D&D 4th Edition

[thundershot]

I would hope that all of the 3rd party companies would continue to make d20/OGL products usable with everything we have now, thus not NEEDING a 4th edition.. *shrug* I've got enough gaming material to last me a looooong time...


Chris

 

[Zappo]

Apparently (I wan't around) many people thought 2nd edition was the epitomy of RPG design

I don't think so. Many people quit D&D entirely when 2e was released! And when I played 2e, I knew that it largely sucked, but I sticked with it because Planescape is just too good. On the other hand, I can think of very few ways to improve the d20 system. Honestly, I don't know what big changes they could do to justify a 4th edition of D&D. All I'd really like is a 3.5e with huge software support - say, ship with the books a CD containing the book itself in searchable, indexed, hyperlinked HTML format. Screw PDF, that's good for fancy formatting and as a "book emulator" but it's so very limiting. Include monsters, spells, whatever, in a nice clean XML format. That would pave the way for the possibility of having tons of 3rd party software that can interoperate and be updated easily. Oh, and make it legal to create D&D videogames under the OGL. Can't have enough of those...

 

[SSquirrel]

Technically, they took way over 10 years to release 2e (from 1e) and 3e (from 2e). That's why I prefer the 10-year period instead of 12-plus-year period, with a revision on the fifth year.

Heh technically we had OD&D in 74, AD&D in 78, 2E was 89 (I thought it was 90), 2.1 whenever it was they released that, and 3E in 2000. So outside of OD&D to AD&D we're on an 11 year cycle. Which would mean 4E in 2011. Here we are already with most of a year of 3.5 under our belts just 4 years down the line.

Oh yeah and if you count the original Unearthed Arcana as a revision of the series, then 1985 for that one.

Hagen

 

[Zappo]

Heh technically we had OD&D in 74, AD&D in 78, 2E was 89 (I thought it was 90), 2.1 whenever it was they released that, and 3E in 2000. So outside of OD&D to AD&D we're on an 11 year cycle.

Not really. You can't discount 2.1 (Skills&Powers). It changed the rules much more than what 3.5 did to 3. I dunno about 1e UA, but I know that it introduced new classes, so that's quite a change too. I don't think you should discount OD&D either; noone that I know played OD&D and AD&D at the same time, everyone switched from the former to the latter.

 

[Umbran]

The row between WotC and the Valar Project over the Book of Erotic Fantasy may make some of the Hasbro executives a little more cautious over the use of the D20 license.
[\QUOTE]

I dunno. It seems to me that a company the size of Hasbro sees nastier legal and public relations issues every day in it's breakfast cereal. Just because we saw a row doesn't mean Hasbro really vared all that much, deep down.

Plus, how big a row was it, really? How much verbiage was there from each company? Toss out all the speculation and stuff we wrote, and it doesn't seem so big, does it?

 

[Beretta]

Not only will there be no MM, there will be no DMG. Just 1 rule book. This will probably come with a coupon which gives you a discount on box of starter minis which has the stats for the monsters and a flavor pamphlet for the "DM" (if there even is a DM**). One rulebook will ease entry for the younger demographic, as one book for say, $50, is easier to get for your birthday than 3 books for $90-$100. Forget about the fact that they'll pay more in the long run for all of the minis, the CCG market has proven that this model is a good one (for sales). Hasbro needs the younger kids who love the plastic, collectible minis. That's where the money is in this area of the hobby. Whilst alot of old farts (like me) prefer metal, and don't like this current revision cycle, and are unlikely to buy into 4E anyway, so who cares? We're likely to stop playing soon due to life's demands anyway.

You basically described the Games Workshop business model there, and it appears to have worked well for them.

 

[francisca]

You basically described the Games Workshop business model there, and it appears to have worked well for them.

Which is all the more reason for Wizards/Hasbro to follow suit with D&D. Like I said, I'm speculating based on what I see, and the scenario I've come up with is my best guess as to what a successful business model might be. I might be way off, but I think I'm pretty close to what will happen with 4E.

Note that I don't like this future path that I've speculated about.

 

[Buttercup]

We can and will continue to have the "same game" in perpetuity if we want, and not in the Luddite mode of someone like Diaglo - I mean, with new books and and new fans. Thanks to the OGL, the current version can continue to be a living, thriving entity whether or not Hasbro chooses to shepherd it.

Yup. I'm still running a 3.0 game, with a few rules from 3.5 thrown in. I'm perfectly happy that way, and I see no reason to change. D20 is in my world to stay. I've got more than enough purchased material to last a lifetime, and the 3.0 SRD on a burned CD. Plus, I've got the most important thing--my imagination.

Edit: And as long as Green Ronin, Necromancer and a few others like them are still publishing D20 stuff, I'll keep spending.

 

[SSquirrel]

I' with Ranger REG here, at least about the desired release date: not in this decade. Especially because I think that D&D is nice as it is now. I have only two or three things that I would want to see changed, and they aren't enough for a new ruleset, not by a long way. (These are sorcerers as their own class, druids and rangers with spontaneous casting, and something to lower the dependency on magic items)

So when there is to be D&D 4e, it should take it's time - till 2010 - and then do some nice changes all around, but, if this is possible, be largely compatible to 3e (which should not be too difficult, if they keep the classes, the races, and the system of skills and feats, the d20 mechanic, and how ability scores work).

Uhm...aren't Sorceror's already their own class? Like as of 3.0 even. See I'm one of the guys who thinks Rangers should be non-spellcasters. I would almost like to see them release several versions of the same game system but have each version tweaked so you could have Low Magic and High Magic editions, etc etc. Would really fragment the market though so its probably best to allow people to take teh base system and make their own changes or to allow 3rd party companies to do it.

Me I would rather ditch Vancian magic. I wouldn't mind a spell point system or even keep spell slots but use somehting like the AU system instead.

Hagen

 

[DragonLancer]

4th edition should not appear until at least 2014, give us ten years to actually play the game before you throw a new one at us.

What riles me the most is that people seem to support a new edition every couple years. I hear posts like "But they are a business, so they are there to make money not cater to the players." What utter rubbish. If it were not for the players they wouldn't have the money to make. D&D and other RPG's are not money makers, we all know this, but because of that the publishers should look at what their customer base wants and cater to that to make their money. New editions of the game will just people away if they appear every few years.

I'm not saying that Hasbro/WotC shouldn't do a 4th edition, just give it a few years to run its course.