Sort of related to the "Should D&D be public domain" topic...

[Evenglare]

Decided to make a new topic because this doesn't exactly relate to that topic but it got me thinking that the brand needs to have 1 set of rules . Now ideally for most of us it does, and that set of rules is 3.x. But in my opinion the rules of the game are needed to facilitate the stories and modules and dungeon crawls of the game.

I really wish there would be a singular system kind of like monopoly, an ever green system. In my opinion we HAVE that but wizards (assuming pressure from hasbro) keep trying to make a new "evergreen" system for D&D. First 4th edition was made to fix the errors from 3.5 edition. And then 4th edition essentials was made as an evergreen entry point of the system. They said they wanted all stores to always have this in stock. So when that didn't stick they started pushing for 5th edition, or as they like to say the new iteration (it's almost annoying how they stick to that word and avoid all others).

They just need to stick to a damn set of rules and let the worlds , ideas and systems flourish. With all these new systems coming out we have to reinvent everything from scratch or heavy modification. I LOVE enworld and paizo for sticking to their guns and giving the 3rd edition rules the love they deserve. The rules aren't perfect, but they can be modified just as well as any other system. When I saw the 5th edition rules there wasn't anything in there that couldn't be accomplished by using some variant 3rd edition rules .

Surely I cant be the only person that feels this way ? Wizards say they want reunification , but honestly making ANOTHER iteration of D&D instead of going back to 3rd edition, or sticking with their 4th edition makes me think of this comic. > xkcd: Standards this is exactly what is going to happen, and it's going to divide everyone even more. Its infuriating and there's absolutely nothing that I can do about it except support you guys who keep on going with our standard ogl rules set.

You have my eternal thanks from this gamer.

 

[El Mahdi]

Wow!

I think it would help if the assumptions made in the OP were first and foremost, correct...before drawing conclusions.

Such as, the switch from 3.5E to 4E had a lot more to do with than just trying to "fix the problems with 3.5E". There was the need to publish a new edition to generate sales. There was the goal of creating a non-OGL game so WotC would have more control over the game and 3pp products. There may even be more factors, but those two factors above were far more important in the decision to make a new edition than "fixing" the previous one. I can guarantee that if 3.5E had still been selling well, there would have been no 4E, and they certainly would have felt no motivation to "fix" 3.5.

Secondly, there is no evidence that most of the D&D fan base plays 3.5. One could probably actually make the argument that the largest portion of D&D fans are playing Pathfinder (which is not 3.5E), but even then, data to back that up would be practically impossible to gather. Hopefully though you don't mean "majority" when you say "most of us". As no edition of D&D has a majority of players (a majority is greater than 50%). Even if you blanketed the world with "official" polls as to who plays what; on every game forum and site, in magazines, and even on TV...you still wouldn't reach every single person who plays some iteration of D&D. The only people who have the information to make or not-make statements like "most of us play 3.5E", are those working for the bigger game companies...in other words Paizo and WotC...and they ain't talking!

Thirdly, ENWorld is not a "3E" forum. It has just as healthy Pathfinder, 4E, and pre-3E edition communities as it does 3.x. ENWorld also has a pretty healthy sampling of other game systems also, such as Savage Worlds and others. ENWorld didn't have to "stick to their guns" as far as 3E is concerned. ENWorld simply went where the fan-base went...period. And with the advent of 4E, that was a split between older editions, 3.x and 4E; and then a split between older editions, 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder. ENWorld Publishing went with supporting 3.5E and 4E equally, and has since switched to Pathfinder and 4E. ENWorld didn't "stick to their guns" since there was no reason to do that.

I also find it quite ironic how you wish for just one unifying edition, then complain that WotC is now trying to make a unifying edition! Which one do you want? Do you want WotC to make a unifying edition or not make one? Or do you simply want WotC to make "your" favorite edition the "one" edition? Especially as that's worked so well so far...

Lastly, if WotC achieves the goals they are looking for design-wise with 5E, I think they will have an evergreen game that appeals to the majority of D&D fans...across the spectrum of iteration preferences. It's a big gamble and an even bigger experiment though. However, I feel if it doesn't suffer from too much corporate pressure and goals, and the designers truly listen and incoroporate the feedback from fans, then it has the best chance of any previous edition of doing so...and if it fails, then it's likely proof that this is just an unachievable goal.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Or do you simply want WotC to make "your" favorite edition the "one" edition?

That's exactly what I want. And that edition should be the RCD&D. And YES, races are classes!

 

[Janx]

That's exactly what I want. And that edition should be the RCD&D. And YES, races are classes!

Which leads to arguments about which ruleset to use.

I hear "races as classes" and think "that's the dumbest rule i ever heard"

No offense intended, but thats how all these one true ruleset discussions end.

People cant agree on what makes a good design

 

[Evenglare]

I do withdraw the most of us. I will add an addendum that every single person I have ever met in real life, and the majority of the people that I talk to on the internet play 3.x or pathfinder / some sort of ogl . That includes but is not limited to OSRIC, castles and crusades, 3.x , pathfinder, 13th age, and a NUMBER of other games that i cant be forced to name off the top of my head. I do apologize for that remark.

Sorry it i made the second poster upset. I did not think it ironic to want a unified edition with rules that were already made, which is exactly what OGL tried to do. If you would go to the xkcd comic i linked to you will see exactly why I do not want a 5th edition. I figured my post was rather straight forward.

Also it may sound like "YAY lets make 3.x the evergreen edition". This is not necessarily what I was trying to go for. I AM happy that 3.x is recieving a lot of support because I do play that, and to me it is the eternal system, it's how I currently am recruiting new players. But understand if 4th edition would have kept on going and doing their thing I would probably be a 4th edition player full time now. (I do LOVE the system). But then 4th edition pulled out essentials, and while they billed it as their new always on shelf, intro system. This never did stick, and produced yet ANOTHER entry point in the system that , if you never read their blogs about how you could play this along with original 4th edition, it was very confusing for people. So falling to my human drawbacks, yes I do have a bias towards a system I love, its just a thing we humans do. However I do acknowledge there are large fanbases for games such as GURPS or HERO , both systems I love. My comment is related directly towards D&D and it's "iterations" , knock offs, editions and it being public domain.

 

[GhostBear]

I hear "races as classes" and think "that's the dumbest rule i ever heard"

I second this. I know a lot of humans, and they take classes in computer programming, civil engineering, and art history. Race/Gender shouldn't have a significant (if any) effect on class selection.

[T]he switch from 3.5E to 4E had a lot more to do with than just trying to "fix the problems with 3.5E". There was the need to publish a new edition to generate sales. There was the goal of creating a non-OGL game so WotC would have more control over the game and 3pp products.

That's how I see it. If WotC had wanted to simply fix the (perceived) problems of 3.5, they might have ended up with something like Pathfinder - balance the classes, update the grappling rules, offer some more options in the core product. 3.5 and 4E so different that I can't see 4E as an attempt to simply fix - it altered the game drastically.

Secondly, there is no evidence that most of the D&D fan base plays 3.5. [...] As no edition of D&D has a majority of players (a majority is greater than 50%).

These days, I would be hesitant to claim that D&D - as a whole, all editions combined - is the primary and most popular RPG product. PF aside, Savage Worlds is popular, as is World of Darkness (old and new), and GURPS has a very loyal set of fans.

It would be interesting to see some actual numbers, though. I may be completely wrong. Is anyone aware of any studies of this kind? I'd be really interested in seeing the results!

 

[Evenglare]

I agree that 4th edition was made for sales but for the wrong reasons, another system , more rules, more reprints of published systems. Now we are left with no 4e dragonlance, or any sort of decent modules, compared to the stuff that enworld or pathfinder has put out. I think the company is focusing on the wrong type of sales, crunch instead of well developed worlds, stories, and modules. Which is why I would KILL to see an eternal D&D system , not this every 4 years nonsense we have start rolling out now. I dont necessarily blame wizards , i mean they produce magic, they love iterations of the same game with new rules.

As an aside isnt white wolf severely in debt and almost bankrupt. I havent heard them putting out anything of note lately, except selling PDFs.

 

[nedjer]

I'm afraid you're out of luck. Old School v's New School is giving way to more intuitive gaming:

Though it wouldn't be my way to go about it the double d20s and the GMs' rulings elements of Next introduce a global option for improvisation - this sanctions a form of player choice that rewards thinking on your feet, and the choice to not use the advantage/ disadvantage rule.

Monte Cooke's recent chat with the idDM about his new system is replete with the intuitive word, while videogame development is already much further down the road on enabling, but not requiring, improvisational play.

If RPGs are to compete in a videogame world opening-up greater player choice and free-flowing, intuitive gameplay seems necessary/ urgent.

 

[GhostBear]

As an aside isnt white wolf severely in debt and almost bankrupt. I havent heard them putting out anything of note lately, except selling PDFs.

I hope not. WhiteWolf is (was) an incredible gaming studio though I felt they lost their way with the New WoD. I still continue to buy their older products in PDF format because it is Good Stuff.

Still, WhiteWolf should be safe for the time being. The parent company, CCP, has a very profitable and long running MMO (Eve Online) that is funding their other projects: DUST514 (which is nearing completion; I hear LOTS of Good Things from the beta testers) and a World of Darkness MMO (which suffered due to serious staffing cuts at CCP, but is still alive).

 

[Evenglare]

I hope they are doing well, I love scion, and some of their WOD stuff, that's just what I had remembered seeing, and I have not noticed anything new at my FLGS or online in several months.