D&D 5E A Modest Proposal to Unify the Fanbase without D&D Next

[UngeheuerLich]

[MENTION=85633]Neuroglyph[/MENTION]

And not doing a dndnext is a ad idea, as it leaves those behind who are searching for a game that has elegant mechanics as 4e but the feel of 2nd edition. And the last iteration did no bad job at invoking the feeling that they are on the right track.

hp for first level were too high, but this was intentional as we were told. But the rest. Quite cool. Stopping the project would lose them most customers.

On the other hand, it would be a good idea to republish the core of the old editions, best with errata and such... too bad they don´t do that... oh wait, they actually do so.

 

[Neuroglyph]

Comparing how much money Paizo needs to make on a product to justify writing it to how much money WotC needs to make is like comparing the income of Suriname with that of the U.S.

The economic realities are simply very different. Paizo, despite being one of the big names in rpgs, is a small company. WotC is an arm of a huge corporation. Not at all the same. And translating all those books to a new system takes designer time and money, which is time and money not spent on the products that will make WotC more money and to support their own product line.

Not sure where are you getting these ideas. You seem to be suggesting that the profit made from 1000 Paizo books is greater than the profit of 1000 WotC books, which makes no sense.

And logically, translating a module or setting into a new system requires a fraction of the work that creating one from scratch - it's a matter of switching out crunch like encounters, stat blocks and treasure, but the fluff remains the same. And WotC IS supporting their own product lines by translating material to all the editions, reaching all D&D players - and they get bonus customers from the Pathfinder crowd. Couple all that volume of material for sale to D&D gamers and Paizo gamers with the lack of overhead that using POD and ebooks offers, and it can't help but pay for the designers time many times over.

[MENTION=85633]Neuroglyph[/MENTION]

And not doing a dndnext is a ad idea, as it leaves those behind who are searching for a game that has elegant mechanics as 4e but the feel of 2nd edition. And the last iteration did no bad job at invoking the feeling that they are on the right track.

hp for first level were too high, but this was intentional as we were told. But the rest. Quite cool. Stopping the project would lose them most customers.

On the other hand, it would be a good idea to republish the core of the old editions, best with errata and such... too bad they don´t do that... oh wait, they actually do so.

I love 4E too, but I don't see Next anything like a replacement for it as you seem to, and I'm sorry, but the mechanics don't feel all that elegant to me. I ran playtests with two different 4E groups and they hated Next - and frankly, after about 3-4 sessions, so did I.

And one of the propositions I put forward in my petition was a revamping of 4E, to smooth off some of those rough edges. Even I admit it was a far from perfect edition. Honestly, I'd instantly re-purchase a streamlined 4.5E revised game, combining Core and Essentials material with strongly edited, before I'd ever buy a 2e/3e slipshod retro-clone with a few houserules tucked onto it.

 

[billd91]

Not sure where are you getting these ideas. You seem to be suggesting that the profit made from 1000 Paizo books is greater than the profit of 1000 WotC books, which makes no sense.

But how much does each company need, in profit from materials published, to survive? We don't really know this, but most people suspect it's WotC. I'm not entirely convinced that it's true, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.

And logically, translating a module or setting into a new system requires a fraction of the work that creating one from scratch - it's a matter of switching out crunch like encounters, stat blocks and treasure, but the fluff remains the same.

That pretty much assumes you're not play testing it, which is probably true of most adventures in the first place, but could be an issue. And that assumes that the mechanics and stat blocks didn't really change that much. This would be definitely true from 1e to 2e, less true for 3e although a lot of parallels can be drawn, and even less true for 4e.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not sure where are you getting these ideas. You seem to be suggesting that the profit made from 1000 Paizo books is greater than the profit of 1000 WotC books, which makes no sense.

It's called Return on Investment. I don't consider it a defense of larger organizations, but it is an economic reality. It is the same motivation for a small cable channel like SyFy renewing a scripted show with a 2.0 rating while the same rating for a scripted show on NBC would get it cancelled well before its first season ended. The two companies have different needs and thus set different goals. What if profitable enough for one is not worth the investment for another.

 

[Mallus]

And logically, translating a module or setting into a new system requires a fraction of the work that creating one from scratch - it's a matter of switching out crunch like encounters, stat blocks and treasure, but the fluff remains the same.

I think you're underestimating the ease of conversion.

For example, 3e/Pathfinder plays much slower than AD&D. Meaning its adventures benefit from fewer encounters against more capable opponents, and the removal of most, if not all, random encounters/wandering monsters.

Whereas AD&D can use wandering monsters as a search timer, and can have many more combats with greater numbers of foes without reducing a session to a single area explored/combat.

Sure, you can do a simple conversion of AD&D to 3e/Pathfinder. But as with any quick port that glosses over system specifics, it probably won't be good.

 

[Stasis_Delirium]

I have to admit, I might just not be getting the logic behind the original proposal.

I'm not sure why a new edition must be stopped. If they had done that with 1e, we wouldn't have 2e. or 3e. Or 4e for that matter. Are these the only valid editions because they came before? Are there editions that I can lobby to not have supported for the same reason a new edition shouldn't be supported? What are the rules here?

Is it because there is belief that the core is already there, and can be added to with several earlier editions? if that's so, where do we shoe-horn in the advantage rules? The traits and background rules? Do we have to use them? And for what edition should they be used for? Do we try to jam all of those rules (rules that I see potential in, by the way.) into all of the past editions? Or just certain ones. What if people are angry because 4e didn't get the traits rules book they were promised, but the 1,2 and 3e rulesets did get it?

Who decides what support for what system gets released and what doesn't? And who deals with the molten vitriol directed at the company when 'widgets for 1e' is released before 'exploding goblins for 4e'?

And what happens if an adventure from a module written for 4th requires certain assumptions of 4th edition rules to be in play, do they change things in the older modules drastically? Do they not release that module? What about treasure types, charts, different monetary values and systems, everything else. Universality among the older editions sounds like chaos playing tennis with itself.

Does the fact that I enjoyed running and playing in the recent playtests mean that I had fun wrong? Am I a freak who's voice should be ignored because I'd like to see where this crazy 5e thing goes, for good or ill?

I have no malice towards the original post (or poster) but I just honestly don't understand a business model based on releases of older core sets only, and why any progress beyond those editions must be, at all costs, halted and destroyed.

Is it at least okay to hold off obliterating the new edition from orbit before the next playtest packet goes out? I'd at least like to see what some of the character creation rules and tactics/social/et modules are like. I just can't throw a whole edition into the bin based on one very basic glimpse at a ruleset that might have entirely changed as I write this.

I think the delicate masses might be able to withstand the withering blast of just one more packet before they throw in the towel and go back to making books for 5 systems that might not sell all 5 copies. Hasbro should be able to eat those costs though, and game/book stores seem to be happy with having to bring in multiples of five copies of one book over each of those systems.

I just don't like seeing 'what we have is good enough' as the only defense. Perhaps I'm just nuts for being curious about new design.

Genuinely confused why 'make more art' isn't the answer here.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think you're underestimating the ease of conversion.

Yes! I think he is greatly underestimating it. I'm currently running Steading of the Hill Giant Chief from Dungeon Magazine converted into 4E. You can see the great amount of work that went into the conversion just by reading the adventure. And playing it you can see how that effort pays off as one of the best 4E adventures my group has played to date. They could have done a simple, quick conversion of the original, but I think the quality would have slipped so greatly that I would not be enjoying it as much as I am.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure where are you getting these ideas. You seem to be suggesting that the profit made from 1000 Paizo books is greater than the profit of 1000 WotC books, which makes no sense.

I'd expect Paizo to have lower overhead, but WotC to have greater economies of scale, so it's possible, but hard to say.

The big difference is that the profit on 1000 books is something for Paizo to get excited about (Woot! We made payroll again this month!), while for WotC it's revenue in the 'dismal failure' range (Oohh 35,000 - only 99,965,000 to go!)

[qutoe]And logically, translating a module or setting into a new system requires a fraction of the work that creating one from scratch - it's a matter of switching out crunch like encounters, stat blocks and treasure, but the fluff remains the same. And WotC IS supporting their own product lines by translating material to all the editions, reaching all D&D players - and they get bonus customers from the Pathfinder crowd.[/quote]Makes sense.

I love 4E too, but I don't see Next anything like a replacement for it as you seem to, and I'm sorry, but the mechanics don't feel all that elegant to me. I ran playtests with two different 4E groups and they hated Next - and frankly, after about 3-4 sessions, so did I.

Yeah, but what are we going to do, buy an illegal (under the GSL) retro-clone?

And one of the propositions I put forward in my petition was a revamping of 4E, to smooth off some of those rough edges. Even I admit it was a far from perfect edition. Honestly, I'd instantly re-purchase a streamlined 4.5E revised game, combining Core and Essentials material with strongly edited, before I'd ever buy a 2e/3e slipshod retro-clone with a few houserules tucked onto it.

5e doesn't have to not happen, it just has to wait a few years, and try to be a continuing evolution of the game and face to new players, rather than a retro-nostalgic catch-all.

 

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

I'm looking forward to 5e after having been gone for a few editions. Most importantly, I wish WotC would reprint everything.

 

[Mercule]

Wow. What a really, really bad idea. You also misrepresented the "are you still playtesting" threads, unless they underwent some metamorphosis since I was participating in them. The focus wasn't that 5e sucked, but that people wanted a more complete rule set so they could really play. Sure, there were some people who didn't like it, but they weren't the norm.

Currently, WotC doesn't produce a version of D&D that my group wants to play. I hate the complexity of 3e and too many aspects of 4e to name. AD&D had great simplicity, but almost no way to differentiate one fighter (for example) from another and it never had a functional skill system. 5e looks like it'll fix a lot of my issues.

Even if it doesn't, I look at it this way: AD&D provided 15+ years of fun for me, but there were good reasons I stopped playing it. 3e was also fun for a number of years, though I parted with it on less favorable terms. I never did get much joy from 4e, but that doesn't mean it was a bad game -- it's entirely possible I just needed a break from the genre. If 5e can provide me a decade of entertainment, I will be tickled. Actually, if it only lasts for five (fun) years, I'll still be happy (that kinda goes with the "fun" part).

4e was not killed by 3e fans -- at least not directly. It died a painful death because it failed to deliver what people wanted. If 5e fails in a like manner -- and it may, if the target audience stays with Pathfinder or the retroclones -- then it will also die. At that point, 6e may look like 4e. It's more likely, though, that the D&D will cease to be published if 5e fails, but that's exactly what will happen if they continue with 4e. It would happen even faster if they followed your petition (personal opinion, not backed by dubious evidence).

 

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

Why is asking for reprints of (essentially) 1e/2e a bad idea? That's all I have played all these years. I playtested 5e and liked the direction it was heading. Much like you I find 3.x / 4 not to my tastes for the same reasons you implied.

I may or may not switch to 5e, but at the very least it will - if it continues to maintain the current design path - occupy some of my play time. Trying to let the 1e/2e editions fade away won't work as they'll just get rehashed via OGL or some other method.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yeah, but what are we going to do, buy an illegal (under the GSL) retro-clone?

I'd suspect a legal (under the OGL) - but very time-consuming to develop - retro-clone.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Hm?

Goes back to playing AD&D...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'd expect Paizo to have lower overhead, but WotC to have greater economies of scale, so it's possible, but hard to say.

Economies of scale are exactly the reason 1000 books sold by Paizo and by WotC are not equal. WotC needs to print well more than 1000 books to leverage their scale, so if they only sell 1000 books, they have more sunk costs that sit idle. A smaller company pays more per unit, but less overhead and could remain within their profit needs for the same number of books sold.

Why is asking for reprints of (essentially) 1e/2e a bad idea?

Most (if not all) are not arguing against 1e/2e reprints. Many of us enjoyed them. What's considered a bad idea by most in this thread is WotC trying to produce new material for OD&D, BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia, 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E concurrently.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm very much looking forward to 5e. I understand the distress some 4e folks have at the direction of Next. I played WFRP for 11 years and went through 4 or 5 years with an unsupported game. It's possible, it's fun, but it is a little tougher.

From WOTC perspective I would wager their thought process is something like this for reunification:

Number of Paizo folks + Number of legacy D&D players is much greater than the number of 4e players. Therefore, the new game to reunify D&D players would lean towards those rulesets.

That's my W.A.G., but I do understand why some 4e players feel abandoned.

If that's what WotC is thinking then their business planning people are quite literally incompetent and WotC D&D deserves to fail. What they need to compare is Number of Paizo folks who are unhappy enough with Paizo or who have enough desire for the D&D name to want to switch + Number of legacy D&D players who want to play a new game and are unhappy with their current one.

Paizo is better than WotC at what Paizo does - and to even think of counting the number of Paizo folks as a target market means you must be able to produce a better enough product to tear the Paizo fans away from WotC despite them all having turned away from WotC.

Legacy D&D players - a potential market too. But WotC have already had a huge try at that market - it was called 3.0.

Number of 4e players = number of people not currently playing a competing game and therefore fairly easy for WotC to get at. There are many ways to make a superior product than 4e - and 4e fans are people currently looking reflexively at WotC rather than people WotC will need to go out and get. So all else being equal, it would be much easier to get 4e players to play 5e than non-4e players.

However things aren't all equal. WotC has two bases that aren't really looking at them and they'd need serious work to convert, and the one base that needs little work they are actively pissing off.

Hm?

Goes back to playing AD&D...

Case in point Current AD&D players are happy with AD&D. Current Pathfinder players are happy with Pathfinder (and supplements are still coming out). Current 4e players are not happy with the plan for 5e.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I love 4E too, but I don't see Next anything like a replacement for it as you seem to, and I'm sorry, but the mechanics don't feel all that elegant to me. I ran playtests with two different 4E groups and they hated Next - and frankly, after about 3-4 sessions, so did I.

And one of the propositions I put forward in my petition was a revamping of 4E, to smooth off some of those rough edges. Even I admit it was a far from perfect edition. Honestly, I'd instantly re-purchase a streamlined 4.5E revised game, combining Core and Essentials material with strongly edited, before I'd ever buy a 2e/3e slipshod retro-clone with a few houserules tucked onto it.

I've said it before, and here I will say it again. You're comparing a first playtest to a game that's had a few years work. From your last sentence alone I would declare you a hostile witness.

People were upset when 3.5 was no longer supported - another company made a small industry out of it. If the loss of 4E provokes the same response, no doubt someone will cater for your tastes. You'd better hope you're in a sizable crowd there though, rather than a vocal minority.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

If that's what WotC is thinking then their business planning people are quite literally incompetent and WotC D&D deserves to fail. What they need to compare is Number of Paizo folks who are unhappy enough with Paizo or who have enough desire for the D&D name to want to switch + Number of legacy D&D players who want to play a new game and are unhappy with their current one.

Paizo is better than WotC at what Paizo does - and to even think of counting the number of Paizo folks as a target market means you must be able to produce a better enough product to tear the Paizo fans away from WotC despite them all having turned away from WotC.

Legacy D&D players - a potential market too. But WotC have already had a huge try at that market - it was called 3.0.

Number of 4e players = number of people not currently playing a competing game and therefore fairly easy for WotC to get at. There are many ways to make a superior product than 4e - and 4e fans are people currently looking reflexively at WotC rather than people WotC will need to go out and get. So all else being equal, it would be much easier to get 4e players to play 5e than non-4e players.

However things aren't all equal. WotC has two bases that aren't really looking at them and they'd need serious work to convert, and the one base that needs little work they are actively pissing off.

Case in point Current AD&D players are happy with AD&D. Current Pathfinder players are happy with Pathfinder (and supplements are still coming out). Current 4e players are not happy with the plan for 5e.

Actually, if WotC's business plan is to only pick up players unhappy with other systems then they will go bankrupt. It's clear they intend to poach players back from rival (indeed even their own old) systems. The market is a lot more flexible than you think - just look at the number of posters who have said on these forums that they will probably pick up a copy of 5E to see what it's like.

What they hope is that the number of converts they can grab from current 4E players plus current Pathfinder players plus players plus any new players that will naturally pick up a 'new' edition over any others.. (breath) ..is larger than the number of current 4E players they can hold on to.

I think they made such a great leap from 3.5 to 4 in terms of style and gameplay that they found themselves in the *wrong* market, as far as they were concerned. They want something with larger mass appeal, and if it's true that Paizo is selling more than WotC, clearly they are in the minority market. They hope to get back into the majority market - a bit like when a political party loses an election (ok, not in the US), they can either realign to the centre or current politics or drift further to their left/right wing. The question is, will 5E appeal to the majority of the market, or are they trying to capture a minority again (be it 4E or old-school players)?

 

[drothgery]

Most (if not all) are not arguing against 1e/2e reprints. Many of us enjoyed them. What's considered a bad idea by most in this thread is WotC trying to produce new material for OD&D, BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia, 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E concurrently.

Well, reprints of 3.x-era stuff (where WotC has source files) are bit different than reprints of older TSR stuff (which may not even have been created digitally, and even if it was and WotC has the files, it probably was in an obsolete format). I'd argue putting any major effort into producing reprints is a bad idea.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Case in point Current AD&D players are happy with AD&D. Current Pathfinder players are happy with Pathfinder (and supplements are still coming out). Current 4e players are not happy with the plan for 5e.

Now let's be very clear about something here, I'm not saying I don't like D&Dn; on the contrary I've playtested it, turned it over and inside out (as it currently stands). I would play it instead of AD&D if it was the only D&D being offered or if it and 4e were being offered. I know, at least, that the designer's hearts are in the right place on this one. Were I to run it regularly I'd tweak it out to be as close to AD&D as I could get it, in quite a few ways (oh "rests", how I loathe thee).

 

[Kabluey]

Why is asking for reprints of (essentially) 1e/2e a bad idea? That's all I have played all these years. I playtested 5e and liked the direction it was heading. Much like you I find 3.x / 4 not to my tastes for the same reasons you implied.

I don't think it's a bad idea for players, but I do think it's a bad idea for WotC from a business perspective. If they offer reprints of any other edition going into the future, then these editions compete with their 5E release. Right now, with 5E so far out from release, they'll release reprints - probably just to generate revenue to carry them over until 5E finally does release. But at the end of the day, Mearls & company will be judged by Hasbro on how many units 5E sells, not by how much profit WotC generates. I say this as a member of a company that just got sold by our parent company, even though we were one of their most profitable divisions. Companies - especially larger companies - don't work off a pure profit motive as most people assume. Even if it means lower profits, WotC won't want prior editions stealing sales from 5E.