5E on the horizon?

[Aberzanzorax]

To be exact, I'm claiming that we cannot know how large the divide is. That there is a divide is self-evident. But, then again, there was a divide LONG before 4e came on the scene. How much has 4e exacerbated that divide? I have no idea.

Ah, a much more reasonable stance than the one I thought you were taking.

And you're right, we don't have clear evidence to measure the size of the divide.

However...

Turn it around. The continued existence of OSRIC alone shows that players didn't switch to 3e. Does that mean that there was a massive divide in the player base with retro-clones and the like? Does Mutants and Masterminds mean that 3e wasn't as successful as it could have been?

Just because there are other games on the market does not really mean anything.

Two questions:
1. Do you think that Mutants and Masterminds is in competition for players in the same way that OSRIC, 4e, Pathfinder, 3e, and others are in competition? (I'm trying to point out that Pathfinder is not an "other game on the market" so much as "fills the same niche for D&Ders as other versions of D&D.)

2. Do you think that the OSRIC divide is anywhere close to the divide between Pathfinder and 4e? Do you think there are as many people playing OSRIC as Pathfinder? Honestly? I know it is tempting to say we can't know, but what is your honest guess (give a percentage for how confident your guess is if that makes you more comfortable).

Because I don't see an OSRIC forum here on ENWorld, I don't see the amount of supplements for OSRIC that I do for 4e or Pathfinder, I don't see people comparing OSRIC to 4e or to Pathfinder in thread after thread.

I think it's pretty clear that, whatever the size of the divides, that the gulf between 4e and Pathfinder is larger than the gulf between OSRIC and Pathfinder or OSRIC and 4e.

Overall point being that, no we can't measure the size of the divide, but we can gather data and impressions (two separate things, I'll grant) that the divide might be the largest one for players of D&D that we've seen (particularly if we lump 3e/3.5 holdouts with Pathfinder converts).

 

[Hussar]

Ah, a much more reasonable stance than the one I thought you were taking.

And you're right, we don't have clear evidence to measure the size of the divide.

However...


Two questions:
1. Do you think that Mutants and Masterminds is in competition for players in the same way that OSRIC, 4e, Pathfinder, 3e, and others are in competition? (I'm trying to point out that Pathfinder is not an "other game on the market" so much as "fills the same niche for D&Ders as other versions of D&D.)

Well, actually, I do think so. I think that most groups have limited play time and that there was pretty much only one direction for gamers who played M&M and that was start with 3e then move to M&M. They might come back to D&D, but, then again, they might not. I think that games like M&M did not attract any significant new blood to the hobby but rather nibbled off chunks that were brought in by D&D.

I'll totally give mad props to both WOTC and Paizo for their efforts in the last couple of years to bring in new gamers. Between WOTC spending buckets of money on the D&D Encounters and some pretty snazzy board games and Paizo kicking their Organized Play stuff into high gear, it's a freaking fantastic time to be a gamer.

2. Do you think that the OSRIC divide is anywhere close to the divide between Pathfinder and 4e? Do you think there are as many people playing OSRIC as Pathfinder? Honestly? I know it is tempting to say we can't know, but what is your honest guess (give a percentage for how confident your guess is if that makes you more comfortable).

My honest opinion? I'd probably agree with you that there are quite a lot fewer OSRIC players than Pathfinder. Now, if you tally up all the retro-clone and actual AD&D players and lump them into one group, then the numbers might be closer, although, to be honest, I think it would still be pretty far apart.

I'd be the last person to argue that Pathfinder isn't doing well. Any RPG that can support a company the size of Pathfinder is doing freaking fantastically as far as RPG's go.

Because I don't see an OSRIC forum here on ENWorld, I don't see the amount of supplements for OSRIC that I do for 4e or Pathfinder, I don't see people comparing OSRIC to 4e or to Pathfinder in thread after thread.

I did see quite a few comparisons between 3e and earlier editions for many years though. But, yeah, again, I'm pretty much in the same basket as you. To be fair though, there are quite a lot of supplements for OSRIC but, I think most of it is POD or PDF.

I think it's pretty clear that, whatever the size of the divides, that the gulf between 4e and Pathfinder is larger than the gulf between OSRIC and Pathfinder or OSRIC and 4e.

Overall point being that, no we can't measure the size of the divide, but we can gather data and impressions (two separate things, I'll grant) that the divide might be the largest one for players of D&D that we've seen (particularly if we lump 3e/3.5 holdouts with Pathfinder converts).

This one I'm not totally convinced of to be honest. The late 80's, with the introduction of 2e saw a pretty big split in the fan base. Plus you had BECMI chugging along as well.

I think what we didn't have was the Internet and any method for those in one camp or another to band together for a larger voice. I honestly do think that if we had had the Internet in 1989, this exact same conversation would be going on though.

 

[Dausuul]

And I probably would not buy it, not from any antipathy for the new edition but more because I am happy with what I have and am not planting another 100 bucks on a new version of D&D. If I am going to spend that kind of money on a new game it would be much more likely to be spent on Warhammer 3e.

Like I said, not widely shared.

4E is my favorite edition to date, but there are things I miss greatly from older editions (AD&D and BECMI, not so much 3E), and there are things about 4E that seriously bug me. A game that addressed those issues would be awesome. Mike Mearls seems to share my sentiments in most regards, so I am hopeful about the future direction of the brand.

In the meantime, I'll keep working on my own BECMI/4E hybrid, which is nearing the point of being a functional if bare-bones game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think you are making a good point, but I feel as if essentials an other features would not have gone the way they did if wotc at least didn't consider this a serious issue.

Actually... I'd disagree with you that WotC's production of Essentials was because of a perceived serious issue with the divide between 4E and past editions.

My own personal opinion is that they produced Essentials because it allowed them to print another set of player books that have always been their best-sellers... the races and classes that come with the first Player's Handbook.

I think we all are pretty much in agreement that the stuff you get in the first PH is what probably generates the most purchases. As you move on to PHII, then PHIII and so on... the amount of sales drops each time (probably because most players in the casual to new range are thinking more towards traditional fantasy archetypes for their gaming.) So once WotC produced the first PH and their requisite Power splatbooks... they really had very little design space left to produce material worthy of a full book. They had to struggle to fill up Martial Power II (as they had to create Martial Practices and the various combat technique multi-feats to help pad the book out but have never done anything with those ideas since), and who knows what sort of one-off magical concepts they would have created if they'd gone ahead with Arcane Power II. Instead, their support for all the base classes have come with DDI and the magazines (which makes sense, as that was one of the reasons to generate subscriptions - support for the base classes beyond the PH and splatbook.)

So by looking at the drop in sales numbers for PHII and PHIII (and what PHIV probably would end up doing) versus the sales numbers of the release of the updated 3.5 books... they probably realized that a PH with the base material would generate more sales. The biggest question for them would be how to re-produce info on the base material that was different enough from the classic 4E base material that established players would also buy it? A PHI reprint that just had errata in it would not do enough. Changing classic 4E material to create a .5 edition that negates most/all of the classic would create a huge backlash. However, Essentials is the delicate middle ground. Base material that does not replace the classic 4E material... but rather runs alongside it. And thus they get more of a sales bump that material that includes fighters/clerics/wizards/dwarves/elves etc. traditionally generates over material that is seen as more esoteric and less desirable, like shardminds/wilden/ardents/runepriests.

(This is not to say that trying to cater to lapsed players had no influence on the design... I think using the iconography of the Red Box proves that it did... but my point was that it wasn't the primary reason for the creation of Essentials.)

 

[amerigoV]

AD&D was Rogue
2e was Dragon Warrior
3e was Diablo
4e was WoW

Clearly there cannot be a 5e, as there isn't any recent fantasy games sufficiently hated by nerds enough to use as an insult! Oh, we could try Dragon Age, but most nerds like that. And what else is there, really?

How about:

5e Farmville (or any other FB game)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I wrote a speculative article back in february predicting a 2014 launch to tie into the 40th anniversary....

And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012. I still stand by that. Probably Gencon. I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.

 

[dm4hire]

And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012. I still stand by that. Probably Gencon. I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.

Maybe Magic: The Gathering RPG??

Edit: Not saying that to be malicious, but it would be something they could release being a new D&D style RPG and bring in more nontraditional RPGers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012. I still stand by that. Probably Gencon. I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.

Maybe Magic: The Gathering RPG??

More likely "4e Revised Essentials"



RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
I'll totally give mad props to both WOTC and Paizo for their efforts in the last couple of years to bring in new gamers. <snip>

I wanted to point to the whole post, actually, but rather than copy it all, I just kept a nice little placeholder.

I tried to give you xp for your post, but I need to spread it around.

 

[Hussar]

And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012. I still stand by that. Probably Gencon. I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.

Well 2013 would be 5 years... that's a bit early IMO. They might do something like a More Essentials kind of thing, dragging together a bunch of stuff that runs alongside Essentials and Core, but, is that really a new edition?

So long as everything that comes later is meant to be played with Core, I wouldn't call it a new edition. 3.5 wasn't meant to be played with 3.0, it was meant to replace it. Skills and Powers was meant to replace most of the core stuff in 2e. Unearthed Arcana in 1e was more along the lines of a class splat, with a few new classes, but mostly add ons to existing classes so I wouldn't call the original UA a .5 edition so much simply because it wasn't really meant to be an "instead of" sort of thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think we'll see a slower release schedule, similar to what is coming out now, with incremental changes to the rules for a while to come.

I'd wait until the DDI suite is complete and good to go before I'd expect any new edition. Resource allocation for one would make releasing a new edition (a very expensive project) beyond the reach for now.