Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I was just reading through the thread about interpretation of rules, which wandered into a discussion of the marketing and reception of different editions. [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] provided an interesting description of D&D history in which he posited that Pathfinder was a branching point in the game that has now become a complete parallel species (as opposed to older editions which make up a smaller section of the market). Many people have been suggesting that it will be impossible to please all players (or more specifically, both the fans of 3E/PF and 4E).
So maybe this is the moment for the game to diverge, deliberately. Perhaps this chance was missed when 4E was developed, but if WotC want to regain control of the hobby (which 5E is most definitely an attempt to do) then maybe they need to face that one game can no longer do this. Obviously, this would require the greatest feat of PR and marketing the industry has ever seen, but it might just be worth a try.
Historically, there have been a couple of precedents, I would say, for branching (or parallel games), though not on the same terms as the one I propose here. World of Darkness deliberately offers three different games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage plus minor editions) within the same fictional construct, which have the same mechanical principles, but (I think) cater to different tastes. I would also cite the recent Trail of Cthulhu as a branching from Call of Cthulhu, though it was not published by the same company. These both take place in the same world, rely on the same material but play very differently mechanically (and I think play side-by-side, I am happy to run/play both).
So what would our two branches look like? I'm not going to say just 3E and 4E, revised, that's too easy. Instead I would suggest that they consider what each side of the argument enjoy about their games.
For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers.
For the older-school branch I would focus the core game on more traditional concepts. I would relegate gridded combat to an option, perhaps developing some more rules of thumb and advice for theatre of the mind combat. I wouldn't support the dozens of classes and races that have existed over the years, instead focusing on tradition. This doesn't mean it has to be a retroclone, but to me, right now, 5E is headed more in this direction, whilst it has only recently tried to cover the other branch with the sorcerer/warlock drafts. This branch would not try to govern exploration or social interactions mechanically, though it could offer skill/proficiency support, and combat needn't be boring, but would certainly be more focused on getting the job done rather than round-by-round tactical decisions.
Does this sound like a good idea? Is it possible to clearly branch the game into two versions, offering different experiences? Would this just make everyone even angrier? What would you even call the two games (Dungeons.. and.. Dragons..)?
So maybe this is the moment for the game to diverge, deliberately. Perhaps this chance was missed when 4E was developed, but if WotC want to regain control of the hobby (which 5E is most definitely an attempt to do) then maybe they need to face that one game can no longer do this. Obviously, this would require the greatest feat of PR and marketing the industry has ever seen, but it might just be worth a try.
Historically, there have been a couple of precedents, I would say, for branching (or parallel games), though not on the same terms as the one I propose here. World of Darkness deliberately offers three different games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage plus minor editions) within the same fictional construct, which have the same mechanical principles, but (I think) cater to different tastes. I would also cite the recent Trail of Cthulhu as a branching from Call of Cthulhu, though it was not published by the same company. These both take place in the same world, rely on the same material but play very differently mechanically (and I think play side-by-side, I am happy to run/play both).
So what would our two branches look like? I'm not going to say just 3E and 4E, revised, that's too easy. Instead I would suggest that they consider what each side of the argument enjoy about their games.
For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers.
For the older-school branch I would focus the core game on more traditional concepts. I would relegate gridded combat to an option, perhaps developing some more rules of thumb and advice for theatre of the mind combat. I wouldn't support the dozens of classes and races that have existed over the years, instead focusing on tradition. This doesn't mean it has to be a retroclone, but to me, right now, 5E is headed more in this direction, whilst it has only recently tried to cover the other branch with the sorcerer/warlock drafts. This branch would not try to govern exploration or social interactions mechanically, though it could offer skill/proficiency support, and combat needn't be boring, but would certainly be more focused on getting the job done rather than round-by-round tactical decisions.
Does this sound like a good idea? Is it possible to clearly branch the game into two versions, offering different experiences? Would this just make everyone even angrier? What would you even call the two games (Dungeons.. and.. Dragons..)?