D&D 4E 4E Devils vs. Demons article

[Glyfair]

My bets:

2008 - FR
2009 - Eberron
2010 - Dragonlance
2011 - All-new setting (probably latter)
2012 - 5e

Check back in 5 years and mock me then.

Scott has said that they have done an analysis and found that 8-10 years is the ideal amount of time between editions. While that might change, I wouldn't expect 5E until 2016.

 

[occam]

I don't suppose it does create work for the DM. If you want to use the Great Wheel cosmology, all you have to do is say, "hey guys, we're using the Great Wheel cosmology." It's already been written, and everyone is familiar with it.

I think you missed TheArcane's point:

True, however, when this new cosmology causes vast changes to existing mechanics, from the very nature of demons vs. devils, looks, powers, abilities, to the addition or removal of specific fiends (succubi, for example), it does influence anyone wishing to continue playing with older cosmologies. It may not be that bad, because anything can be fitted, re-written, re-imagined, etc, but it does add a lot of work for the DM, it is another big change for which existing campaigns will need serious adaptation.

It's the mechanical changes (the scope of which we don't yet know) that may cause a lot of extra work for DMs. Ignoring new fluff may be easy; recreating a bunch of demons and devils (if they're significantly changed in concept) to fit prior-setting adventure material wouldn't be.

 

[Mirtek]

And there's no reason to prefer 3E D&D to any of those games, either.

There is, if you liked the previous lore.

4E D&D will stand or fall on its own merits, just as 3E did - how much similarity it bears to previous editions will have little to no impact on it.

It will have a lot impact. If 4e continues the 30 years D&D tradition it will appeal to the previous crowd of people who liked this lore as well as to the new people who might like this lore.

If it tries to stand on it's own merits, then it has to stand on it's own merrits, with nothing special to appeal to it's old fanbase. In this case it only appeals to people who might like the new lore, without a solid base of previous fans to stand upon.

 

[occam]

That is what irks me. I like to have Orcus have a clever plan to flood the prime material plane with Undead ("the even more savage tide") just because he likes to see mortal suffer.
But I do not like him as a grunting Savage flailing away with his club at hapless mortals because he likes to destroy.

I had been thinking that Orcus as depicted on the 4e MM cover seemed lacking in grandeur: more brutal and less brainy. Unfortunately, we may have an explanation for that now.

 

[Riley]

I loved FC1 and FC2, and I don't necessarily think that the 4e ideas will be contradictory to the ideas in those books.

I expect 4e will directly contradict most of FC1 and FC2. And while I love both of those books, I'm glad they'll be creating new fluff to go with the new rules.

If I want the old fluff, I'll pull out the FC's. Or Planescape. No problem.

 

[JamesM]

The dirty secret of 3E: The best support for the game was often from a third party publisher, and not from WotC. Them effectively ceding the old cosmology to folks like Paizo and Necromancer is something you guys should be celebrating, not mourning. Imagine a City of Brass-style boxed set for the Nine Hells.

Correct and I think it's precisely for this reason (among many others) that we're getting a new cosmology. WotC has good reason to want to make 4E distinctive, some way to separate the "official" brand from its competitors, both within the D20/OGL market and the larger fantasy RPG one.

At this stage of the game, most of D&D's distinctive elements have been swiped, either whole cloth or in pastiche form, by the churning goulash that is shlock gaming fantasy. Other than the name recognition, what does D&D bring to the table, as an IP, that you can't get elsewhere? My guess is that WotC asked this question too and this one of several reasons why they decided to change lots of formerly iconic elements of the meta-setting of the game.

 

[JamesM]

It's cool for a setting.
Not cool for an edition of the game. That's entirely too much setting-setting style writing for a toolkit style baseline that I expect out of D&D.

I agree with this, but -- and I hate to keep harping on this -- I think WotC's plans for 4E include a very large helping of creating new IP that they (and Hasbro) can exploit in creating spin-off products, particularly computer games, and that will further differentiate the D&D brand from the generic fantasy that exists out there in the wider world.

D&D is a victim of its own success. By being the first and most widely played fantasy RPG, its original distinctiveness -- that strange blend of pulp fantasy, science fiction, and horror, with a Tolkienian gloss-- is now pretty the standard interpretation of fantasy, both in games and in novels. D&D created a whole new genre of fantasy and, because everyone embraced it (even when they were reacting against it), D&D no longer feels "special" compared to other fantasy out there.

The easiest way to do that is to create new IP and connect it to the name recognition of D&D. I don't think this is the best way to do it, but it's probably not an unsound decision on WotC's part. I wish I were wrong about that, but what they are doing probably sound economically, even if it pretty ensures I'll have nothing to do with 4E.

 

[Psion]

At this stage of the game, most of D&D's distinctive elements have been swiped, either whole cloth or in pastiche form, by the churning goulash that is shlock gaming fantasy. Other than the name recognition, what does D&D bring to the table, as an IP, that you can't get elsewhere?

The problem here is I expect D&D to bring D&D... as in its historical iconic elements... to the table. When they don't, I begin to think of it as a new game like Exalted or Chilren of the Sun or Uresia and it has to earn its rep with me all over again.

 

[Psion]

I agree with this, but -- and I hate to keep harping on this -- I think WotC's plans for 4E include a very large helping of creating new IP that they (and Hasbro) can exploit in creating spin-off products, particularly computer games, and that will further differentiate the D&D brand from the generic fantasy that exists out there in the wider world.

Well, I think that remains to be seen, but it certainly seems like a reasonable informed guess.

 

[JamesM]

The problem here is I expect D&D to bring D&D... as in its historical iconic elements... to the table. When they don't, I begin to think of it as a new game like Exalted or Chilren of the Sun or Uresia and it has to earn its rep with me all over again.

I feel exactly the same way. I think this is a big mistake on WotC's part, but I think they believe that they will potentially gain much, much more than they will potentially lose by taking this risk.