5E on the horizon?

[Waylander the Slayer]

I think it would be easier for them to buy Paizo than to court them.

Lisa Stevens, CEO and owner of Paizo, has clearly stated that there is no chance of ever selling Paizo. Further, she has also stated, as quoted above, that currently, Pathfinder is outperforming D&D 4E. Therefore, there is no chance of a) Paizo ever being onboard with a new edition and, b) Paizo being purchased by WOTC.

I think it makes a lot more sense to do what Mike Mearls is currently doing: reminisce on the brand before 3E and add in some of the core elements and simplicty on a more modern engine for 5E.

 

[Imaro]

I don't see it.

In fact, I see it as the opposite.

Wizards are throwing spells of destruction, fighters are standing the front line and beating the tar out of whatever comes close, clerics are healing rather then taking over for the fighters, thief/rogue skills matter, and elves are back to being just High, Wood, and Dark.

That sounds pretty old school to me. Looks like D&D fluff.

If you ask me, 3e, with it's CoDZilla, the God Wizards, the useless fighters, and the devouring of rogue skillls, is the aberration.

You're not seeing the changes in fluff because you don't want to... You're focussing on one issue in 3e (The high level caster problem that some people had) and trying to define the fluff with what is essentially a mechanics issue. Quick question... what editions used the Great Wheel? How were the differences between demons and devils defined in all editons? See things like that are fluff.

Now as to mechanics... I find nothing old school about conditions that change every round, a fighter that can force people around him to charge in and get whacked without any type of save, ritual magic, physically hitting people with Wisdom, Charisma, or any other ability... kobolds and first level characters with 20+ hit points, and so on. So IMO, no... even the mechanics are not reminiscent of previous editions.

In my 3.x/Pathfinder games fighters still beat the tar out of everything and stand on the front lines... the wizard throws the same spellls as previous editions (not just "spells of destruction")... Our cleric heals just like in previous editions (he just doesn't heal by whacking things and has to make an actual choice on whether he should or shouldn't heal a party member vs. attack this round)... Rogues use their skills, and 3.x had High Elves... that don't teleport and live on another plane (but only sometimes), like every other edition. Not really seeing your point here. The things you're talking about evolved into the game before 3e (check out the end of 2e).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Lisa Stevens, CEO and owner of Paizo, has clearly stated that there is no chance of ever selling Paizo. Further, she has also stated, as quoted above, that currently, Pathfinder is outperforming D&D 4E. Therefore, there is no chance of a) Paizo ever being onboard with a new edition and, b) Paizo being purchased by WOTC.

Pathfinder could make quadruple the dollar amount that D&D brings to WotC and it wouldn't matter, WotC would still be worth significantly more than Paizo. Now, I admit, Paizo does a lot more than Pathfinder now, which is great. Eggs and baskets and whatnot. But, D&D was never the most profitable aspect of WotC.

As to whether Paizo can be bought. I'm not overly cynical. I don't believe that everybody has their price. But, if WotC offered a high amount and Paizo took it, I would not think badly of them. And, I'm not saying its likely! I don't think it would ever actually happen. The people at Paizo are crazy dedicated to what they do, and you don't get that without love for your product.

But, I still think it would be more likely than WotC courting Paizo. I don't think that will ever happen. Paizo will not give up its independence. It would be like Britain going to the Americas, "Hey, you know, its not so bad having a king and being under our rule. We'll even give you a vote and everything!" And America being all, "What could go wrong?"

 

[DEFCON 1]

While that is true we dont have wotc's sales numbers, we do have this tidbit from Lisa Stevens of Piazo...

>>>

If thats the case, then yeah 4e is in real trouble. Take it with as much or little salt as you like.

I'm sorry... but I cannot by any sense of logic or reason take the word of the CEO of the company that claims to be "winning" as a balanced view of what is actually happening. Especially considering she says quite clearly that she has no personal first-hand knowledge... she is merely interpreting information that she is getting from other sources.

Also, there is no direct corollary between Paizo's sales numbers and the metrics WotC uses to determine whether or not they themselves are "in trouble". They have certain sales levels they need to hit, and that may or may not occur regardless of what Paizo is doing. For all we know, Paizo might indeed be "leading" in tabletop RPG sales... but WotC might still be reaching the sales metrics they are happy with. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps I see plenty but don't consider them changes? I'm not blind; stop implying that I am.

Implied no such thing, but you did counter a post about the changing fluff with things of a mechanical nature, it made me assume you didn't see or understand that I was talking about fluff. Sorry if my post offended you, I wasn't trying to do that.

Great Wheel? Which one? The one that was altered and renamed in Planescape? The one that Forgotten Realms didn't follow? The one that Eberron didn't follow? The one that was changed and added to and altered with every edition?

Maybe this is the problem... evolution, growth adaptation are different from removing something wholesale and replacing it with something entirely different, I can draw on my knowledge of the basics of The Great Wheel throughout editions, may have to learn a few new details here or there, but that's it... what is the basic Great Wheel in 4e... Oh yeah, there isn't one.

On another note, using optional campaign settings that are intentionally designed differently... that's not the "default" fluff included in the rulebooks so are moot as far as this point goes.

The differences between demons and devils? Which ones? The Blood War that was born in 2e? The differences before that? Does that not count?

See above. As an example from another game... Exalted 2nd edition has changed small things to better represent a more updated version of the world of creation from 1st edition... but the basics remain the same. That's usually what hapens in the fluff of a new edition... it's not removed and replaced wholesale... it's changed and adapted in it's details.

See, the fluff changes constantly. Not even just between editions, but inside editions too! You're saying "4e changes the fluff." I'm saying "Well yeah, D&D fluff changes, but the 4e changes move D&D back to how I see 'D&D' as being."

I'm saying 4e removes and replaces giant swaths of the fluff wholesale.

Ah yes, the end of 2e all the way through 3e. The only time D&D was truly D&D.

Never said that was the only time D&D was truly D&D... but you seem to be selectively disregarding mechanics and fluff that came before in order to condemn 3e alone for certain things.

My point is this: 3e made a whole lot of changes to D&D, and hey, there's quite a few people that don't classify 3e as being "D&D." Seriously, head over to Dragon Foot and ask them what they think on your theory of 3e being the true heir of D&D!

Who said anything about a true heir of D&D? I do think the fluff of 3.x is closer to what came before it than 4e is... that is all I've said from the beginning... please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

4e also made a lot of changes, no doubt! But for me and most likely others, they were changes that brought the game back to being what we see as "D&D."

Good for you, but I'm asking you what exactly in the fluff (not mechanics) of 4e are similar to previous editions? I'd really like to know.

 

[DaveMage]

I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff.

This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part. By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in. I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book. This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.

On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.

I agree.

I also think 4E came about in part because:

1. WotC needed to sell more core rulebooks (sales of later 3.5 products were not where WotC wanted them to be)
2. WotC wanted to design a game that could not be duplicated by using the OGL.
3. Concerns about imbalances in classes (at the same expereince level) used in organized play.

 

[carmachu]

I'm sorry... but I cannot by any sense of logic or reason take the word of the CEO of the company that claims to be "winning" as a balanced view of what is actually happening. Especially considering she says quite clearly that she has no personal first-hand knowledge... she is merely interpreting information that she is getting from other sources.

As I said take it with as much or little salt. SOme folks with believe, others like yourself will throw dirt. Its simply one more piece to a much larger puzzle.

She also said its simply the RPG side. No cards, games or other items(like DDI).

Also, there is no direct corollary between Paizo's sales numbers and the metrics WotC uses to determine whether or not they themselves are "in trouble". They have certain sales levels they need to hit, and that may or may not occur regardless of what Paizo is doing. For all we know, Paizo might indeed be "leading" in tabletop RPG sales... but WotC might still be reaching the sales metrics they are happy with. The two are mutually exclusive.

But then we start adding other pieces. Summer firing of employees? Cancellations of other books or delays? Essentials move? You cant tell me that everything is happy and perfect in Wotc world, given many different things that have come down the line.

 

[catastrophic]

Betrayed? Naw. I never understood the hysterics behind "being fired."

I would be a bit sad that the game was regressing, but in the end, I'd simply shrug, give it a try, and depending on if I like it or not, play it. And if I don't, eh, there's other games I don't like, no skin off my back.

The real shame about 5e is that it would have been nice to see what they would come up with if they proceeded along the track that took them to 4e. There's still a lot wrong with the model, and the likely design goals for 5e are unlikely to address much of it. To be frank I don't think there will be many coherent and functional design goals for 5e, but even if there are, they're not going to be about fixing skills and skill challenges, or genuinly solving the grind.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff.

This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part. By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in. I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book. This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.

On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.

There has been a tendency in 3.X/Pathfinder gamers to say that 'WotC misread their audience'. Nowadays I am more of the opinion that WotC read a portion of their audience very well, as evidenced by the strong defense of 4e by its fans.

The question is more one of how much of their audience it was that they were reading, and if they believed that the stragglers would fall into line and buy the new edition, despite their misgivings.

The announcement of Pathfinder changed that last - there was less need to try the new system, and even less to play it even if you did not much like it. There is definitely enough interest in something closer to the 3.X rules than 4e to keep Pathfinder rolling merrily along.

However, because there is Pathfinder it is unlikely that a D&D 3.75 by WotC would gain much traction, the audience has moved on, as has WotC itself.

At this point, I think that WotC and their fans are better served sticking with 4e and whatever directions that leads them - the market is split, trying to turn back the clock is doomed to failure, and, this is important, there was a vocal percentage of fans that did not love 3.X. It may have been a majority (I doubt it, but it may), it may have been a plurality, or it might have been a large and vocal minority (my bet, plus a lot of fence sitters who didn't/don't care much either way).

But Pathfinder meant that those folks who preferred 3.X had someplace to turn, and those who are comfortable on the fence could stay there, even, gasp! playing both games!

So, the market may have split, pretty much because there was not much reason for it not to do so. Games are available for both audiences, and with Osric, Hackmaster, etc., more besides.

Which is selling better really doesn't matter that much - locally it is Pathfinder by a comfortable margin, but I am certain that there are other places where the opposite is equally true.

The market probably is split - I don't think that there will be a winner (except the darned fence sitters - they get to enjoy the best of both games, dang their hides!) The audience will need to adjust, because while there are no real winners, neither does there need to be a loser.

I think that both games are here to stay, even if 4e becomes 5e in two years time.

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

Meh.

I don't play Pathfinder or 4e. I have converted materials from both for my game. I would quit gaming altogether rather than use either ruleset, if they were my only choices.

Yet, I agree that WotC misread their audience. In fact, if seems to me that they wilfully did so. If they are happy with the portion of the audience they did read correctly, though, more power to them.


RC