Do you want/are you ready for a D&D 5th edition?

[Windjammer]

All I'm going to say about 5e is this:

They better playtest the damn thing.

3.5 came out what, 3-4 years after 3.0? And with 4e they were scrambling to fix it a year after release, then had to fix the monster math, had to add feat taxes and so forth well before Essentials.

I'm curious just how they are going to do it, though. With 3.5 and 4E WotC could rely on an extensive network of playtesters in the RPGA (LG then LFR). But WotC has since left that player base out in the cold, and all systematic feedback loops have been abandoned.

I guess it will be hard to replace this segment of dedicated hardcore players able to break a game in any direction.

Good riddance say I. At least the next edition's playtesting won't be dominated by organized play. If there's one thing to be learnt about 4E it's that organized and home play are two different kettle of fish.

On the other hand, an open playtest wouldn't encourage my confidence either. It's basically a majority vote when few people, looking at PF, have ever played above level 10. So we go from niche expertise to no expertise. I'm horrified at the idea that the polls to Legends & Lore drive the next edition's design.

Also if memory serves, WotC ably demonstrated with the early PH 2 barbarian playtest that it can't handle open playtests well.

Let's just say there's room for improvement, and that WotC got a problem on their hands still in search of a solution.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Luckily the lesson was learned. I'm still not sure how it got approved at levels above him.

What lesson? That you can create a bestselling game by placing yourself at the apex of the largest amount of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game in history?

Because that's what happened.

And then it happened again when WotC abandoned that apex and left a massive vacuum for Pathfinder to move into.

If the leaders who followed Dancey, Valterra, and the others who believed in the OGL had been smart they would have found a way to place more of their products at the top of that apex.

Unfortunately, the failure of the Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook caused them to abandon that business plan. (At least I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming their reasons were that rational.) And WotC ended up ghettoizing their own products instead.

The real lesson is never start a land war in Asia. never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. that you can't put the genie back into the bottle once you have freed him.

And that.

WotC thought the D&D trademark would be stronger than both the classic gameplay of D&D and the largest library of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game. For a sizable part of the market (possibly the majority of the market), they were wrong.

 

[Droogie]

The 4th edition haracter sheet itself is only 2 pages. The power cards are an extra thing: imagine if a wizard or cleric had printed out a card for everyone of his spells in 3rd edition? 4th edition has simply regularized the practice of writing out all the details for your spells.

Certainly in every roleplaying game I have ever played, I always wrote out by hand on the back of my paper my abilities and spells. I like having neatly formatted cards courtesy of the Character Builder.

When I made 4th edition characters by hand with no Character Builder, it only took the two pages plus a bunch of the usual scribbling on the back in my own weird shorthand.

Ok, fair enough. But the power cards are not an extra thing, they are a required thing. My 15th level rogue uses up 7 pages in CB, which is kind of a drag to print every time I level. If the CB had some other sheet formats that shrank it down more like the encounter pre-gens, I'd be happier. Not everyone likes cards, either. I find them fiddly and they clutter up the table.

I guess what I'm boiling down to is the crunch/complexity issue. There are some robust RPGs out there that can get a character on one piece of paper. D&D could be like that again if people wanted it that way.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Unfortunately, the failure of the Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook caused them to abandon that business plan. (At least I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming their reasons were that rational.) And WotC ended up ghettoizing their own products instead.

I will admit that I was one of the folks that never used either of those books, neither interested me. On the other hand I did get Unearthed Arcana, which is, I suspect, the book that Paizo patterns some of their own expansions after. Open and modular, so if you want piecemeal armor or Words of Power you can use them, or just slide on by them and grab the archetypes.

WotC thought the D&D trademark would be stronger than both the classic gameplay of D&D and the largest library of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game. For a sizable part of the market (possibly the majority of the market), they were wrong.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think that by any standard, other than that of the leader of the industry, 4e is wildly successful. Whether it is #1 - with number 2 close on its heels, tied for #1, or a close running second, any other company would be thrilled with the numbers. For a subsidiary to a massive corporation that cares only for the bottom line... the possibility that they have lost marketshare might well be terrifying. They are no longer the uncontested leaders in the market.

The Auld Grump

 

[ShadowDenizen]

WHile I do have a handful of 4E books, and play occasionally, I can't honestly say that I'm a "fan" of the current rules-set OR the publisher at this point.

But, at the same time, I'm assuredly NOT ready for a 5E. I think that WotC needs to just STOP putting out updates and new editions; the time between editions has become STAGGERINGLY quick. WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved. (And remember, the creation of Pathfinder, currently the biggest rival to the D+D name is a direct result of WotC's actions [or INaction, depending on how you look at the situation.)

And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu. There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.

I think 3E worked because the overwhelming concensus from the playerbase was that a revamp was NEEDED, since 2E was certainly on it's last legs. (Of course, I still think that 3/x was a bit rules-heavy for my taste even at that time, but it WORKED.)

To my eye, it didn't seem there was a NEED for 4E from the playerbase, and similarly, the playerbase seems split on 5E as well [at least, according to all the polls we've seen; even this poll seems split pretty close to 50/50 on the matter.]

 

[Mercutio01]

WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice

I don't follow this line of thought. Because they made (in your mind) a bad decision once, they can't try to correct it now?

By that line of thought, Coke should still be selling New Coke and losing marketshare to Pepsi, Ford should still be forced to sell the insanely unsafe Pinto, and Microsoft should still be selling Vista.

It's kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. Indeed, if 4E did do as badly saleswise as people seem to keep guessing, then it would be simply stupid NOT to try to put out a new edition to stem the hemorrhage.

 

[DaveMage]

And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu. There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.

One of the things I like from AD&D through 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) is that certain things were consistent throughout. A 4th level wizard (in any edition) was pretty much the same beyond minor tweaks (they basically had the same spells, and the power level was pretty consistent). Had they kept that consistency with 4E, I may have been more interested, but going from 3.x to 4E was (to me) like going from D&D to GURPS. A whole new system.

D&D has a rich history. If they wanted to make an entirely new system structure (which they did), they should have called it something other than D&D (IMO). But, of course, the all-powerful "brand" was key. If they had called 4E anything else, sales would likely have been even worse.

 

[billd91]

I think that WotC needs to just STOP putting out updates and new editions; the time between editions has become STAGGERINGLY quick. WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved.

If they have caused themselves problems with the brand because of 4e (and I'm not saying that's a given, I'm saying if they think its performance isn't up to snuff or it's got some problems that need fixing) and the market share it has lost, then coming out with another edition - to fix perceived problems, reorient themselves toward the lost marketshare, whatever - IS one way of sucking it up and dealing with it. If 5e does try to bridge the gap, it will almost certainly alienate a segment of the 4e fan population and there will be further edition warring.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

An open beta playtest, nearly all digital/PDF, professionally managed by someone with experience doing so (brought in from outside the company), followed by a measured launch afterwards that provides plenty of time for feedback and follow up polish alpha playtesting--would help them immensely. It will help them not only produce a better game, once finalized and printed, but will also give a significant number of people a chance to accept it gradually. They will need some updates to DDI so that at some point they can tie this into the subscription. Instead of releasing a game into the wild, and letting the buyers find a bunch of problems, release it via subscription, find the same problems, then sell it in the stores.

But the main thing they need to do is not release the print version until the Gen Con after the economy has turned around. They don't need the deadweight of people watching their pennies causing bad sales. Given the long design and development window, this is yet another reason to do the open playtest. You may be selling only the alpha via subscription while the economy recovers, but you are still selling something.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

On the other hand I did get Unearthed Arcana, which is, I suspect, the book that Paizo patterns some of their own expansions after. Open and modular, so if you want piecemeal armor or Words of Power you can use them, or just slide on by them and grab the archetypes.

By far, my very favourite 3.x book. That and Monte's Cook's Books of Experimental Might. That, to me, is the way an RPG should be built. You pick what you want, ignore what you don't.

WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved.

Not only is that a patently ridiculous thing to say, the second half of the statement is pretty insulting.

And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu. There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.

For what its worth, this is still generally possible, albeit with slightly more than minimal tweaking. Many, many people who run 4e do so with materials dating back to 1e.

In fact, Chris Perkins has just released his revamp of the Gygax classic 'Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" in Dragon, and according to him, it's not all that different from the original. It took some work, yes, but remember this is publishable quality. With a few scribbled notes and some new monster stat blocks, it's a lot less daunting.

I think 3E worked because the overwhelming concensus from the playerbase was that a revamp was NEEDED, since 2E was certainly on it's last legs. (Of course, I still think that 3/x was a bit rules-heavy for my taste even at that time, but it WORKED.)

I know quite a few gamers who would beg to differ (on either or both points). In fact there are still a lot of folks playing AD&D.

I personally agree that 2e's time was up, I wanted something fresh, and I liked 3e at first (art direction and writing tone aside) but it wore out its welcome as soon as I ran a game past the low double-digit levels. The release of 3.5 did nothing to help that, which, to me, is the OPPOSITE of something that WORKED.

To my eye, it didn't seem there was a NEED for 4E from the playerbase, and similarly, the playerbase seems split on 5E as well [at least, according to all the polls we've seen; even this poll seems split pretty close to 50/50 on the matter.]

I beg to differ. Most of my group was very done with 3.x, and I knew other groups in the same boat. One of the DMs in my group literally quit DMing because of 3rd ed, and nearly the entire hobby. We were actively "shopping around" for another fantasy game that pushed all the right buttons. I was tired of Wizards and their endless gravy train of supplements, each more broken than the last.

I was pushing pretty hard for Pathfinder, myself. I'd downloaded the beta in PDF, read it, and thought it was pretty good (in retrospect, I don't think they fixed enough of 3.x's problems, but that's another story). I also liked E6 quite a lot. Then, one of our group said, "hey guys, I know that you all think WotC is the devil, but how about we give 4e a try?"

It went over like a lead balloon. It took him weeks of lobbying just to get us to agree to play one session. We did, in the end, and the rest is history. Looks terrible on paper, but we really liked the way it played. Particularly the part about it being only as "gamey" as you want it to be. It still felt like D&D to us. All the stuff we hated on paper isn't all the visible in play. And the balance it brought, the DMing support, and so much less fiddling with millions of rules left more time for the stuff that matters to us - roleplaying.

So to suggest that people that switched did so out of "blind loyalty" to either WotC or the D&D brand, is pretty damned far from the mark.