ThirdWizard
First Post
If they could time it with an eventual release of Pathfinder 2e...
It will come eventually.
5E on the horizon?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
- Status
If they could time it with an eventual release of Pathfinder 2e...
It will come eventually.
BriarMonkey
First Post
I've noticed that a lot of discussion is based on the fiscal needs of WotC.
Rather than come out with 5e in the near term, and since they already own all the bits, there is a much more elegant solution: reprint all the core books from the prior editions.
Imagine if you could go out and buy a new copy of the 1e DMG, or the 2e PHB, or the 3.xe MM? WotC could have it's cake and eat it too! PoD systems make such an endevour reasonable in cost and the potential for economic gain is large. At the very least, I think it'd buy them a couple years before having to think of the edition treadmill again.
Rather than come out with 5e in the near term, and since they already own all the bits, there is a much more elegant solution: reprint all the core books from the prior editions.
Imagine if you could go out and buy a new copy of the 1e DMG, or the 2e PHB, or the 3.xe MM? WotC could have it's cake and eat it too! PoD systems make such an endevour reasonable in cost and the potential for economic gain is large. At the very least, I think it'd buy them a couple years before having to think of the edition treadmill again.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I would definitely buy the 1e and 2e books.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I think the release of a radically different edition from 4e would be brand suicide. It's only been 3 years and a few months since 4e came out and they've already had a second version of those rules in that time with Essentials. The prior edition players are already gone and the 4e players are already skittish. You can't have a good chunk of your current customers bolt if you don't have any assurances that non-customers will buy in.
WotC is in a tough position with D&D right now. Among the core group of Dungeons & Dragons players, I would have to believe that brand loyalty to Dungeons & Dragons is at an all time low. By that I mean, those who consider themselves players of Dungeons & Dragons are more willing now than ever to use products that don't say "D&D" on the front cover in order to play Dungeons & Dragons. WotC now does not have the luxury that TSR/WotC has had since the late '70s, an base of players who they can count on to buy a huge percentage of whatever they put out with "D&D" on the front cover.
I think WotC has to fight to keep their 4e fans for the time being. They have to continue to give them what they want by making 4e be the best 4e it can possibly be.
But WotC can also use resources only it has to make lapsed players know they're still around and interested in them. I think they should put together some "fan service" products that would be interesting to both current and past customers. But these products would have to be respectful of the history of D&D, and not some of the misguided efforts recently that focus on the superficialities of name and art, ignoring content.
Some examples of "bad" fan service - the 400 year advance in time line in the Forgotten Realms setting, the bait and switch of using the old D&D Basic box to disguise a completely different rule set. Some examples of "good" fan service - cheap and free .pdf's of prior edition products, the 25th Anniversary boxed set.
Another thing they can do is to work to make their web presence much more all-editions inclusive. I think Mearls' recent series of articles is a step in this direction. But more prior edition or edition neutral content would serve as a big ol' welcome mat to all the disaffected out there. By working to make the WotC site the home of all players of D&D (or better still all players of rpgs) by promoting content, tools, and an atmosphere friendly to those players, WotC would have a better chance to sell some books to those who aren't buying them right now.
WotC is in a tough position with D&D right now. Among the core group of Dungeons & Dragons players, I would have to believe that brand loyalty to Dungeons & Dragons is at an all time low. By that I mean, those who consider themselves players of Dungeons & Dragons are more willing now than ever to use products that don't say "D&D" on the front cover in order to play Dungeons & Dragons. WotC now does not have the luxury that TSR/WotC has had since the late '70s, an base of players who they can count on to buy a huge percentage of whatever they put out with "D&D" on the front cover.
I think WotC has to fight to keep their 4e fans for the time being. They have to continue to give them what they want by making 4e be the best 4e it can possibly be.
But WotC can also use resources only it has to make lapsed players know they're still around and interested in them. I think they should put together some "fan service" products that would be interesting to both current and past customers. But these products would have to be respectful of the history of D&D, and not some of the misguided efforts recently that focus on the superficialities of name and art, ignoring content.
Some examples of "bad" fan service - the 400 year advance in time line in the Forgotten Realms setting, the bait and switch of using the old D&D Basic box to disguise a completely different rule set. Some examples of "good" fan service - cheap and free .pdf's of prior edition products, the 25th Anniversary boxed set.
Another thing they can do is to work to make their web presence much more all-editions inclusive. I think Mearls' recent series of articles is a step in this direction. But more prior edition or edition neutral content would serve as a big ol' welcome mat to all the disaffected out there. By working to make the WotC site the home of all players of D&D (or better still all players of rpgs) by promoting content, tools, and an atmosphere friendly to those players, WotC would have a better chance to sell some books to those who aren't buying them right now.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
A slightly different track:
I think the only way they are going to get Pathfinder folks back is if they bring Paizo along. If Paizo was happy with 5e and started releasing adventures and suchlike under 5e, their fans would likely follow.
In order to get Paizo along, I think they need to, primarily, go back to something closer to the d20 System Liscence than the GSL. They need to let people sell things compatible with the game in a way similar to the way people sold things in the 3e heyday: with complete internal control and absolute confidence of independence.
This is difficult for...anything owned by Hasbro, since Hasbro is currently very concerned with IP issues. They're busy turning all their toys and games into movies and TV shows, some of which are good (especially those involving Lauren Faust!), some of which...well...involve Michael Bay. But ALL of which are probably much more profitable than the original line. D&D is mostly valuable for that -- the brand name. The ability to slap in on a board game, card game, movie, novel, or TV show, and instantly get the dorky blogosphere generating auto-buzz for it. And Hasbro is generally smart with this format shifting. Micahel Bay's Transformers may not be your cup of tea, but it IS very profitable.
So the primary bone of contention is that there must be an agreement so that third party publishers (or at least Paizo) can confidently make a sound business in supporting this theoretical 5e. Which seems difficult to do without easing up on the internal control of the brand. Which is difficult to do in an environment where the brand is more important than any individual thing produced under it. Theoretically possible, but difficult.
If they don't get that right, it doesn't matter what the mechanics are, or what the fluff is, or what the powers system is. If Paizo can't support 5e as a business, it will chug along with Pathfinder, and, if it continues its expanding trend, it will get at least as big as anything branded D&D.
I suppose when Paizo greenlights the cartoon series helmed by Genndy Tartakovsky, starring the iconics, or has BioWare making games with the PF brand, perhaps set in Golarion, we'll know that they've done good.
5e will only succeed (compared to a presumably weak 4e) if they can bring along Paizo, or undermine the company somehow.
Interestingly, if they bring Paizo back with a more open system, it'll prove one philosophy I heard during 3e true (can't remember who said it, though)...hmm....
I think the only way they are going to get Pathfinder folks back is if they bring Paizo along. If Paizo was happy with 5e and started releasing adventures and suchlike under 5e, their fans would likely follow.
In order to get Paizo along, I think they need to, primarily, go back to something closer to the d20 System Liscence than the GSL. They need to let people sell things compatible with the game in a way similar to the way people sold things in the 3e heyday: with complete internal control and absolute confidence of independence.
This is difficult for...anything owned by Hasbro, since Hasbro is currently very concerned with IP issues. They're busy turning all their toys and games into movies and TV shows, some of which are good (especially those involving Lauren Faust!), some of which...well...involve Michael Bay. But ALL of which are probably much more profitable than the original line. D&D is mostly valuable for that -- the brand name. The ability to slap in on a board game, card game, movie, novel, or TV show, and instantly get the dorky blogosphere generating auto-buzz for it. And Hasbro is generally smart with this format shifting. Micahel Bay's Transformers may not be your cup of tea, but it IS very profitable.
So the primary bone of contention is that there must be an agreement so that third party publishers (or at least Paizo) can confidently make a sound business in supporting this theoretical 5e. Which seems difficult to do without easing up on the internal control of the brand. Which is difficult to do in an environment where the brand is more important than any individual thing produced under it. Theoretically possible, but difficult.
If they don't get that right, it doesn't matter what the mechanics are, or what the fluff is, or what the powers system is. If Paizo can't support 5e as a business, it will chug along with Pathfinder, and, if it continues its expanding trend, it will get at least as big as anything branded D&D.
I suppose when Paizo greenlights the cartoon series helmed by Genndy Tartakovsky, starring the iconics, or has BioWare making games with the PF brand, perhaps set in Golarion, we'll know that they've done good.
5e will only succeed (compared to a presumably weak 4e) if they can bring along Paizo, or undermine the company somehow.
Interestingly, if they bring Paizo back with a more open system, it'll prove one philosophy I heard during 3e true (can't remember who said it, though)...hmm....
Entirely agreed. That's an important part of why it was able to attract me back to D&D.
I wouldn't feel betrayed, but I don't think I'd play it. Of course, because I'm a sucker I might buy bits of it - which is all that WotC needs, at least in the short term.
Overall, I think this is probably right. And the bigger the contribution that DDI is making to their D&D revenues, the more right it is, isn't it? Because dropping 4e will surely lead to a lot of those subscribers leaving.
From Paizo's point of view, what reason would they have to hook themself to a new open game when they're already growing out of sight with an old open game?
Even if they can't build Pathfinder/Golarion into a brand that is as big, overall, as D&D, that seems neither here nor there, as it's not as if an open RPG licence would let Pathfinder get any of those wider brand revenues.
While that is true we dont have wotc's sales numbers, we do have this tidbit from Lisa Stevens of Piazo, when asked:
To be clear, though, you're saying that it's your belief that the Pathfinder brand has a higher sales volume than the D&D brand?
If thats the case, then yeah 4e is in real trouble. Take it with as much or little salt as you like.
Imaro
Legend
I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff.
This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part. By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in. I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book. This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.
On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I think it would be easier for them to buy Paizo than to court them.
Bedrockgames said:
No, I think it was designed for people who were burned out on 3e.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I am sure that is an element of it. But 4e really looked like a direct response to the build-balance wars you saw on the wizards forum. I really think it is about two completely different design goals. 3e went one way and 4e the other. I think they knew there was a philosophical split in the gaming d&d community and kept that in mind designing 4e. And i think they were wise to do so.
In my own experience i didn't see a whole lot of burnout with 3e. I saw two camps of players- those who liked the system and those who felt it wasn't balanced enough. I am sure there was some desire for a new edition among many. But i think many if the 3e fans were expecting more of a 1e to 2e like jump.
- Status
