Any news out of PAX East?

[Mark CMG]

That depends on us as much as it depends on them.

Nope. WotC needs to make a top-notch, top-tier product, period. They are a leader in the industry and the success or failure of 5E is entirely on their shoulders (barring some sort of natural disaster on the West Coast). Nearly all retailers will carry it even if it isn't good and many customers will buy it, also even if it isn't good, so they already have a leg up on almost anyone else who is producing RPG materials. As we've seen in the past, there will be plenty who advocate for 5E, regardless of if it fits the needs or standards of those they try to persuade, so let's not act as if the product might live or die based on having enough fans. No, the success or failure of 5E belongs to WotC alone.

 

[gyor]

Some thougts. First they said it was the same rules with some changes, which says irteration 4 wasn't ready yet, but they at least wanted feed back on parts of it.

What was said about the Paladin was interesting, its good to know that what they plan for the class isn't just a multiclass fighter/cleric. I also am happy to know that more of what was meant by unusual class, which seems to be mostly stuff that didn't end up in a PHB, although Assassin seems uncertain as is Avenger. Also Priest from 2e was mentioned again and I think the main focus of that class will be customizablity from the way it was briefly discussed.

I also wonder what kind of moduals they'll have for FR.

Also more focus on out of combat utility for players.

Skills seem to be the thing they're having a hard problem dealing with as there doesn't seem to be any consistant thread between editions.

Themes during the playtest appear to be popular during playtest which is a good,sign, especially if that was what was updated.

Also the whole turn undead thing is interesting. Glad its back at level one.

Funny part was the question about paizo and 4.25e.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Personally the "focus on shorter games" worries me. Does it mean that they will be working more intently on shorter games or does it mean that shorter games will get the line share of attention?

It means that "Orc and Pie" will be the first published 5E adventure.

 

[Tovec]

I really believe, they should look at Enworld and chose some new playtesters... leaving out those that constantly claim that they are doing everything wrong. I mean, how big is the possibility that those posters can be satisfied by anything.
Wizard does the right thing. They are not rushing anything. They exactly copy the announcements of blizzard. First test internally. Then announce a playtest. Then offer a polished playtest game. And if the are willing to modify as much as blizzard, then nothing bad can happen.

Also those people who claim, that 4e has a shorter lifespan than 3rd edition may also be proven wrong. This playtest pattern could as well go over more than a year. I expect 5e not before 2014.

Sigh, accidentally submitted the +1 without it finishing..

I just wanted you to "remember" that 4e was released in 2008, 3e in 2000. That means unless 4e lasts another 4 years they ARE going to be shorter..
Now you could be referring to 3.5, but as you may remember WotC released the Essentials not too long ago (don't know exactly how long) but it is STILL less than 3.5 to 4.

I don't have especially anything else to comment at this point. Just wanted to clarify my +1 "Remember,".

 

[Mark CMG]

Regarding the video on the Pax East panel: One thing that stood out to me was the repeated use of the term "High Fantasy" when discussing what kind of stories could be told with 5E. This was generally used in sumation of a point or the whole discussion, despite that during the discussion they might sometimes refer to styles of play that might not cleave very close to high fantasy. Now, we all know that there needs to be some sort of baseline for play, so I have to wonder if that has been designated for the design process as the default.

Kinda fun to see them shift in their seats when someone mentioned Ryan Dancey's blogs or Paizo, though I am sure it had more to do with their being restricted in how much they can discuss such things rather than having anything to do with the actual subject matter. Though I think the staving off of OGL discussion this far into the process is another huge mistake along with their not attending Gary Con as a group for research purposes. I'm not sure how many more big mistakes they can make and still come out with a product that will draw as many customers as they need to draw to realize their own goals.

There were some good laughs and genuine moments of levity in the panel and it is clear that the design team is doing the best they can to produce a game they can be proud to sell. I hope they have good fortune doing so.

 

[Guest 85555]

Mark, i started out quite skeptical and have not been a fan of WoTc in recent years, but have to say I don't see them making any major blunders here. They are doing about as good a job as can be done so far. Unti we see the actual game we wont know how good the end product is, but I get a real impression of competence and concern here. Even with the Dancey question, i really didn't get a shifting in their seats impression. They definitely scored some points with this video.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark, i started out quite skeptical and have not been a fan of WoTc in recent years, but have to say I don't see them making any major blunders here. They are doing about as good a job as can be done so far. Unti we see the actual game we wont know how good the end product is, but I get a real impression of competence and concern here.

I agree they designers are doing the best they can. I get the same impression of confidence and concern. I wonder if they are getting the full support they need from beyond the design team, particularly regarding the OGL/GSL/Licensing decisions. As someone who has been a D&D guy since 1974, I'd love to see this succeed in ways that we haven't seen in recent years, or ever.

I'm not sure anyone needs to see the actual edition to determine if the end product is good, as far as their individual playstyle might be concerned. That's a marketing game that backfired with the last edition and I doubt folks will fall for it again. The you don't know from the hype, you don't know from the previews, you don't know from just reading, you don't know from just a few games or short campaign, you don't know unless you play for a year can that was constantly kicked down the road isn't going to work twice. They need to impress the market with concrete facts, not just a few folks saying they had fun but can't give any details. The truth that any good game master can make even the worst rules fun isn't a secret and it's only going to be reinforced if that's all anyone has to go on.

I'm not personally skeptical if they can produce a good game, though I wonder how what they will produce will stack up as a roleplaying game. I think they've been making good boardgames. I like the minis games they've made over the time WotC has held stewardship of the brand. The production quality of all of their products is some of the best in the industry. But they've been 50/50 on a viable RPG, in my own opinion, and I know they can do better.

As far as the mistakes being made, I'm using their yardstick of their wanting this to be an edition that can draw players from all editions and playstyles. It's their goal I am using as a standard, not my own. I see the need to get off the fence regarding the OGL/GSL/Licensing as majorly problematic in that, if they moved on this in a more timely manner, they would already have tons of oars in the water pulling in the same direction that are not yet committed to their goal. That's a mistake. Further, the missed opportunity to draw in the support from the players of the earlier editions by not becoming involved in the community via growing conventions like Gary Con is also a mistake. Sure, they might be able to make up for those missteps down the line but they'd clearly be in a better position if they didn't have to make up for them. There's early support they simply are not garnering through their inaction in these areas and I find that disheartening.

 

[Morrus]

I wonder if they are getting the full support they need from beyond the design team, particularly regarding the OGL/GSL/Licensing decisions.

I'd be surprised if that was anything more than a peripheral future issue on their radar right now. They're 18 months away; 10% into designing the new edition. Licensing stuff will come in a year's time at the earliest, probably much later.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'd be surprised if that was anything more than a peripheral future issue on their radar right now. They're 18 months away; 10% into designing the new edition. Licensing stuff will come in a year's time at the earliest, probably much later.

Unfortunely, the delays in the licensing the last time around, and the nature of the licensing once revealed/finalized, are in a large part what has the market so divided currently.

 

[gyor]

Stuff like the OGL invovles legal issues and so instead of focusing on that right now when the game is just starting to take shape just doesn't make sense. Maybe when they are at 50% or higher or something and have a better idea what the game looks like they can set something up.