Could this be the future format of 4th Edition D&D?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Roman mate!

Haven't seen you around in a while, I hope you are keeping well?

This is a truly horrible idea.

Okay lets get down to it.

It is a terrible idea on a personal/gaming level for me and I would not buy a new edition of D&D of that nature. A sampling of reasons:

1) I do not play with miniatures, battlemats or cards and will not pay for them. As long as they are an option to buy for those who want them, I am satisfied, but if they are forced upon me... no thanks!

Why is that, are you allergic to plastic?

2) Required use of miniatures, battlemats or cards would make me abandon the game, as would rules that truly force you to use them implicitly by making it a wholly different game if you do not.

Isn't this the same argument you tried to peddle with your first point - are you are just stringing it out to look like you have more of an argument?

3) I dislike the idea of the boxed set format, which cannot be efficiently stored in a bookshelf, though this point is less important than the others.

That is a valid, if minor point.

I did want to make the boxed sets look like faux-tomes, so in terms of height breadth they wouldn't be much bigger than typical books. In terms of depth I think something akin to the Planescape boxed sets 2-3 inches should suffice.

4) The nature of the game would be much more limiting based on module than D&D is based on rulebooks. D&D core rulebooks allow you to emulate almost any fantasy situation you desire, though of course with not as much detail as with additional rulebooks. Based on what I read about your system here and on the thread where you initially proposed it, the thematic modules would only allow you to simulate the themes presented therein. This is a huge minus for myself and this alone would be sufficient reason not to purchase the game.

One element of this is that you are basing one boxed set against three core rulebooks.

With 2-3 sets I think you could duplicate 90%+ of any adventure layout (in terms of what you see from published adventures and Dungeon magazine).

Now I admit that even with 2-3 boxed sets you are still not going to have infinite options but given that if you are not already using board tiles you must be laying out maps with pencil on graph paper. Which means you are already not too worried how different your actual dungeon layouts look!

5) The visceral nature of the game you propose is a major minus, since unlike D&D it has to be played around a static table, whereas D&D can be played on the go or anywhere else.

The rules still function without the board and minis - so that point is easily rebuked.
Also 99% of people play around a table, so its a minor nitpick.

Apart from my personal aversion to the game you propose, were it to actually become the next version of D&D, it would almost certainly kill the D&D brand and WotC (unless they could recoup their losses from Magic the Gathering or other activities).

Is this in reply to my initial idea of Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs? If so a number of people have swayed me into accepting possibly:

Dungeons & Dragons - Adventure Game [Insert Subtitle with the appropriate word in it]

First of all, there is no evidence that it is in some kind of crisis.

The 3.5 release schedule is drying up. Thats not to say what is being released IS not selling well, but its going to reach a saturation point where we have seen everything 3.5 has to offer without getting ultra specific in terms of content.

Contrary to your previous statements, 3.5E sold fine in terms of core rulebooks,

Never said it didn't. In fact I have quoted many times that I think 4th Edition core rulebooks would be a good seller. Its the books after that I don't see selling well.

as did the supplement books that followed it, some of which mostly rehashed 3.0E material.

Only one was a reprint of a non core book, no other book contained more than 50% rehashed material and they were from b&w splatbooks.

Given those facts, it is rather mysterious how you arrive at the conclusion that people will simply not buy 4E D&D if it is of the PnP variety. Although I suspect that when 4E does come out, some people will indeed stick with 3.5E, it will likely do sufficiently well to be comercially successful.

I think they'll buy the core rulebooks (as would I) but will realise that everything after that has already been done during 3/3.5's lifespan. Which wasn't the case when the transition from 3 to 3.5 happened.

BTW: Since you mentioned that you have not seen/hear anybody say/write/type that they will buy a 4th Edition of D&D if it is PnP, let me be the first to do so: I will buy a 4th Edition of D&D.*

I didn't say that at all. I said I hadn't heard anyone give any reasons why there should be a PnP 4th Ed.

I didn't say it wouldn't be successful, simply that it wouldn't be successful beyond the core rulebooks because we have already 3/3.5 fresh in our minds and wallets and they already cater to every type of book you could want.

*Provided that:
1) It remains a PnP game
2) I like the rules presented therein more than the current crop of rules
3) The price is reasonable (current prices, for example, would be fine)

So if someone already owns every 3.5 Eberron book do you see them buying the same material 'again' under the new tweaked 4E ruleset? I can't see it.

D&D is the dominant game in the PnP RPG market and is doing well. Yet, your proposal seeks to essentially destroy this advantage and remove D&D from its niche into the board-game market, where it does not have any advantage over existing incumbents and where its brand-name does not hold as much water.

Not exactly. My proposal is to keep 3.5 on sale, but at the same time create a more user friendly game we can sell to the mainstream.

The proposals outlined in your first post would alienate a vast section of existing player-base -

As will any 4th Ed. regardless of format.

that is people who are very important for introducing new players to the game. Look at the poll for evidence, sure it is not representative, but when only 3.66% of the quite significant number of responses are in favour of evolving D&D in the direction you proffer, you know the idea is not a winner.

On the contrary, look at how many people would like the idea as long as its not called 4th edition.

As the poll shows, many D&D players are liable to dislike the changes you make. Equally, or even more importantly, though, is the perception your idea creates that the game you are proposing is a board game, rather than a roleplaying game with board game elements.

A popular misconception.

This is an inherent part of your proposal, as it is exactly its purpose, since that is how you intend to attract new players to the game. It is, however, also its major weakness and would discourage a large number of RPG players from getting such a game and at the same time it would give the game little to compete with other, more established boardgames.

Any 4E or whatever you want to call it will discourage a large number of D&D players at this point.

U_K, you are a creative person, but it seems you simply latched on to this idea too strongly.

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a better idea of what WotC should do next.

The overwhelming opposition to your proposal should not make you defensive - that will not win people over to supporting the idea.

I don't think I have been overtly defensive, point by point debating is my style in any forum discussion.

If you want to play the role of a designer, it would be more prudent to look at the results of this poll and try to evolve the game in a completely different direction.

The problem with that notion is that no one here can suggest a better solution, so while my direction might be unpopular with ENWorlders, I think any change at this point will be unpopular. So if you're WotC you probably end up going for the idea that will make the most money...which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format (even if it is a wolf in sheep's clothing).

 

[Roman]

Hey Roman mate!

Haven't seen you around in a while, I hope you are keeping well?

Not too badly at least

I don't have time today for a lengthy discussion, so I will only touch on some topics.

Isn't this the same argument you tried to peddle with your first point - are you are just stringing it out to look like you have more of an argument?

No. The first point highlights my dislike of bundling miniatures, boards and cards with a D&D game, meaning that if you buy the game you automatically pay for them too even if you don't want to use them. The second point deals with my dislike of actually being required to use miniatures, boards and cards by the rules. Furthermore, that post showed just a small sample of my dislikes, which include other issues, such as the proposed major simplification of the rules (I like the current level of complexity), the fact that I would be forced to rebuy (in reality, of course, I would not buy this at all, as is apparent from my post) the same set of rules so as to enable each module to be a standalone product, etcetera. In any case, since my personal reasons for disliking the proposal are less relevant at this point than the commercial aspects and because I have limited amount of time, I will move to them instead.

Is this in reply to my initial idea of Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs? If so a number of people have swayed me into accepting possibly:

Dungeons & Dragons - Adventure Game [Insert Subtitle with the appropriate word in it]

Well that too, but it was more a response to your presumption that the game would be commercially successful, whereas I think that it would be a commercial flop (it may make a some profit but nowhere near as much as a normal PnP edition of D&D) and tarnish the D&D brand among many RPG players as they would moved away from the game in droves.

The 3.5 release schedule is drying up. Thats not to say what is being released IS not selling well, but its going to reach a saturation point where we have seen everything 3.5 has to offer without getting ultra specific in terms of content.

That is a bit difficult to judge. So far, the sales appear to be good and whether the creative minds at WotC come up with new stuff or not is difficult to tell. At the point they do, they may switch to the 4th edition, or 3.75 edition or something similar.

Never said it didn't. In fact I have quoted many times that I think 4th Edition core rulebooks would be a good seller. Its the books after that I don't see selling well.

The core rulebooks, however, are the primary drivers of profit in D&D. Also, I don't see why later books would sell badly.

Only one was a reprint of a non core book, no other book contained more than 50% rehashed material and they were from b&w splatbooks.

That is really not an issue. 4E books also would not contain rehashed material - they would make use of the newly introduced mechanics to deal with the same topics as 3E and 3.5E books but in a different manner.

I think they'll buy the core rulebooks (as would I) but will realise that everything after that has already been done during 3/3.5's lifespan. Which wasn't the case when the transition from 3 to 3.5 happened.

This is no different from other edition transitions, though, and the fact that other books deal with the same topics but with mechanics tied in to 4E will make people buy them.

So if someone already owns every 3.5 Eberron book do you see them buying the same material 'again' under the new tweaked 4E ruleset? I can't see it.

Well, look at the transition from 2E to 3E or even the transition from 3E to 3.5E.

[/quote]Not exactly. My proposal is to keep 3.5 on sale, but at the same time create a more user friendly game we can sell to the mainstream.[/quote]

That's not what your initial post said. There, you mention wanting to make the 4th edition of D&D in the form of the system you decribe.

As will any 4th Ed. regardless of format.

Any new edition will drive away some players, but a one which departs radically from the popular conception of RPGs will do so to a much larger degree.

On the contrary, look at how many people would like the idea as long as its not called 4th edition.

Only 3.64% of the respondents want to see D&D evolve in this direction. 73.33% don't like the idea for any kind of game.

A popular misconception.

Maybe, but an important one in marketing terms. You cannot really have it both ways. If you market the game as a board game, which is the entire point of your proposal to entice new players, you will create the perception that it is a board game.

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a better idea of what WotC should do next.

Carry on releasing books for the 3.5E and when they run out of ideas and/or the books stop selling well, WotC should release the next PnP Edition of the game, where it will further improve on the current crop of rules and thus create a perceived need for a new edition. Standard plan, really - and it will very likely work.

The problem with that notion is that no one here can suggest a better solution, so while my direction might be unpopular with ENWorlders, I think any change at this point will be unpopular. So if you're WotC you probably end up going for the idea that will make the most money...which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format (even if it is a wolf in sheep's clothing).

See my previous points.

 

[VictorC]

The problem with that notion is that no one here can suggest a better solution, so while my direction might be unpopular with ENWorlders, I think any change at this point will be unpopular. So if you're WotC you probably end up going for the idea that will make the most money...which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format (even if it is a wolf in sheep's clothing).

Just because no one has made any suggestion (I say any because any suggestion would be better) dosn't mean they can't. I personally think it would be a better idea for wizards to stop making dnd then to turn it into some super lame boardgame crap.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Better Idea?

Release a 4e that is closer to 3.5e in terms of "old stuff" compatibility than 3.5 was to 3.0.

Keep "mini-friendly" rules to drive mini-sales and support the company. Don't require minis.

It's the Miko-like leaps of logic that get me.

The problem with that notion is that no one here can suggest a better solution, so while my direction might be unpopular with ENWorlders, I think any change at this point will be unpopular. So if you're WotC you probably end up going for the idea that will make the most money...which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format (even if it is a wolf in sheep's clothing).

1) The fact that no one in a thread that only stays bumped because its originator posts line by line replies to nearly everyone can suggest a better solution is listed as a premise of your argument. This is akin to Dr. Gene Ray claiming that Time Cube is right because no one from stupid evil academia has disproved it to his satisfaction.

2) Your idea is overwhelmingly disliked by ENWorlders, but you assume that an unspecified PnP 4E would be roughly as unpopular. Can you show a poll that shows that even 50% of ENWorlders would not by 4e if it came out in the next two years?

3) You assume that WotC's response to poor projected uptake of a new edition would be to "make the most money... which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format." Actually, they would go with the highest ROI rather than straight revenue, and I think would be far more likely to cease production on the entire brand and move the resources elsewhere than to try to spend resource trying to shift to a more mainstream audience, where the D&D brand means, "Satanism, Killing Families, Nerds, and an appalingly bad movie"

 

[llamatron2000]

I actually like this idea. A lot. As long as its done right, and not stupidly. It would be a great way to package miniatures, at least. I mean...think of it this way:

What if with your class splatbook, you got a magic-involved or mage-centric adventure or two, a couple of battlemats for the quests, mage and familiar-specific miniatures? What if they included spell cards, so you could keep track of prepared spells more easily? I mean...it doesn't sound like such a bad idea then. Make it boardgame-like for those who wish to do it like that, but keep the advanced ruleset there. I like D20. I think the rules as they are, are at the right level of complexity(maybe a bit too complex if you move past core 3.5)

I like the idea because it would put specific, useful miniatures in the player's hands more easily. I'd easily blow 50+ dollars for lets say, Fiendish Codex II. If they packaged it with updated versions of lets say....Fires of Dis, and give a good assortment of demon/devil miniatures with the package, hell-related battlemats, and all that jazz. Okay, so it might cost more than 50 bucks.

The cost is the real problem with the boxed-set format. It costs a lot to produce, and a lot to buy. You'd have to make sure that your boxed sets sold. Not only that, I'm sure that more than one D&D player might be embarrassed to be caught buying a box of action figures, rather than picking up a book or two. Yes, there are still people reluctant to say that they're roleplayers. But cost, more than any other barrier, really. Bookshelf space, not so large of one. Just make them (fat) book sized.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Roman matey!

apologies for the slow reply was really busy on Thursday and then away from the computer most of Friday.

Not too badly at least

Glad to hear it dude!

I don't have time today for a lengthy discussion, so I will only touch on some topics.

Fair enough.

No. The first point highlights my dislike of bundling miniatures, boards and cards with a D&D game, meaning that if you buy the game you automatically pay for them too even if you don't want to use them. The second point deals with my dislike of actually being required to use miniatures, boards and cards by the rules.

Still seems like one point to me, and in fairness you didn't give a reason why you disliked minis, cards etc.

Not saying you can't be subjective on the matter, but you haven't actually stated whats 'wrong' with cards, minis and so forth.

Furthermore, that post showed just a small sample of my dislikes, which include other issues, such as the proposed major simplification of the rules (I like the current level of complexity),

A simplification of the rules to better help and attract new gamers and casual gamers.

But I have also said that we would include an Advanced Rulebook for those who want more detail.

So you can tailor the level of difficulty to your needs. You can play the game without the minis and board tiles. You can add character sheets if you so wish.

the fact that I would be forced to rebuy (in reality, of course, I would not buy this at all, as is apparent from my post) the same set of rules so as to enable each module to be a standalone product, etcetera.

Again, the Rulebooks would be short and inoffensive, so I don't really see this as a major issue. They will only comprise a very small fraction of the cost of the boxed set.

Every new boxed set would have new feats, new classes/prestige classes, potentially new races, new monsters, new spells and new magic items. So each set has a lot of variety.

In any case, since my personal reasons for disliking the proposal are less relevant at this point than the commercial aspects and because I have limited amount of time, I will move to them instead.

Okay.

Well that too, but it was more a response to your presumption that the game would be commercially successful, whereas I think that it would be a commercial flop (it may make a some profit but nowhere near as much as a normal PnP edition of D&D) and tarnish the D&D brand among many RPG players as they would moved away from the game in droves.

I don't see how it could make less money than PnP D&D. You would be opening up to a much wider audience.

As for 'tarnishing the brand', the D&D Basic Game nor the D&D Boardgame didn't tarnish it - so why would this*.

*Unless again this is a comment on the Dungeons & pirates nomenclature, which I have already said I could wave goodbye to.

That is a bit difficult to judge. So far, the sales appear to be good and whether the creative minds at WotC come up with new stuff or not is difficult to tell. At the point they do, they may switch to the 4th edition, or 3.75 edition or something similar.

I think 3.5 has all the bases covered right about now. Therefore continued products are either going to be retreads or ultra specific (and therefore appealing to a smaller percentage of roleplayers).

The core rulebooks, however, are the primary drivers of profit in D&D. Also,

I agree, but what percentage of all 3/3.5 revenue do they bring in I wonder - maybe Ryan Dancey could tell us?

I don't see why later books would sell badly.

I just don't see the incentive in buying a rehash of a book that came out 2-3 years ago. It makes a modicum of sense with the core rulebooks because they are very crunch heavy. But it is a total waste of time for so many other books that I just don't see any reason for it.

That is really not an issue. 4E books also would not contain rehashed material - they would make use of the newly introduced mechanics to deal with the same topics as 3E and 3.5E books but in a different manner.

I think this boils down to the mechanics themselves and the crunch/fluff ratio of the book.

This is no different from other edition transitions, though, and the fact that other books deal with the same topics but with mechanics tied in to 4E will make people buy them.

It is different from other edition transitions because its too soon to rehash existing books. When they changed from 3 to 3.5 they still had dozens of topics to cover and the initial 3E splatbooks were black and white - so there was half an excuse to make them full colour.

Well, look at the transition from 2E to 3E or even the transition from 3E to 3.5E.

Second Edition was basically 1.25 Edition. Which means that 3E was updating rules over 20 years old AND bringing everything into full colour, glossy beauty.

The change from 3E's introduction to 3.5E happened so quickly that they didn't have too many products to rehash. But this time around nearly every major release will be a rehash.

That's not what your initial post said. There, you mention wanting to make the 4th edition of D&D in the form of the system you decribe.

Well its more a case of wanting the Next Big Thing (which was the name of the initial thread where someone asked me to create a poll...this thread). I simply used 4th Edition in the thread title to get more people to look in (a bit like having Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Cove, might attract people who like Pirates into buying D&D).

Any new edition will drive away some players, but a one which departs radically from the popular conception of RPGs will do so to a much larger degree.

In the case of a PnP 4th Ed. I disagree simply because there will be no incentive to buy anything past the core rulebooks.

If the 4E rules are as similar to 3.5 as 3.5 was to 3, then that means I can still use 99% of the feats from all the books I have purchased.

If the 4E rules are very different (and to be honest I don't see how*, any guesses anyone?)

*Armour as Damage Reduction might be one major rule they could go with, but beyond that I think its just going to be a lot of tidying up, streamlining and nit-picking.

Only 3.64% of the respondents want to see D&D evolve in this direction. 73.33% don't like the idea for any kind of game.

Well it will be very interesting to see how everything pans out over the next few years.

Maybe, but an important one in marketing terms. You cannot really have it both ways. If you market the game as a board game, which is the entire point of your proposal to entice new players, you will create the perception that it is a board game.

To the untrained eye, yes. But to the gamers who frequent the internet, read Dragon magazine and so forth, they will know different.

I think the entire tete-a-tete between Ranger REG and myself was him pushing the genius of gamer geeks over the dumb sports jock - which I assume was a metaphor for the mass market. So if they are that smart they will figure it out - especially if the marketing in gaming press is properly handled.

Carry on releasing books for the 3.5E and when they run out of ideas and/or the books stop selling well, WotC should release the next PnP Edition of the game, where it will further improve on the current crop of rules and thus create a perceived need for a new edition. Standard plan, really - and it will very likely work.

I think it might work in the short term (with the core rulebooks) but is doomed to failure in the long term. I don't see a PnP 4th Edition bringing in new gamers either. Which means that your slice of the market is existing 3.5 gamers minus those who want to stick with 3.5.

Its an ever decreasing market base.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey VictorC!

Just because no one has made any suggestion (I say any because any suggestion would be better) dosn't mean they can't.

I think it does.

I personally think it would be a better idea for wizards to stop making dnd then to turn it into some super lame boardgame crap.

Sounds like quite a money-spinner of an idea you have there.

 

[Cam Banks]

I think it does.

I think this is where the problem is.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Charwoman Gene!

Better Idea?

Release a 4e that is closer to 3.5e in terms of "old stuff" compatibility than 3.5 was to 3.0.

Okay, and how does that sell books other than the core rulesbooks? How does that expand the market? How does that steal casual gamers away from other hobbies?

Keep "mini-friendly" rules to drive mini-sales and support the company. Don't require minis.

Again I don't see what my incentive is to buy anything beyond the core rulebooks.

It's the Miko-like leaps of logic that get me.

Take the blinkers off, think things through and look beyond simply trying to keep the status quo.

1) The fact that no one in a thread that only stays bumped because its originator posts line by line replies to nearly everyone can suggest a better solution is listed as a premise of your argument.

Surely thats only common courtesy to take the time to reply to peoples responses. How is that bumping?

This is akin to Dr. Gene Ray claiming that Time Cube is right because no one from stupid evil academia has disproved it to his satisfaction.

The difference is that I am not claiming to have the right answer, simply the best answer to date. Its not a black and white issue.

2) Your idea is overwhelmingly disliked by ENWorlders, but you assume that an unspecified PnP 4E would be roughly as unpopular. Can you show a poll that shows that even 50% of ENWorlders would not by 4e if it came out in the next two years?

Given that I have repeatedly stated I think the 4E core rulebooks would sell well, and that 4E to most people 'means ' the core rulebooks, I think the answers would be totally skewed. You wouldn't get to the crux of what I am saying which is the books after the core rulebooks will sell badly if they are rehashes.

3.5 has already covered 95%+ of the main topics, therefore there is very little 4E could do that would not be a rehash in some way.

3) You assume that WotC's response to poor projected uptake of a new edition would be to "make the most money... which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format." Actually, they would go with the highest ROI rather than straight revenue,

I meant return on investment, not straight revenue. While the profits on individual boxed sets may be half (?) they are on books, if you sell 5 or 10 (?) times more by entering the mainstream then it won't matter.

and I think would be far more likely to cease production on the entire brand and move the resources elsewhere than to try to spend resource trying to shift to a more mainstream audience, where the D&D brand means, "Satanism, Killing Families, Nerds, and an appalingly bad movie"

Is this the same mainstream audience that has been turned off Harry Potter from being a success...because its satanic, killing familes, nerdish and bookish*.

*Okay, D&D needs a good movie, I'll grant you that, although somepeople would already say its already had three good movies called Lord of the Rings.

 

[crazy_cat]

I think this is where the problem is.

QFT. I think most many ENWorlders had agreed on this by about the beginning of page 2 of this thread.

We're now on page 7 - and over a third of the total posts are by Upper_Krust basically refusing to accept that anybody who disagrees with the basic premise of 4e as a board game with cards and minis could be in any way making a valid point, no matter how they structure their argument.

This despite the fact that less than 4% or respondants to the poll agree with the idea, and the fact that there is actually no evidence whatsoever being produced to back the claim that 4e won't sell if it is simply a PnP game - which seems to be the central premise behind hybridising the game beyond all recognition in an attempt to make it mainstream.