. Bastion Press fell soon after as well to name a couple.) Likewise it was reported that it very much affected game stores/distributors that were then stuck with tons of 3.0 product that they then couldn't sell at retail.

I would guess that part of the reason WotC is so vehement about making sure Essentials not being seen as a new edition is the fear of extreme backlash from retailers that have loads of 4E materials if it's even perceived by the public as a new edition.

Obviously, some fans were also not happy about having to buy new core rulebooks only 3 years after release of 3.0.

Good point, although I think it is more relevant to OGL game companies than it is to players. In a sense the move to 4E and the GSL instead of the OGL put a lot of small businesses out on the street, and the biggest mistake I think WotC made was not reviving the OGL in some form or another.

But let's go back to 2007 or whenever 4E design really got rolling. There were literally a hundred 3E/3.5E hardcover books, with hundreds--if not thousands--of third party d20 products available on every conceivable subject. To put it mildy, the 3.5/d20 market was saturated. So what should Wizards have done? What could they have done and remained viable, and for D&D to continue as vital and growing?

One option would have been to do a revision, a "3.75E" along the lines of Pathfinder. They could then cherry-pick their entire lineup and come out with revised and re-formatted books ala the 2E black covers in the mid-90s. Maybe they could squeeze out some more supplements, come out with another big setting, and try to keep the 3E juggernaut alive. Sure, they probably could have done that for a few more years, but how long?

Let's say this alternate history occurred and it is September of 2010 and 4E never saw the light of day. I suppose they would also have developed online tools for 3.5E (or 3.75E). But the already saturated market would be now quite drenched. We would likely have what we saw in the mid and late 90s when TSR was coming out with some truly atrocious books. I suppose that WotC could have tried to keep things somewhat fresh by coming out with a new campaign setting or two and focusing more on adventures, but we all know that neither really sells enough to support a company of WotC's size.

So where would we be, in 2010? Well, looking towards 4E. Actually, D&D would need 4E or it would face another Dark Age like the late 90s.

Maybe 2008 was a bit too soon. Maybe 2009 would have been better. But 2010 would have been overdue, and 2011 might have been too late. A game like D&D needs new editions to keep moving forward, to keep growing and evolving, and to integrate whatever cultural-media elements are relevant to potential new players. I may not like Dragonborn or Tieflings or other "Warcrafty" elements, but I can understand and accept why they are there. And when I say new editions I don't mean mere revisions, but new versions along the lines of the difference between 2E and 3E, or 3.5E and 4E. Reboots, if you will; Daniel Craig, not just more make-up and another face-lift for Roger Moore.

So I will embrace 5E when it comes. If I don't like it I will continue to play 4E, or I might try to start an Ars Magica or Talislanta campaign, or I might even finally get around to putting together all of my ideas for a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" and play my own damn game . But chances are, unless it completely goes the way of computer-reliance, I'll enjoy it and I'll still keep (many of) my 4E books, just as I have a shelf-full of older editions of D&D. And they won't be invalidated or useless no matter what game I'm playing.

I like every edition of D&D. Why? Because I simply love Dungeons & Dragons, as I suspect does everyone reading these words. The more editions, the merrier. It is all part of the story of the Great Game that is Dungeons & Dragons. Think of it this way: If there weren't these "edition crises" and controversies, we wouldn't get to spend all this time haggling over D&D minutiae. Part of the joy of the game is talking about the game, which is what we're doing right now and I, for one, am enjoying myself!

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I apologize if I offended and I appreciate your relatively mild response. I still don't see what's the big problem. A minor hassle to convert? Sure. A big hassle? I don't see it, especially if you are willing and able to wing it on the spot.

It has a lot to do with individual DM style. Some DMs play by the letter of the law, point by point, and everything that is rolled behind the screen and written on paper is in stone. If that's your approach I can see how what I'm saying wouldn't work for you. A "3rd level cleric" in AD&D is not the same as in 4E; a attack by a dozen BECMI kobolds is a different matter than an attack by a dozen 3.5E kobolds.

But is it really? I would say, no, not really. It just takes a little bit of number crunching, page turning, and ad hoc DMing. In the same way that when a creature has 42 HP left and a player scores a natural 20 and does 40 HP of damage, why not make it 42 HP and not tell he players, giving them the satisfaction of a dramatic final blow?

If you have Monster Builder converting monsters to 4E is easy. Running White Plume Mountain and you get to the manticore? Just type in "manticore" and adjust the level to make it a suitable challenge for the party--it really just takes a few seconds.

Or am I missing something?

Like you said it comes down to individual style. I like to prep before hand. It makes it easier to have a framework to improvise from when I have to do it.

RE: Monster Builder, listen if I cant set up an encounter without using a proprietary tool that I have to pay for monthly then I dont want to be bothered. I have no problem using PDF's and cutting and pasting in Word. I have no problem with something like HeroLab for character creation. But the mere fact that you're bringing up Monster Builder here is kinda killing your argument. Especially since all of this happened right at the beginning of 4E's run. I dont even remember if Monster Builder was even running then. Not to mention that I wasn't sure if I was going to continue playing / running 4E. They already got me for the 4E gift set, why am I giving them more money monthly to try the game?

Setting up and converting an adventure from one edition to 4E is not as simple as hand waving if you want to retain the feel AND structure of the original source material. If so much flat out had waving is required then as I said before what's the purpose of converting the adventure in the first place.

Listen I see you're trying to "win" the argument by insinuating that I'm some kind of inflexible DM. There is however a middle ground. I like things codified so that I know how much I can bend things one way or the other. when the inherent structure of something is SO different and is really to much of a hassle to balance? It's not going to work to use. For me at least. You're fine with flying by the seat of your pants but if I'm trying to replicate an experience and I'm finding that using the new rules it's a pain in the ass to do? Then I'm gonna jettison the rules and stick with whatever ruleset closest to what works for me.

The first encounter in the Kobold Lair takes place just out side of the lair proper. 8 kobolds jump out of trees to attack the party.

Is this an Encounter Level 1 for 5 players? Then I have 500XP in an encounter budget to work with.

Do I use Kobold Minions (25XP) then instead of 8 kobolds am I using 20 of them? Am I using 4 Minions (100XP) and maybe 4 Kobold Skirmishers (400XP)? There's the pit trap near the entrance to consider which is also part of that encounter area. A false floor Pit trap is (100Xp) so more minions and fewer Skirmishers? or lower the amount of minons for a tougher encounter with more Skirmishers? It's been suggested by the designers that you actually combine some encounter areas. So do I combine the 8 kobolds and the pit trap with the 6 more kobolds in the Guard Room area?

Seems simple to you and yes I actually reworked the Kobold Lair for 4E. But some of the other lairs were going to be a disaster and resemble NOTHING like the original encounters if I was keeping with the 4E Encounter balance method. With the CR method I know it was a guestimate at best and was used to having a little leeway. But 4E was a new system at the time and highly touted for it's balance in encounters so I was using the rules as written when the game first came out. To replicate encounters from pre-existing sources it was a pain. To create from scratch? Pretty easy.

But this goes back to the crux of my point. With 4E I'm not able to use pre-existing material from older editions easily. You can be dismissive of it if you want to but I'm not talking out of the side of my neck here. I've ACTUALLY TRIED TO DO IT. and it sucked.

 

[Aus_Snow]

"There will be no 4.5" (word for word, IIRC) must surely be one of the reasons why. So, dishonesty, perceived or otherwise - and likewise, lack of credibility, perceived or otherwise. Then there are the several ways in which WotC has destroyed sections of their actual and/or potential customer base, at various times. Including cases where perceptions of dishonesty and zero credibility might enter into it. Major broken promises, even written into the very first corebook itself, could add to it.

I won't argue (or believe) for a second that there aren't plenty of silly, unfair, and just plain ludicrous reasons for people to have something against WotC. Obviously, that would be pretty daft, or hey, dishonest.

But, WotC really haven't done themselves very many favours in the last couple of years. I mean, 3.5 didn't help either, come to think of it - this isn't about 3e vs. 4e, it's about marketing, business decisions, perceptions, and so on.

 

[Mercurius]

I have to go to bed but just a few things...

...But the mere fact that you're bringing up Monster Builder here is kinda killing your argument.

Umm, OK. First off, I'm not "arguing" I'm discussing. Secondly I was using Monster Builder as an example (and, btw, you don't have to pay a monthly subscription to use it, only to update it).

Listen I see you're trying to "win" the argument by insinuating that I'm some kind of inflexible DM.

This is just flat-out erroneous. I have no desire to "win" any argument with you, I just disagree on this point. I understand that for you it is hard to convert old material to 4E (or whatever). And I agree that different people have different styles--and there is nothing wrong with that. But as you yourself have implied, your style makes this sort of conversion more difficult than I think it needs to be.

But this all supports a main piont, which is that "backwards compatibility" has a lot of subjectivity to it. Some find it difficult to convert, some don't. But it isn't inherently impossible or even difficult to convert material from, say, 3E to 3.5E. It all depends upon how you approach it.

And yes, go ahead and stick with the rules set that best suits your needs--that's just the point! There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong with a game company continuing to change and evolve its game, even if in the process it leaves behind old iterations.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I will say that system mastery is one of the big things I disliked about 3.5E and the move towards balance in 4E is one of its (positive, imo) hallmarks.

I definitely agree with you on both of these points. It's one of the reasons why I'm... ambivalent.... about the whole Essentials thing.

Again, they aren't mutually exclusive but if you are in the industry on pretty much any level save, perhaps, the executive table at Hasbro, you probably love RPGs and almost certainly play them. If we move beyond WotC I would have a hard time believing that anyone at Paizo or Goodman, for instance, isn't a gamer.

Hmmm. I honestly don't know. Given some of what I see, I'd certainly be willing to say that they're "gamers" in the sense that they _used_ to play/run games. But I'm not sure how many of them are actual "practising" gamers. And that can make for a _huge_ difference. As well, I think it's a bit of a question (if they are still active) how many are running/playing with a variety of folks, rather than just the same 5 people they've had for the last decade. Running one-shots at a convention I don't think really counts, because there's a difference between a time-slot con game and an on-going weekly/whatever game.

Good point, although I think it is more relevant to OGL game companies than it is to players. In a sense the move to 4E and the GSL instead of the OGL put a lot of small businesses out on the street, and the biggest mistake I think WotC made was not reviving the OGL in some form or another.

Well, the OGL isn't dead. It's just not used/supported by WotC. A technicality perhaps, but an important one. The whole "GSL" thing is basically a slightly tweaked version of the old d20 STL from what I recall. Mainly tweaked to have less wriggle room, but that's a different topic.

And I'd say, yes WotC I think is making a big mistake in not supporting the OGL. I don't think WotC would have reached the prominence that it has if it wasn't for the OGL and the explosion of gamers and material that brought to the table.

WotC also pretty directly benefited from it, because it meant there were thousands of people playing all sorts of different rules tweaks etc. And a rather large amount of Open Game Content appeared to have provided an inspiration for a lot of what showed up in Star Wars Saga as well.

Without all those people (and that competition) I don't think that the game could have evolved to what was seen in SWSE, let alone 4E. Not in the amount of time at least.

The question of whether 4E should have been done or if it could have waited and if so, what would/should WotC have done... it's tough. I don't think there's an answer that would work, because for every problem it solved it wouldn't really be solving it but exchanging one problem/complaint with another.

I like every edition of D&D. Why? Because I simply love Dungeons & Dragons, as I suspect does everyone reading these words. The more editions, the merrier. It is all part of the story of the Great Game that is Dungeons & Dragons. Think of it this way: If there weren't these "edition crises" and controversies, we wouldn't get to spend all this time haggling over D&D minutiae. Part of the joy of the game is talking about the game, which is what we're doing right now and I, for one, am enjoying myself!

Hmmm. I don't love every edition.... but I've played and/or run most of 'em. When it comes to my own personal projects, I'll stick with 3.x because if nothing else, there's so many people playing it and it's been around for a long enough period of time that there's a pretty good handle on system issues. There's no way that the number of people WotC had for playtesting 4E (or 3.x for that matter) could account for all the different groups and playstyles out there.

4E does do some pretty groovy things though. While I've no inclination to be a player in it, I've had no real problems running it. My disinclination to be a player stems mainly from the fact that I'm not going to find a group running 4E the way I like to play.