D&D 4E Can WotC Cater to Past Editions Without Compromising 4e Design?

[Pour]

This discussion was started in the speculation thread involving the 2012 setting, but seems worthy of its own thread, basically what the title asks: Can WotC cater to past editions without compromising 4e design? Is it a question of resources, time, money? Is it worth it? What is gained or lost?

My own personal take is that something is compromised by, for instance, creating a campaign setting compatible with every edition as opposed to solely 4e. I'm not sure it has anything to do with money or manpower, but much more design direction. My biggest fear for D&D is for it to roll backward mechanically. The past editions are all alive and well, they are mostly being supported one way or another (though in a past thread someone did mention the original 3.5e technically isn't being supported, and I'm sure there's other pockets that aren't being catered to directly), and I want the same dedication from WotC with the current systems. I want their sole concern to be the development of the 4e framework and pushing the concepts forward, in creating new and uniquely 4e settings and classics, not, though [MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION] will argue with me here, fall into an apologist rut, and by that I mean revert back to older designs without at least assessing their validity in the current design paradigms and mechanics, or, in the example above, working on past mechanics completely removed from 4e mechanics at the expense of 4e material in attempts to be more universal.

Scribble brought up that this belief is akin to the idea the board games are detracting from 4e, but I argue expanding the IP into board games, miniature games, video games, does not detract from the current edition in the same way WotC actively creating material for past editions does (and quite honestly I don't feel the board games detract at all). I just can't seem to figure out why I feel that way. Maybe I'm being irrational, overly-defensive of what I feel is a solid system. There is something to be said, however, in WotC working within 4th edition and branching into new territory and it including older editions into its developments.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it is more a matter of degree than anything else. Can some things be made optional and things tweaked to a certain degree so that you can play a 'simple version' of the game? Yeah, though it leaves open the question of what other supporting material assumes you are using for rules.

It also depends on what you mean by 'cater to older editions'.

 

[SSquirrel]

From reading many, many threads here at ENWorld, it seems like a large chunk of the people who dislike 4E won't be happy until things are rolled back to 3.5. That just is not going to happen. Are there things 4E could simplify? Certainly. Condition tracking could be much simplified I think. It can certainly get a bit crazy as it stands right now. I don't want classes remade in the MBA image of Essentials, but I think if all the classes had been built w/1 prime attribute and then a couple of possible secondaries, rather than a couple of possible prime stats in many cases, it could have streamlined powers a lot.

Honestly tho, I'm one of the people who was happy to get away from 3.5, so it doesn't bother me much if they don't reach back to 3.5. I just want to make sure that future class design still allows for more options like earlier classes do.

 

[ourchair]

This discussion was started in the speculation thread involving the 2012 setting, but seems worthy of its own thread, basically what the title asks: Can WotC cater to past editions without compromising 4e design? Is it a question of resources, time, money? Is it worth it? What is gained or lost?

My own personal take is that something is compromised by, for instance, creating a campaign setting compatible with every edition as opposed to solely 4e. I'm not sure it has anything to do with money or manpower, but much more design direction. My biggest fear for D&D is for it to roll backward mechanically. (...) I want their sole concern to be the development of the 4e framework and pushing the concepts forward, in creating new and uniquely 4e settings and classics, not, though [MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION] will argue with me here, fall into an apologist rut, and by that I mean revert back to older designs without at least assessing their validity in the current design paradigms and mechanics, or, in the example above, working on past mechanics completely removed from 4e mechanics at the expense of 4e material in attempts to be more universal.

If you're alluding to the concept of an opt-in/tiered level of complexity that Mearls has been brain-stewing as a possiblity for a future edition, and figuring out how to translate that into future products (i.e. a campaigns setting that is all Es at once!) I can't actually imagine what that's like even though I'm sure it's possible (and would take a decade worth of playtesting)

But I agree with you, I think WotC should be looking at developing the current paradigm, and if they are really interested in supporting past models (i.e. design philosophies implied by previous editions) then at the very most that should be something that exists in supplementary material (perhaps Insider/mag content that talks about say converting Orcs of Stonefang Pass into a 3e adventure). It would definitely make the Insider subscription look more attractive, I think.

That said, I dislike the notion of trying to dilute current products by making them edition-inclusive. As it is, I'm unhappy with how Amethyst has a great setting but the 4e books go painfully against the grain of 4e concepts and design philosophy (no offense to the creator, who I know is on this board) and reads like a 3e book catering to a current edition. So, if WotC catered to past editions, I worry it would look like Amethyst and compromise the 4e design ideology

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think WOTC is thinking of ways to cater to old fans and customers in 4E as well as this theoretical 5E thing. Is there a way to do it?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

It all depends on what you have to do. Some people want the old, and nothing new, jsut support. Nothing extreme can be done with them as far as new rules and rulebooks, I fear. Maybe some modules or occasional dragon articles.

But if people want 4E (or5E) to follow the playstyle and complexity of earlier editions, I think it is possible. Essentials is closer, at least some of its classes are. Would it be possible to do a 4E book with simpler classes? (a newer new red box) I sure think so.

I think WOTC is thinking hard about this question, but it is a very hard question.

 

[Pentius]

Personally, I think that catering to old edition styles and keeping what they have in 4e are opposite sides of a dichotomy. I would love to be proven wrong, though.

 

[Windjammer]

In theory, it's that's a false dichotomy. If WotC thought it economically worthwhile to pursue older edition support - which so far they haven't, but GenCon rumors seem to indicate a possible change of heart - they could easily hire two to three guys to take care of older edition stuff, much like Bart Carroll and Steve Winter are doing now, except they aren't full time jobs nor are they doing design work. Or just outsource it, like 90% of current 4E output anyway. If Goodman Games can produce 1E modules, it can't be an ordeal for WotC, or can it?

In practice, it's nto a false dichotomy at all. Because, as for 'compromising their efforts dedicated to 4E'.... Well, what's the last time you saw something coming out of WotC that seriously enriched your 4E experience, that expanded the design space at your table with options that were interesting and worthwhile to pursue? It seems 4E has already been compromised long ago, by other design work, some of it behind the scenes, and other in the boardgame sector. (Inflammatory remark: Essentials 'compromised' 4E efforts by playing to the 3.x crowd.) And WotC isn't willing to hire additional muscle to keep 4E output strong and alive. So yes, I guess catering to older edition is another nail in that coffin. Unless they hire additional personell.

 

[delericho]

Can WotC cater to past editions without compromising 4e design?

No. Because...

Is it a question of resources, time, money?

Yes. WotC are already down to a skeleton crew working on RPG-D&D. Every person who is working on old-edition stuff (or, equally, 5e) is one less person working on 4e. And 4e can't afford to lose any more people.

WotC could hire some new people to do this work, of course, but I don't see it happening - any more than I see the 4e design team expanding in the near future.

There are two things WotC could do fairly painlessly: they could start accepting old-edition submissions for eDragon/eDungeon, and they could make the PDFs of old editions available again. I would expect one or both of these to be done... but I'd be very surprised if they did anything beyond those two.

Is it worth it?

No.

Important caveat: I have no numbers on which to base the following; it's purely my gut feel.

WotC have almost nothing to offer old-edition players. They already have the rules they need, or can get them easily enough through the retro-clones. They already have the adventures they need, and can get new material from other sources. And WotC do not have any reputation for producing old-edition material, and their reputation for adventures is remarkably poor.

Just about the only thing WotC could offer are reprints of the 'classic' adventures, and maybe reprints of the old edition rulebooks. But the market for these things will be very small, and so the price WotC would have to charge would almost certainly kill the project stone dead.

What is gained or lost?

Gained: goodwill, and maybe a few sales.

Lost: Nothing, except that every body working on this is one less on 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No. Because...



Yes. WotC are already down to a skeleton crew working on RPG-D&D. Every person who is working on old-edition stuff (or, equally, 5e) is one less person working on 4e. And 4e can't afford to lose any more people.

WotC could hire some new people to do this work, of course, but I don't see it happening - any more than I see the 4e design team expanding in the near future.

There are two things WotC could do fairly painlessly: they could start accepting old-edition submissions for eDragon/eDungeon, and they could make the PDFs of old editions available again. I would expect one or both of these to be done... but I'd be very surprised if they did anything beyond those two.



No.

Important caveat: I have no numbers on which to base the following; it's purely my gut feel.

WotC have almost nothing to offer old-edition players. They already have the rules they need, or can get them easily enough through the retro-clones. They already have the adventures they need, and can get new material from other sources. And WotC do not have any reputation for producing old-edition material, and their reputation for adventures is remarkably poor.

Just about the only thing WotC could offer are reprints of the 'classic' adventures, and maybe reprints of the old edition rulebooks. But the market for these things will be very small, and so the price WotC would have to charge would almost certainly kill the project stone dead.



Gained: goodwill, and maybe a few sales.

Lost: Nothing, except that every body working on this is one less on 4e.

Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on all of this. WotC could fritter away resources supporting 5 different major old editions of D&D, each to some minuscule degree, or they can keep going forward. Once you commit yourself to a direction the worst thing you can do is get 3/4 of the way up the hill and then start second guessing yourself and end up back at the bottom with little to show for it.

Frankly I just don't think all the hand-wringing about 4e is warranted anyway. It's a mature game system. They continue to support it. Despite all the teeth gnashing on this or that board there's no big huge upset of philosophy or direction nor some vast failure to provide ongoing support and material.

I get that Mike wants to project a vision of being all-inclusive and having every fan of every niche of the D&D community all warm and fuzzy about how he values them and caters to them. That's fine, wonderful and all, but at the same time what REALLY is the practical effect of all of that?

WotC has NOTHING to offer to 3.x players that they can't get from Paizo, and even if they could do something there it would make very little sense to provide additional support to someone else's game that they already 5 years ago made a decision they needed to update. 1e? 2e? There are small numbers of people playing AD&D, sure, but again the market is basically retro clones and it seems unlikely there's a vast demand for additions to the huge pile of stuff that has accumulated over the last 30 years. About all they could do there would be to put out some old PDFs, which would be nice but is hardly worth more than the most marginal time and effort. The same goes for BECMI, and actual genuine old D&D is not even worth thinking about. The game was barely comprehensible to start with and has nothing over Basic even there were some huge pent up demand.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on all of this. WotC could fritter away resources supporting 5 different major old editions of D&D, each to some minuscule degree, or they can keep going forward.

Indeed. At some point, WotC will decide to go with 5e. Until that time, they should focus on making 4e as good as it can be.

(And I say that despite not being a 4e fan. But I'd rather WotC thrive having left me behind, than see them try to sell me stuff and end up failing.)

1e? 2e? There are small numbers of people playing AD&D,

Actually, I think that may be the crux of it. How many people play D&D (all versions, including Pathfinder)? How many play 4e?

My guess would be that there's probably somewhere between 1.5m and 2m people playing D&D on a regular basis (based on WotC's numbers of last year, allowing for some growth), and I would further guess that of those about 45% play 4e, 40% play Pathfinder, and 20% play older editions/retro-clones. (The numbers don't add up to 100% because there's some overlap - I for one play both 3.5e and 4e.)

So, one might indeed be tempted to look at that, conclude that "more people play non-4e D&D than play 4e", and therefore conclude further that one should seek to 'support' older editions.

But...

Even if it is right that more people play non-4e D&D than play 4e, there's still a big gap between playing the edition and buying books for the edition. After all, a lot of the appeal of the retro-clones seems to be the "do it yourself" mindset. And, what's more, anything WotC does produce will inherently be a high-end luxury product. Of the subset of a subset who do buy things for old editions, how many are going to be in the market for a $35 book of monsters, and from a company that doesn't have a track record in the edition?

I can certainly see WotC making the PDFs available again. I can just about see them redoing the PDFs in higher quality versions. If they do that, I can then see them offering print-on-demand as an option. But I really cannot see them doing new products for old editions (beyond the occasional eDragon article), and even if they do I cannot see them making a success of it.