DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
WotC proved with 4E that they have become too corporate to create a game I want in a format I want.
I'll be interested in checking out Dungeons & Dragons again if and when it's in the hands of a privately-held company.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
WotC proved with 4E that they have become too corporate to create a game I want in a format I want.
I'll be interested in checking out Dungeons & Dragons again if and when it's in the hands of a privately-held company.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I think your numbers are distorted here. At present the rulebooks are:
- Core rules
- Advanced Players Guide
- Ultimate Magic
- Ultimate Combat
Everything else is either:
- An Adventure path, Module or Pathfinder Society module
- Monster Books: Manual or Revisited Line
- Golarion campaign books: Race of Golarion, region focus guides etc.
In reference to what Beginning of the End was pointing to, the first couple are your crunch (and apparently, this covers most of what Paizo plan to release in this vein), while the everything else section are your "consumables". This does not count cards, minis, map packs, pathfinder fiction and other such secondary products. I think in this light, his point stands; that Paizo are focusing on consumable products thus promoting overall longevity with good continuous support. At this point I think it fair to say that it's working.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Pour
First Post
I'm okay with 1, 2 and 4 so long as they don't take away from 4e support in the process. I'm not a fan of enticing lapsed players at a cost of even less material or attention for players of the current edition.
One of 4e's basic design principles was to attract new players, and having played Encounters, cons and uncounted home games, I count myself responsible for introducing and retaining 18 new players/DMs. Encounters in my area are usually pushing 30 people a week. Many of my college players have and are expanding games at their schools, and the online players in my two weekly groups have, themselves, expanded into their own games with new players. I want them supported. I appreciate the current flux of Heroic material, but I do want Paragon and especially Epic supported in the coming months/year. I want the continued exploration of the 4e chasis moving in a forward direction.
Many board members have done an excellent job illustrating the reasons why pandering to the bygone crowds would ultimately prove fruitless, save in the above examples, which really benefit all of us, except the greater implications of 3a and 3b- new support exclusive to older editions beyond some side notes and time spent fitting older editions into the VTT with more than a minimal adjustment is, to me, just untenable.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
The real unification efforts need to wait until the late 2020s-early 2030s, when the bulk of the old-school players are nearing retirement age.
Shiny new version of the 1e Player's Handbook + Led Zeppelin on the oldies station + a bunch of former gamers at the old folks' home... what's not to love!
Actually, I think I just saw the seed of the script of Cocoon 3 in my head....
Shiny new version of the 1e Player's Handbook + Led Zeppelin on the oldies station + a bunch of former gamers at the old folks' home... what's not to love!
Actually, I think I just saw the seed of the script of Cocoon 3 in my head....
Echohawk
Shirokinukatsukami fan
I did indeed count all of the campaign books as non-adventures, because, well, they aren't adventures. And I also agree that Paizo have a great balance between crunch and fluff in their products. But comparisons need to be fair. Orcs of Golarion, to pick a random non-adventure off my shelf, actually contains a fair amount of crunch: a page of racial traits on the inside front cover, another page and a quarter of orc traits later on, two pages tactical feats, and another two pages on orc magic, which is also mostly crunch. WotC's Player's Handbook Races series do have a bit more crunch in them, but not much more.
Paizo are clearly limiting the number of "core" rulebooks, but they certainly aren't only focusing only on "adventure products" as was stated. Rather they are focusing on a better balance between crunch and fluff across all of their products, as well as having an excellent line of system-neutral products like the item cards and Flip-Mats. (Aside: Oh how I love my collection of Flip-Mats!)
In part, I think this approach is driven by the fact that Pathfinder inherits all of the crunch already out there for 3.5. Given that, focusing on products that don't compete directly with Complete Warrior is a sensible strategy. 4e, by comparison, is starting with a clean slate of crunch, so Martial Power fills a niche not covered by any existing product.
I agree that it is working. I wish more 4e products had a crunch/fluff balance that was closer to Pathfinder. (And increasingly, that's indeed the case.) But I also think that Paizo's strategy can only delay the need to have some sort of new edition of Pathfinder. Once they have published Gnomes/Elves/Humans/Orc/etc. of Golarion the options for new products start to decrease. I'm not sure the market for Yakmen of Golarion is that large. (Although I admit I'd buy it.)
The idea that a game needs a new edition to make room for rules changes and huge amounts of crunch is a relatively new one. Pathfinder is very young, yet, and its hardcover releases are moving it to a place where "all the options are on the table." But the game has a long shelf life left -- the APs, obviously, plus any number of Golarion books yet to be published. Then, there's a contingent of the fans that want a new and different setting, ranging from something Eberron like to something Dark sun like.
The only thing that points toward the "need" for a PF2 is the belief that new editions are necessary to bring in revenue. But that's a model that has shown to be problematic at best, if not outright wrong. Adventures and supplements may once again provide all the necessary revenue, especially if the game keeps growing so the evergreen Core materials keep selling for years.
Right now most lapsed players fall into the following groups, and whether a new edition could get "most" of them back depends entirely on how many people are in each of these. Because some of these groups could move to a new edition... but several of them will not.
1) The players who took offense to WotC's original 4E marketing.
Most of these players are probably lost for good, because they just hate WotC the company. So unless the new edition is just so outstanding that they swallow the bile in their mouths, or WotC sells the brand to a different company... these players returning I imagine is unlikely.
2) The players who are 3PP focused.
Most of these players are also probably lost for good, because they only play D&D because of the OGL and thus any game that doesn't have it (which I'd imagine the new edition falls into that) is not a game they will play.
3) The players who have a specific style of adventure / adventure path they want and enjoy.
Paizo's generally acknowledged to be head and shoulders above WotC when it comes to adventure design (as far as I can tell from what I read here on the boards). As a result, many players play Pathfinder just so that they can play those adventures easily. Most of these players are probably lost for good UNLESS the new edition is so good it's worth players' time to adapt the PF adventures to it, or WotC works a lot harder to create better adventures. We'll probably find more of this group willing to try the new edition compared to the first two groups, but I think most still wouldn't bother.
4) The players who don't want to play a miniatures game.
These players definitely ARE more likely to return, if we go under the assumption that one of the 'complexity dials' Mearls talked about is the tactical miniatures combat, and if that is removable. If it is... then players who like 4E for many advances it did make (like the DDI tools, the ease of monster and encounter design) but hate it because of the focus on miniatures... most certainly will give the new edition a look if it includes a way to remove that focus and play the game miniatureless.
5) The players who don't want to 'rent' an rpg.
These players ironically enough I would think WOULD be more likely to come to a new edition if the game got printed in books (in addition to DDI). It's acknowledged that there's been so much errata to 4E that many players just don't want to play the game since their books have become obsolete, and they refuse to have DDI be their book replacement (since they don't actually "own" the material to do with it as they please.) However, if a new edition comes out that gets fully vetted and printed... the game is now back to its original pristine condition. A player's handbook that is usable and not out of date. That would be something many of these players would look forward to, I'd imagine.
6) The players who want earlier editions of the game made available and/or supported.
There is a subset of players who refuse to play 4E or any game WotC produces because they are upset that WotC does not make earlier editions available. So in that regard, they are like group 1 in that it's anger towards the company and not the game itself that is the roadblock. However, unlike group 1... WotC can make reparations to this group by finally actually making earlier edition material available. If that was to happen... then I think some of these players would 'cross the picket line' as it were, and take a look at the new edition since they've now been placated. However, I do think this group is very small, because it stands to reason that these players want earlier edition material released because they want to play these earlier editions, and not any new game WotC would release.
7) The players who saw rules they liked/loved get removed from 4E.
Thanks to Dannyalcatraz for mentioning this category, and I think it warrants an edit into my post. He's right in that what D&D is to people depends greatly on many of the rules used to 'create' the game. The biggest issue then becomes which people think which rules are the sacred cows, and how many have to get removed from it to make you no longer want to play it. Hell, for many players the Assassin was a sacred cow and that's what stopped them from moving from 1E to 2E, and THAC0 was a sacred cow that stopped players from switching from 2E to 3E. Whether any of these players who had left because of slaughtered cows come back to a new edition depends entirely on how many of those cows make a return. Some will... some won't. But I do think that Mearls' 'complexity dials' mean that there's possibilities for things to get re-added to the game as part of a particular dial subset (like the nine alignment grid, the 'special' magic items, maybe even the 'great wheel', etc.)
***
These were just the initial groups I could think of, but I'm sure there are several more if I thought about it longer. And as I said above, it depends entirely on the number of players who fall within these groups that would determine whether "most" of them were able to be brought back to a new edition. My own personal guess would be 'no'... as I do not think there are 51% or more players on the side willing to come back. But we really won't know until it happens.
1) The players who took offense to WotC's original 4E marketing.
Most of these players are probably lost for good, because they just hate WotC the company. So unless the new edition is just so outstanding that they swallow the bile in their mouths, or WotC sells the brand to a different company... these players returning I imagine is unlikely.
2) The players who are 3PP focused.
Most of these players are also probably lost for good, because they only play D&D because of the OGL and thus any game that doesn't have it (which I'd imagine the new edition falls into that) is not a game they will play.
3) The players who have a specific style of adventure / adventure path they want and enjoy.
Paizo's generally acknowledged to be head and shoulders above WotC when it comes to adventure design (as far as I can tell from what I read here on the boards). As a result, many players play Pathfinder just so that they can play those adventures easily. Most of these players are probably lost for good UNLESS the new edition is so good it's worth players' time to adapt the PF adventures to it, or WotC works a lot harder to create better adventures. We'll probably find more of this group willing to try the new edition compared to the first two groups, but I think most still wouldn't bother.
4) The players who don't want to play a miniatures game.
These players definitely ARE more likely to return, if we go under the assumption that one of the 'complexity dials' Mearls talked about is the tactical miniatures combat, and if that is removable. If it is... then players who like 4E for many advances it did make (like the DDI tools, the ease of monster and encounter design) but hate it because of the focus on miniatures... most certainly will give the new edition a look if it includes a way to remove that focus and play the game miniatureless.
5) The players who don't want to 'rent' an rpg.
These players ironically enough I would think WOULD be more likely to come to a new edition if the game got printed in books (in addition to DDI). It's acknowledged that there's been so much errata to 4E that many players just don't want to play the game since their books have become obsolete, and they refuse to have DDI be their book replacement (since they don't actually "own" the material to do with it as they please.) However, if a new edition comes out that gets fully vetted and printed... the game is now back to its original pristine condition. A player's handbook that is usable and not out of date. That would be something many of these players would look forward to, I'd imagine.
6) The players who want earlier editions of the game made available and/or supported.
There is a subset of players who refuse to play 4E or any game WotC produces because they are upset that WotC does not make earlier editions available. So in that regard, they are like group 1 in that it's anger towards the company and not the game itself that is the roadblock. However, unlike group 1... WotC can make reparations to this group by finally actually making earlier edition material available. If that was to happen... then I think some of these players would 'cross the picket line' as it were, and take a look at the new edition since they've now been placated. However, I do think this group is very small, because it stands to reason that these players want earlier edition material released because they want to play these earlier editions, and not any new game WotC would release.
7) The players who saw rules they liked/loved get removed from 4E.
Thanks to Dannyalcatraz for mentioning this category, and I think it warrants an edit into my post. He's right in that what D&D is to people depends greatly on many of the rules used to 'create' the game. The biggest issue then becomes which people think which rules are the sacred cows, and how many have to get removed from it to make you no longer want to play it. Hell, for many players the Assassin was a sacred cow and that's what stopped them from moving from 1E to 2E, and THAC0 was a sacred cow that stopped players from switching from 2E to 3E. Whether any of these players who had left because of slaughtered cows come back to a new edition depends entirely on how many of those cows make a return. Some will... some won't. But I do think that Mearls' 'complexity dials' mean that there's possibilities for things to get re-added to the game as part of a particular dial subset (like the nine alignment grid, the 'special' magic items, maybe even the 'great wheel', etc.)
***
These were just the initial groups I could think of, but I'm sure there are several more if I thought about it longer. And as I said above, it depends entirely on the number of players who fall within these groups that would determine whether "most" of them were able to be brought back to a new edition. My own personal guess would be 'no'... as I do not think there are 51% or more players on the side willing to come back. But we really won't know until it happens.
Last edited:
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Successfully creating a modular system like this is a huge challenge, and there is nothing Mike Mearls likes better than bacon.
--but close second is a challenge. I hope he succeeds.
--but close second is a challenge. I hope he succeeds.
BriarMonkey
First Post
Short and sweet: No.
WotC has alienated some, annoyed others, and peeved plenty more. Many don't give two hoots what WotC does, and that would include a new edition.
WotC has alienated some, annoyed others, and peeved plenty more. Many don't give two hoots what WotC does, and that would include a new edition.
I fall somewhat into some of the categories DEFCON 1 enumerated- especially category 1- but I'm not lost for good. I actually do have a fair amount of 4Ed product.*
My skepticism about a Unification Edition is based purely on mechanics. There are many changes in 4Ed that simply don't mesh well with previous editions...and those mechanics are a good portion of the reason the divide is as big and deep as it is. Things like the dilution of alignment to virtual insignificance, the AEDU power system, and so forth are hailed as advances by 4Edphiles and deeply resented by 3.Xphiles...and the rules they replaced are seen in exactly the opposite way by the respective sides. Appeasing one side is very likely to drive the other away.
I don't see how you can resurrect the sacred cows 4Ed slaughtered without causing many of that game's fans to run away in fear and disgust.
Marketing may have opened the rift, but the mechanics cracked it wide open.
* I think its a solid FRPG. I just don't think of it as D&D.
My skepticism about a Unification Edition is based purely on mechanics. There are many changes in 4Ed that simply don't mesh well with previous editions...and those mechanics are a good portion of the reason the divide is as big and deep as it is. Things like the dilution of alignment to virtual insignificance, the AEDU power system, and so forth are hailed as advances by 4Edphiles and deeply resented by 3.Xphiles...and the rules they replaced are seen in exactly the opposite way by the respective sides. Appeasing one side is very likely to drive the other away.
I don't see how you can resurrect the sacred cows 4Ed slaughtered without causing many of that game's fans to run away in fear and disgust.
Marketing may have opened the rift, but the mechanics cracked it wide open.
* I think its a solid FRPG. I just don't think of it as D&D.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
