Monte Cook back at wizards

[Imaro]

You assume anyone set out with the idea of, or knowledge of, someone being certainly displeased. In any case, I think everyone is pretty well advised at this point in history that NO edition roll will be 100% pleasing to everyone.

Uhm... yes, I do. Can you honestly tell me that the 4e developers/designers didn't realize totally revamping the cosmology would displease people? Was there not a specific statement to the effect of this game isn't for people who like traisping around in fairy rings?

Like you said no edition will be 100% pleasing to everyone, and since we know that your first statement seems illogical. The thing is that they were hoping enough people (or enough new people) would enjoy their new cosmology enough to make up for those who didn't.

The point I'm making is not that MY preferences should be privileged. It is that IN THIS SITUATION, where there is a whole other game that the displeased people are already playing, that it would be foolish for WotC to think that making an about face and going after those people when they have me and all the other people that like 4e already as customers. History is replete with examples of producers of products thinking that they're going to continue to please audience A AND please some other audience B with a product that is everything to everyone. It almost invariably fails miserably.

Unless of course the customers they loss spend significantly more money on product than those they currently have. We have no figures so we really don't know how this situation is looking to WotC. You're assuming they are happy (or at least content) with their customer base right now to the point that they are not willing to risk a significant part of it in order to bring others back into the fold. IMO, this just doesn't fit with the way in which 4e was rolled out. I mean maybe they learned a lesson or something but you may be attributing more value to the 4e customer base than WotC is.

Now, at some point, when WotC, in the fullness of time, makes a 5e is it reasonable to think that they'll incorporate the lessons learned from 4e in 5e? Of course they would be stupid not to. 5e might well be more pleasing to some fraction of the audience that didn't like 4e, and the way it might do that may be evoking certain things from previous editions. That's different IMO from actually going backwards and creating a 5e that is basically 3.5 warmed over in the hope that it would be a successful strategy. It would also be far different from making a 5e that is yet again entirely different and doesn't build on what was done in 4e at all.

They tried the "evoking" route with essentials, and there's no evidence it brought a significant chunk of Pathfinder/3.5 players back to 4e (though in full disclosure I play essentials and PF now.). No I think when it boils down to it there is a significant chunk of the former player base that don't particularly care for many of the base assumptions of the 4e core engine... and that won't be fixed with evoking former editions. Do I think they will make a warmed over 3.5? No. Do I think the next iteration of the game will go bvack to some core assumption based around 3.5/PF play vs. 4e play... I think it's very likely even if the core engine is neither 4e or 3.5. Do I think 5e will build on 4e... no, not really. I honestly don't think 4e (and I'm not counting boardgames and other stuff... just the rpg) is doing well enough to constitute continuing with it. I do think they will keep DDI up as a source of revenue from 4e players but mostly for the web tools.

So, IMHO, 5e needs to A) build on 4e, and B) not be rushed out before 4e has run its course. This is purely based on my sense of what is likely to succeed, not on my own narrow preferences. Of course we're all biased, so I'm undoubtedly wrong to some greater or lesser degree, but so it goes.

I don't agree with A. but definitely agree with B, especially after the skill challenge math fiasco that has been a part of 4e since launch. But to each his own.

 

[Scribble]

Something I've always wondered- what happens in a normal edition switch over?

How many people end up moving to the new edition just because there is more support for it?

How many people end up just quitting because they don't like the new direction, but there is no reason to keep bitching about it?


Also how many people get mad that there is an edition switch, even though they're not really buying any of the stuff for the current edition anymore anyway?


I wonder how much did Pathfinder benefit by being a very visible place for people to rally behind when they otherwise might have just moved on?



I think really what it shows is edition changes as they've been done in the past are kind of dumb.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is no such thing as a normal D&D edition change. When D&D changes, it changes big. Many other RPGs tend to have many more, smaller edition changes. 4E is also unique in that in changed the default cosmos, which I don't think usually happens with RPGs. While I enjoy the new cosmology, it probably would have been best if they included significant support for the old cosmology so that people could continue playing in the same world without homebrewing everything.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So what? I asked above, how did you handled big magic bursts and walls without the DM just saying 'it hits them, not them'? And if you did this, you can do the same with other games, too.

I guess the reason it does not work that well anymore is that noone bothers if you wing 15ft or 30 ft radiuses, but if you handwave 3 squares, you just have more discussions...
emphasized in 4e, where a few squares can actually be quite important... besides beeing in some areas...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

There is no such thing as a normal D&D edition change. When D&D changes, it changes big. Many other RPGs tend to have many more, smaller edition changes. 4E is also unique in that in changed the default cosmos, which I don't think usually happens with RPGs. While I enjoy the new cosmology, it probably would have been best if they included significant support for the old cosmology so that people could continue playing in the same world without homebrewing everything.

I have never really considered the impact of such changes, because I have never used a default cosmology, really. It would be kind of a big deal, but at the same time, being presented with more options for such things is not a bad thing IMO. Though it is a lot of work to convert such things between editions, especially the later ones where things are so tied into feats and powers and whatnot.

 

[Scribble]

There is no such thing as a normal D&D edition change. When D&D changes, it changes big. Many other RPGs tend to have many more, smaller edition changes. 4E is also unique in that in changed the default cosmos, which I don't think usually happens with RPGs. While I enjoy the new cosmology, it probably would have been best if they included significant support for the old cosmology so that people could continue playing in the same world without homebrewing everything.

White Wolf changed its flavor stuff with their change, and if I remember a good amount of how the rules worked too?

D&D is kind of unique though in that when it's done a full on edition change it wants to vastly change the rules.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm still of the belief that we won't see a true 5e.

But maybe we'll see a 4.5E. Really, I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this possibility in this thread. Yeah, I know, no one wants to consider it.

 

[Scribble]

But maybe we'll see a 4.5E. Really, I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this possibility in this thread. Yeah, I know, no one wants to consider it.

I honestly don't think we'll see a new edition, or anything with a number in it for a very long time, if ever again.

Numbers create stopping points. We're now moving to a ner version, your version is outdated.

But releasing stuff akin to Essentials, and Gamma World adds to the whole thing.

So again I think we'll see products like Essentials that are designed to be entirely compatible with "baseline" 4e, and products more like Gamma World that are stand alone, or designed to be mixed in various ways with "baseline" elements.

Don't like the monsters in Baseline? Use the rules from D&D Monsterfest!

Don't like how characters are created in Baseline? Use the rules from D&D Allstars!

Don't like the complex minis rules? Use the combat rules from D&D Lite...

This way, we can all argue till our hearts explode about which is the bestest way to fight orcs, but we're all paying WoTC for that, instead of some of us cursing WoTC because we would rather play some other number's format.


That's my guess- I could be entirely wrong, but...

 

[Imaro]

White Wolf changed its flavor stuff with their change, and if I remember a good amount of how the rules worked too?

D&D is kind of unique though in that when it's done a full on edition change it wants to vastly change the rules.

This is only partly true. White Wolf did eventually, but there were numerous editions of the old/classic WoD lines before nWoD was created. Also when they creted the nWoD they were very upfront about it being a different game only loosely based on the old one.

 

[Scribble]

This is only partly true. White Wolf did eventually, but there were numerous editions of the old/classic WoD lines before nWoD was created. Also when they creted the nWoD they were very upfront about it being a different game only loosely based on the old one.

Right- I forgot about the different editions before the most recent "reboot."

Either way, it's been done before. The big reboot I mean.