Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[prosfilaes]

But the difference was that when 4e came along, the OGL meant Pathfinder was able to come along, favouring a different play style but still recognisably being D&D.

I don't think that was the difference. 3rd Edition was coming off 2nd Edition, which was long in the tooth, and not really loved. (Look at how little retro support there is for 2e.) They made a very good system, and at the same time kept it very faithful to the older editions of D&D. When they made 4e, 3e was still a very well loved system, and a very good system; but they choose to kill several sacred cows and make a system that, whatever virtues it may have, is very different from 3e.

My DM still runs 3.5, and I've seen a number of advertisements for 3.5 groups. A recent poll here ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308611-what-version-s-d-d-do-you-play.html ) came up with almost as many 3.5 players as Pathfinder and D&D 4 (72/77/78), so I don't think the split can be attributed to Pathfinder alone.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No, I think that at this point the market is split, and it is likely to remain so. Trying to regain the lost market now would be more likely to split that market further.

Not just a matter of folks rooting for the underdog - WotC had a great deal of goodwill that they squandered in the time leading up to the 4e announcement, and in both the rollout of the product and in the product itself.

If Paizo tried to change Pathfinder as drastically as WotC changed D&D then I think that they too would suffer the loss of their wider audience. While Paizo could make such a boneheaded decision I very much doubt that they will.

Not quite the same as saying that 4e is a bad system, merely that it did not appeal to as broad an audience as WotC might, perhaps, have hoped. A lot of those folks who left will not be coming back, I know that I won't be. Changing back to something closer to 3.X would lose WotC a portion of their 4e audience, but would be unlikely to recapture that same number of folks who prefer the 3.X architecture.

The Auld Grump

 

[Oryan77]

Wizards lost me because they made a new edition. Making another new edition is not going to bring me back.

The reason being, I have no problem with the edition I'm using. I loved it when it came out (like so many other people). It was so much easier to use correctly. I learned it very well, made lots of custom content using those rules, and 10 years later I'm practically to the point where I have enough material & tools for the edition that it takes me very little time to prep (and even convert) adventures.

Rather than remake the rules, I may have still bought books if those books were simply updated or tweaked rules. I would even still by adventures and possibly new campaign settings. But then that seemed to be what killed 2e, so I may be a minority in that market.

I don't play D&D for the rules. Once I have a set of rules that I can use to run my games in a way that I like, I'm good to go. New rules are not going to be the sole reason I switch editions. I hate learning new rules. It's a waste of my time that could be used for reading adventures and creating content for the game.

Now, rather than be so focused on the crunch aspect of D&D, if they started making books that could be used across any edition, I'd probably buy it. I don't know how possible that would be, but if by any chance there was a way to write an adventure or create fluffy content that didn't need to reference specific rules, I'd get it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Add another "No" to the list...3.X and 4Ed- not to mention previous editions- are too different to make a "Unified" edition possible, much less a success.

However, i also think that Hasbro could do like the big beverage companies do, and support more than one product in the market. IOW, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hasbro successfully supporting more than one branch of the various D&D designs as RPGs, especially with the power of the DDI behind them.

That would mean that technically, there would be no game called D&D 5Ed. Instead, there would be a 4Ed derived next edition, a 3.X derived FRPG, and maybe new material for previous editions (although some or all of that may only be available in electronic formats).

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I definitely think it's possible for a 'unification edition' of D&D that consists of a simplified core that can then be customized via expansion supplements could be successful. Would WOTC lose some of the current 4E fanbase? Yes, that's a given. But if the system is sound I believe they would gain far more lapsed players than they would lose. If the new edition had something like the OGL then I think it's chances of success increase dramatically.

 

[Wycen]

My feeeling is the only way to get 51% of the DnD players onboard a single edition again is to let it lapse for a decade and then come back. Like 3E.

 

[Pour]

Why this need for reconciliation?

 

[Stormonu]

Why this need for reconciliation?

There is a human want for people to be a part of something; to have something in common that they can talk, laugh and joke about and others understand implicitly what they're talking about. The more shared experiences we have with others, the easier we can communicate and be happier in our shared experiences.

The problem is, we can't seem to agree what elements should be included or excluded from this thing called D&D. Some - often major - elements and attitudes don't easily pass between editions, so we become frustrated and unhappy when we can't communicate our joys and experiences to others because they don't cross over edition barriers.

Yes, I know it was a rhetoric question. But I believe in the answer.

 

[Erekose]

My feeeling is the only way to get 51% of the DnD players onboard a single edition again is to let it lapse for a decade and then come back. Like 3E.

I think there's some truth in this but perhaps it's more to do with "time" rather than D&D being unsupported.

What I mean by that is people who have invested a large amount of money in 3.xE (or a particular edition) need to feel that their money has been well spent and that could take 5 years (10 years?) after the bulk of their purchasing before they feel ready to make a major investment in a new edition. If 4E has a similar lifespan as 3.xE then perhaps committed 3.xE players will be ready to take on 5E?

(Clearly this is dependent on a new edition being deemed a worthy successor to the edition the players have made their previous investment to.)

 

[Oryan77]

There is a human want for people to be a part of something; to have something in common that they can talk, laugh and joke about and others understand implicitly what they're talking about.

Not me. I don't want anyone talking about how great my edition is (3.5/PF). I'm now one of the cool mysterious guys that lingers in the dark corner with my hood pulled over my head. I watch all of those people flocking to their 4e bookshelves while I stand nearby snickering at how they play whatever the media tells them they should play.

Yes, read your precious 4e books. Absorb the new content and go have fun playing it with each other. But you'll never be as cool as me cause I'm now old-school and retro. Just wait until I update my sig with some annoying comment that reminds you how old-school I am and that my edition is better.

When 4e came along, the rest of us (1e, 2e, 3e) became legacy. Now we all get along. Maybe if 5e comes out, you'll be legacy also and we'll once again get along since we'll share something in common. But until then, I am Episode IV: A New Hope and you are JarJar Binks.