D&D 5E (2014) Hope for an open GSL?

[Mark CMG]

Oh, good, you finally have an example of what you're talking about!

So, question, do you think that when they changed the Stealth rules, that created a new edition of the rules? If so, then we've been playing 4.5 for quite some time now! Surely we're on 4.9.0.12 by this point.

Do you agree? Did you catch that we rolled over from 4.9.0.11 back in December when they updated the rules about damaging zones? (That's not in the Essentials Rules Compendium either, so clearly Essentials is no longer the current edition for D&D Encounters. Right?)

PS: The rules updates which includes the changes to Stealth and the changes to Sneak Attack are available free on the web site.

So you agree that Encounters not only requires rules form Essentials, and that one either needs Essentials and/or to supplement their original 4E books from the Internet, but also that in some cases one even needs to supplement their Essentials books from the Internet to run Encounters. Okay, I wasn't aware that it had gone even further into a revisions than I had at first thought. I can get onboard with your asessment that 4E has gone through more than just a 4.5 revision, although it is fair to say that the only revision published as a complete game, an official print published ruleset, was the (4.5E) Essentials.

 

[Kynn]

So you agree that Encounters not only requires rules form Essentials, and that one either needs Essentials and/or to supplement their original 4E books from the Internet, but also that in some cases one even needs to supplement their Essentials books from the Internet to run Encounters.

Encounters doesn't require any Essentials rulebooks to run. Have you played Encounters? Have you run Encounters?

Okay, I wasn't aware that it had gone even further into a revisions than I had at first thought.

LOL. I'm sure there's a lot you're not aware of, but it sure doesn't stop you from making pronouncements!

So now you're shocked, shocked to find that 4e made rule changes back in July 2008, right? By which I mean the change to Stealth.

I can get onboard with your asessment that 4E has gone through more than just a 4.5 revision, although it is fair to say that the only revision published as a complete game, an official print published ruleset, was the (4.5E) Essentials.

Where are you getting "4.5E" from? Oh, right, you're making that up.

ETA: I give up, I'm just going to sit back and be amused at your futile attempts to spin whatever nonsense you think is true. Your assertions are frankly laughable.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

That they have made additional revisions since Essentials, a complete ruleset that supplants 4E as the offical standard for the design, writing and running of Encounters, is an interesting sidenote but it doesn't change the fact that it is a complete ruleset published to incorporate the revisions (and add in additional revisions) at that point in the edition cycle of 4E. You've actually argued both sides so I can understand your frustration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, it's a reasonable business model.

4e mostly avoided this by restricting the number of options in initial releases, such that each subsequent book (Martial Power, Arcane Power, etc.) didn't actually offer much in direct power increases to existing characters, but offered alternate builds and thus more flexibility.

Nod, 4e didn't follow the posited 3.5 stuff-some-power-inflation-for-everyone-in-every book model. The _____ Power books were a lot more focused. Thus, for instance, I don't own Psionic Power, as I have no interest in psionics. WotC could have instead put out 'Powers of the Mind' with stuff for Psionics, new illusion, enchantment and charm spells for various arcane classes, a Dream Domain for warpriests, and so forth, and possibly sold more copies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, and Essentials = 4.5?

Yeah, prettymuch, but it's not like it says 4.5 on the cover, and it tried to be nominally compatible, so has plausible deniability.

And, it hasn't stayed consistent. At first, post-Essentials suplements (like HoS) strictly referenced Essentials, strengthening the 4.5-ishness of it. But, then Heroes of the Feywild came along, and heavily referenced the PH2. Not so 4.5 anymore.

Moot point with 4e on the chopping block.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], your last half-dozen or so posts give the impression that you're not that familiar with the Essentials books, or with the general run of 4.5 updates/errata.

The most recent three 4e rulebooks I've acquired are MV2, HoS and HoF. The first and third of these make no reference to any classes in an Essentials book. The second refers to Essentials books, but equally contains material which can be usd by Clerics, Warlocks and Wizards built using the 4e PHB, as well as races that use the same format/mechanics as all the other 4e races.

The Essentials DM kit compiles elements of the 4e DMG and DMG2. It has very little or no new material.

The MV restats a bunch of creatures from the MM and MM2 to higher damage, in some cases higher attack bonuses, and for solos more dynamic suites of powers. These are new stats, but the old stats are quite useable. I know because I've used them!

Essentials does not change the action resolution mechanics. It provides new PC build elements (new class builds, new powers, new race options). It erratas a few powers (mostly some underpowered wizard ones) and I think one class feature (sneak attack). This is not very dramatic in the overall run of 4e updates/errata, and all this stuff is available from the WotC website in the relevant Update documents.

The biggest two changes in Essentials aren't mechanical at all, but rather to do with paystyle orientation. One is introducing martial classes without daily powers, and with very minimal encounter powers. This allows playing post-Essentials 4e with a more classic D&D feel, for those who want such a thing.

The other change is to this text in the PHB:

PHB p 8:
When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.

Rules Compendium p 9:
The DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM decides what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the results of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

In my view this is a signficant change in text, but it is not a mechanical change, and I have never seen anyone else express any real interest in it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole Essentials being a new introduction/edition/pr nightmare thing and move on to other topics because this horse has been beaten and those who think it's a revision and those that don't will never agree.

 

[Mark CMG]

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], your last half-dozen or so posts give the impression that you're not that familiar with the Essentials books, or with the general run of 4.5 updates/errata.

Familiar enough. It's a stand alone print published ruleset that incorporates the revisions up to that time, essentially , and thus my point. I know it can be hashed a dozen different ways in regard to which revisions were in or out and what has come since, but that's all extraneous to the point of it being a printed, revised, complete ruleset, even with the view that most of how it was revised was in terms of presentation and approach to character builds. That it is used as the standard for design, writing and running of Encounters, just seems to emphasize the point. I understand the arguments, and I don't deny the validity of the details of those arguments, but none of them seem to change the bottomline of it being a printed, revised, complete ruleset and therefore a revision of 4E. It's a shame after utilizing the simple numbering convention of ".5" during the 3.XE era WotC felt it did more harm than good in making discussion of editions and revisions more streamlined because, as we can see, the passion with which some will deny the shorthand is very intense. WotC's wish to make everything core and to avoid people feeling that some of their books might need replacing has seemingly made discussion of 4E revisions and standards much more difficult. It's just another area where those who play 4.XE as their primary game of choice, if not their only game, are set apart from those who play other editions or, like me, play them all from time to time with no specific edition being primary and liking each edition for the varying aspects they bring to the fore and to the table.

Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole Essentials being a new introduction/edition/pr nightmare thing and move on to other topics because this horse has been beaten and those who think it's a revision and those that don't will never agree.

No doubt.

 

[Alzrius]

If that's all true then, how do you explain releasing it two years earlier?

If 3e was selling like hotcakes, why shoot it in the head by releasing 3.5 years before it was initially expected to be released.

So, yeah, 3.0, not doing so well...

For more on this, I turn to the eminent Rick Marshall, who (I believe) had left WotC by the time 3.5 came out, but who still talks about what led up to it. He makes a series of great posts over here. Here's the relevant excerpt (though I strongly suggest reading everything he posts there; the "purchase" he mentions is the purchase of WotC by Hasbro):

To make a long story short, Hasbro had lost a lot of money in their electronic ventures before the purchase, and chopped up and parted out whole swaths of Wizards to make their finances temporarily look better on the books. They threw out all the loss-leader strategies, dispensing with the game stores and eventually insisting that the TSR group - that D&D - become as profitable as Magic or as close to it as possible. That was simply not possible under Peter's good Samaritan strategy of minimizing the number of products D&D players had to purchase.

Thus, 3.5 was born.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Interesting quote from Mr. Marshall, there. It highlights an important difference in perspective when it comes to 'doing well.'

'Doing well' from the fan perspective is, the product is good, people are using it, it's easy to find games. From that perspective 3.0 and 4e were wild successes, no need for 3.5 or Essentials, let alone 4e or 5e to 'save them.'

'Doing well' from the business perspective depends on the business. Turning a profit is doing /very/ well by small/indy game-publisher standards. Pathfinder is a runaway success, it's keeping more than 2 people fed and not being published in a garage. For a unit of a big corporation, 'doing well,' means beating an unrealistic revenue or RoI goal. So, 4e, selling in the same ballpark as Pathfinder (maybe more, maybe less at times - WotC won't cop to it), dismal failure because it's not pulling down $50 million a year (merry Xmass, here's your present, it's a pink slip).

So, yeah, 3.5 was pulled in (released early) because 3.0 wasn't doing well (enough for Hasbro, that quarter). 4e also got pitched and rolled out years early because 3.5 wasn't doing well (enough to qualify as core brand worthy of continued investment). 4e couldn't meet it's impossible goal, so 5e has a different impossible goal. (Really, how many times are the suits going to fall for this?)