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

[P1NBACK]

Build it and they will come.

 

[Maggan]

Build it and they will come.

Build it and the will come ... to complain.

At least that's my theory, which is mine.

/M

(EDIT: props for Riley and Basterd for picking up the Python reference )

 

[Lordhawkins9]

From a company standpoint, it's hard to be in a "win" position when you're not releasing new product.

For this year, I think WotC canceled more products than they released. Or at least canceled more products that _I_ wanted to buy.

 

[MortonStromgal]

I think they could but its going to take 10 years of planing and playtesting. You would have to make it "compatible" with all editions and modular. The core rules should be very basic like OD&D then you have supplements add in AD&D, 3e, or 4e options. You would need to dual stat monster blocks at a minimum as people wont want to convert AC and BAB. I think a better idea is to rerelease rules compendiums of older editions on DDI along with character builders so they get everyone willing to pay monthly to have a reason to do so. Put the old Dungeon and Dragon mags up there and you'll draw the fans regardless of the edition they play.

 

[BluSponge]

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?

Well it kinda depends. Look, I'm not trying to go "edition wars" mode here but it seems to me WotC made two crucial mistakes (IMHO) when it came to 4e. First, for the second time in a decade they released a version of the game completely (and intentionally) incompatible with the previous edition. If ANYTHING is going to splinter your audience, who has invested $XX in your product, this will do it. Their second mistake (again, IMHO) was the way their PR department handled the rollout. This started poorly (with fan/consumer accusations of lying since up until the day before the announcement company reps had been swearing up and down that a new edition was not on the horizon), and just never got better (keeping a lot of changes vague or secret until the books hit the shelves). Compare the rollout to the 3e rollout and you'll be amazed at the difference in fan reaction (which was not all rosy either).

So where am I going with this if not to spark a big edition fight? No, WotC will probably never be able to produce an edition to bring everyone back into the fold. That ship is sailed. There is too big a gulf between the AD&D and 3e crowds and 4e now. OTOH, they should be VERY concerned about further splintering their consumer base. 5e, whenever it comes down the pike, needs to be an incremental update as opposed to whole system reboot. More Call of Cthulhu 7th edition and less Star Wars: Special Edition. Clean it up and incorporate the best rules updates; don't make us argue who shot first.

The second big thing they could do is give the fans/customers a sense of ownership over the update. Look at how Paizo handled its public Beta test of Pathfinder. Or even better, look at the difference between 2nd edition AD&D and 3e. Maybe it was all the focus group testing, or just smart business, but a lot of the positive reaction for 3e came from the fact that lots of 2nd ed GMs were using a lot of the little rules changes already. The preview materials highlighted this. 2nd ed took a survey of what fans wanted changed and then just did their own thing regardless of that feedback. WotC needs to make the fans feel like part of the process for the next edition, which shouldn't be too hard given the access fans have to the developers these days. This wasn't the case with 4e (or, if it was, I didn't see that vibe around here) and the results are obvious.

This plan won't bring the lost sheep back into the fold, but I think it will build better retention and consumer relations going forward. IMHO, of course.

Tom

 

[Corathon]

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?

Probably not, but I applaud the effort.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The second big thing they could do is give the fans/customers a sense of ownership over the update.

I suspect that this is what Mike Mearls is doing now with his series of articles - putting out feelers in the ether, sampling opinions, and taking baby steps with the community. If there's too much fragmentation and he can't find common ground, then maybe they'll splinter into a 4E and 5E direction in parallel.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I still reckon Paizo will need to bring out Pathfinder 2nd ed at some point in time, making some deep changes to the system to really address the fundamentally broken bits of high level d20 play (it's a bit revealing imho that even Paizo doesn't try to get PCs to 20th level in their adventure paths as a matter of course).

Yeah, high level d20 is definitely going to need more work at some point. I suspect Paizo has privately tried several times to make high-level adventures work and found that it's just a mess. (Obviously, they did it in the pages of Dungeon previously.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

4. Release a line of "D&D classic reprints", which would be reprints of out-of-print material, possibly bundled with 4e updates. We've already seen a number of classic updated to 4e (Village of Hommlet, Tomb of Horrors and the upcoming Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). Bundle those with reprints of the originals and maybe a nice map or two that will be useful for either version of the adventure, and they'll be snapped up by collectors and fans of older editions alike. Even if these are limited edition releases, they will still create the impression that WotC cares about older editions.

I would love a stats-lite edition of Village of Hommlet, Tomb of Horrors and several others, including the original stats-lite module, In Search of the Unknown. (I really want to use the map, but I don't want to pay $15 for a tattered version from Noble Knight, and would love a digital version for my iPad.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My skepticism about a Unification Edition is based purely on mechanics. There are many changes in 4Ed that simply don't mesh well with previous editions...and those mechanics are a good portion of the reason the divide is as big and deep as it is. Things like the dilution of alignment to virtual insignificance, the AEDU power system, and so forth are hailed as advances by 4Edphiles and deeply resented by 3.Xphiles...and the rules they replaced are seen in exactly the opposite way by the respective sides. Appeasing one side is very likely to drive the other away.

I don't see how you can resurrect the sacred cows 4Ed slaughtered without causing many of that game's fans to run away in fear and disgust.

Put them in separate books of optional rules, somehow indicating that one is 3E flavored-rules, and one is 4E-flavored rules. It's not impossible to do -- a lot of the stuff that ended up in 4E got trial runs in 3E supplements later on.

Everything else, really, is fluff. How many alignments or how many planes there are don't really affect the rules that much (although you can obviously create settings where they do) and could easily be handled in a supplement. A Planescape series of books, for instance, could -- should have -- the nine alignments in the players book, along with planar races and the spells required for life on the planes, and the Great Wheel and a ton of related monsters and gods and new rules to make it all work in the DM book. (And Sigil, naturally, would be 50 percent or so of the setting book.)