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

[Pour]

While the last two opinions are duly noted, I opened this topic in the 4e discussion forum specifically because I was more interested in 4e gamers' opinions and the affects WotC catering would have on their (our) games, but while I wouldn't be adverse to hearing the opinions of other editions' gamers (this is a free and open board after all), I wanted to avoid posturing and, potentially, edition warring.

So before it reaches that point, [MENTION=69001]darkwing[/MENTION], your opinion is duly noted, and [MENTION=2469]rangerjohn[/MENTION], thank you for the opinion, as well.

Responding to [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION] 's experience comment, is bias showing when I choose to use the word 'cater' instead of 'support'? Hm, maybe, I know I believe it's a bad idea, so yes, I suppose it was a skewed statement, to say my opinion. Good catch.

 

[darkwing]

While the last two opinions are duly noted, I opened this topic in the 4e discussion forum specifically because I was more interested in 4e gamers' opinions and the affects WotC catering would have on their (our) games

Pour, I am a 4e gamer. That being said, I respect those who prefer the older systems. Hasbro could release their back catalog in electronic form if they think they can get money for it but generating new 'old' content is a waste of their resources and interferes with innovation. What isn't a waste of resources is other companies doing so. Obviously some people prefer playing pathfinder and other systems and I'm glad companies like Paizo can make money making those people happy. I do not want to see WotC caught up in such diversions.

 

[Pour]

Pour, I am a 4e gamer. That being said, I respect those who prefer the older systems. Hasbro could release their back catalog in electronic form if they think they can get money for it but generating new 'old' content is a waste of their resources and interferes with innovation. What isn't a waste of resources is other companies doing so. Obviously some people prefer playing pathfinder and other systems and I'm glad companies like Paizo can make money making those people happy. I do not want to see WotC caught up in such diversions.

My apologies if I came off overly cautious and misunderstood your post. I've just noticed a lot of threads turning ugly lately in the General and Industry forums and wanted to avoid that if I could. I try to stay respectful, too.

Yeah, releasing past material does seem to be a popular suggestion, and a lot of us feel creating new material for other editions energy misplaced.

 

[Vaeron]

Problem is that 4e design is ALREADY compromised, and becoming increasingly more so with every update, batch of errata, or Class Compendium reimagining of pre-existing PHB1 classes to bring them into line with the new subclass structure. It's quite possible to play 4e while ignoring every bit of errata that's ever been released, but design has moved far, far away from what some of us liked when the edition first came out. 4e has already strayed from the original design philosophy, and there's a new philosophy going foreward.

In the Legends & Lore column, particularly the most recent, Player Vs Character, Mearls is talking increasingly about how "post 3e D&D", as he puts it, is missing something. To me, all this noise about earlier editions coming not just from the community but WotC itself indicates that they believe they've made mistakes with 4e, which is where all this Essentials and subclasses and old school nostalgia is coming from.

The nostalgia has been very heavy in the pages of Dragon and in the editiorial columns - even Shelly's column talked about how they were all trying 1e and how much more fun it was. They even - gasp - roleplayed, something she claims in the column never to have done in 4e.

This is definitely all headed somewhere. I would expect to see 4e design further altered along these lines. And 5e when it eventually comes about will probably be pretty retro compared to what we have now. Which, given Pathfinder's success, is maybe what people actually want.

 

[delericho]

In the Legends & Lore column, particularly the most recent, Player Vs Character, Mearls is talking increasingly about how "post 3e D&D", as he puts it, is missing something.

I believe his "post-3e D&D" includes 3e. Certainly, what he describes in the article is something that I've seen in 3e.

The nostalgia has been very heavy in the pages of Dragon and in the editiorial columns - even Shelly's column talked about how they were all trying 1e and how much more fun it was. They even - gasp - roleplayed, something she claims in the column never to have done in 4e.

Really? That's odd, and frankly a little disturbing. If WotC start their 5e push with a "you can't roleplay in 4e" meme that will be really tragic. Bashing the old edition was an awful approach in the 3e/4e transition; I sincerely hope they've learned that lesson.

This is definitely all headed somewhere. I would expect to see 4e design further altered along these lines. And 5e when it eventually comes about will probably be pretty retro compared to what we have now. Which, given Pathfinder's success, is maybe what people actually want.

Indeed. Actually, since right after 4e hit I've suspected that an eventual 5e may well be a step back, not in mechanics, but in tone. Indeed, we may see another "back to the dungeon" push.

But let's not write 4e off just yet. Mearls said at GenCon that his articles were more or less just him musing out loud. So we don't really have anything solid on which to predict the nature of 5e... nor even to say that they're seriously working on 5e.

 

[Pour]

That would be a tragic turn of events, 4e becoming 'the edition that wasn't', with too short a life span and not enough development. I'm actually in the process of putting together something to combat that, namely serious fan-based support. And everyone is invited! Stay tuned...

 

[delericho]

That would be a tragic turn of events, 4e becoming 'the edition that wasn't', with too short a life span and not enough development.

4e isn't my favourite edition, but I agree. Two reasons:

1) The designers need time to see what works and what doesn't, so that when they eventually turn to 5e they actually have some idea of how to go about making improvements.

2) Fairness. 3e had its time in the sun. 4e should be allowed the same.

I'm actually in the process of putting together something to combat that, namely serious fan-based support. And everyone is invited! Stay tuned...

I wish you luck with your project.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It depends on what you mean 'cater to.'

WotC could re-print old AD&D or 3.x books. That would be catering to past eds and not hurt 4e at all. WotC is already 'letting' Paizo cater to the 3.5 fans, and that only hurts 4e in so far as said fans get on forums like these to spew their hate.

But, can WotC try to inject 3e or AD&D 'feel' into 4e without screwing up 4e? No, not a chance. Essentials stands as an example of just how well that trick works - and it was a very restrained attempt, really.

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.

Actually, that wouldn't be at all difficult to do. Just make it an all-'fluff' suplement, no particular mechanics. Lots of companies have put out such 'useable with any game system' suplements.

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, and I want the same dedication from WotC with the current systems.

That's a reason for concern, yes. Ultimately, though, WotC is a business. And, if more customers demand that D&D be more like AD&D or 3.x and less like 4e, they'd be foolish not to sell 'em what they want.

 

[delericho]

But, can WotC try to inject 3e or AD&D 'feel' into 4e without screwing up 4e? No, not a chance. Essentials stands as an example of just how well that trick works - and it was a very restrained attempt, really.

I disagree. I think they could inject some of that 'feel', but their mistake was doing it in the mechanics. The place for that stuff is in settings and adventures.

WotC could go a long way to getting back the AD&D feel with a single sourcebook dedicated to 'gritty' dungeon-crawling. Call it the "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide"; and pack it with a much more punishing encumbrance system; rules for tracking ammunition and rations; mundane items like the 10 ft pole, iron spikes, and so on. Basically, an optional sourcebook to bring back a lot of the non-combat dungeoneering stuff that has largely disappeared in 3e and 4e.

The book should also include a significant number of weak artifacts. That sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn't: they should be unique magic items with detailed and flavourful back-stories and unique powers that aren't available from any other items. Perhaps some (or all!) of the items should be intelligent.

WotC could also do a range of "new old-school" adventure modules, running light on the plot, but also including a far wider network of available paths through the module than the current offerings (which tend heavily towards the railroad). Possibly even a megadungeon, if they dared.

And, finally, they could offer a much more 'classical' setting than the magic-heavy (and apocalyptic) Forgotten Realms, the magic-punk Eberron, or the post-apoc Dark Sun. Indeed, they might be well served by dusting off Greyhawk and offering it in an unapologetically old-school manner.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree:
4e makes roleplaying harder... in the next edition i would rather have flavour text and mechanics mixed up again, instead of RAW and RAI discussions...

the disconnection between world and rules are the biggest problem. But with the class and power structure, you need some of this disconnection, as every class, fighter and mage are locked into their chosen powers...

A rules system with basic classes, that allow to learn more than one or two tricks per level would instantly make such a disconnection less required.

Example:
On level 1, you have a power that knocks prone. Wonderful against flying monsters (the rules and the world are harmoning here), but you could imagine, that this can´t work on amorphous creatures.

I can see three solutions:

1. 4e: still works, have fun imagining it!

2. 4e, Monster vault approach*: Trait: amorphous! If an amporphous creature is knocked prone, it is dazed for one turn instead.

3. It does not work!

I like the MV approach. i call it this way, because this variant i used to fix force damage vs insubstantial creatures without feat tax! (Which warms my heart!)

To make solution 3 work, you have to allow not only retraining, but expanding the power list.
How can it work:

Easy! Scrap mages dailies. Give them the ability to use magic tomes. Make tomes wondrous items that allows mages to memorize spells each day, depending on level. Have mages start with a tome that has 2 spells in it. You can find magic scrolls and fit new spells into your book as required. Spells not memorized can be cast with a 10 min ritual and some component costs...

For fighters: Fighters know some tricks and learn some when they level up. (at will stances, and power attack)
Experienced fighters can learn new tricks from other fighters and spend power attacks to use them... Some might learn tricks that cost them a daily resource! (HS maybe)

And suddenly, having powers that don´t work are no game breakers anymore, as any character class should be able to get, with some effot and some gold, alternate powers that can be used when your inherently trained powers fail...

This way you would not only make characters more versatile, but you have a different way to spend money, an incentive to adventure as you want to expand your powers and more interaction with the world...