Is it time for 5E?

[delericho]

The fact that there was this "WHAM! Change after change" effect should demonstrate the obvious: 4e was NOT doing well. If it had been selling a ton of books, they would have changed nothing.

I think it's not as simple as it being a success or being a failure. It may well have been successful, and indeed selling a ton of books, and still not been doing well enough to satisfy the needs of Hasbro. Especially if they sank a whole bunch of money into developing the DDI and it just hasn't brought in the return on investment that the team promised management when they sought the green light for it.

Bear in mind that what would qualify as an awesome success for any other RPG company (including Paizo) may well be considered an Epic Fail by Hasbro. (Indeed, do I not recall an anecdote from just after the takeover, when the WotC guys were congratulating themselves that the brand-new "Psionics Handbook" for 3.0e had sold lot of copies, only to have the Hasbro rep ask, "Why are we even producing this book?"?)

2-4 3d4 horned devils appear, playing "Highway to Hell" with an assortment of cowbells

Do they threaten to eat your soul unless you play for them the greatest rock song ever?

 

[scruffygrognard]

Bear in mind that what would qualify as an awesome success for any other RPG company (including Paizo) may well be considered an Epic Fail by Hasbro. (Indeed, do I not recall an anecdote from just after the takeover, when the WotC guys were congratulating themselves that the brand-new "Psionics Handbook" for 3.0e had sold lot of copies, only to have the Hasbro rep ask, "Why are we even producing this book?"?)

Which is why Hasbro should get out of the RPG business. It's not a good fit now and probably never has been.

 

[delericho]

One other thought: while we talk about a two-way split in the community (4e vs 3e/Pathfinder/retro-clones), WotC probably saw a three-way split:

1) People who didn't move to 4e
2) People who buy the physical 4e books
3) 4e DDI subscribers

Obviously, there's some overlap between the groups, as some people play multiple games, and some people both buy 4e books and subscribe to the DDI.

But I would be surprised if many people are both DDI subscribers and bought the splatbooks. And yet, those splatbooks would have been amongst the top selling supplements in previous editions.

So, that could be a problem, especially since WotC probably can't yet afford to drop D&D in print.

 

[fumetti]

Paladin Immunity to disease

Ability to lay on hands

I believe cure disease

Rangers bonus against giants

Cleric turn undead

Things like that...does that work?

Not that I actually agree with your premise...but going along with it...I guess that could work into that slot...

Thanks! Now I am fully armed in my argumentation.

 

[fumetti]

Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.

I just don't get this conclusion. The proportion of combat-to-noncombat in 4E is VASTLY out of balance compared to earlier editions (esp. the further you go back). Even if you don't do a word/chart count, it is a simple mathematical fact...

3E added feats and a complex skills system.
On top of that, 4E added a powers system.
2E and earlier did not come remotely close to those levels of rule-increase on combat.

Furthermore, 4E significantly reduced its coverage of noncombat mechanics (wandering monsters, timekeeping, mapping, etc.)

4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.

I don't see anyone saying "restricted from." Only that the emphasis in RAW has changed. And at times this change in emphasis can guide, sometimes in a rather firm way, players towards a certain way of thinking. Just look at spell descriptions. A seasoned vet can interpret them for noncombat usage. But first time players? Probably not going to have that skill.

(I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")

Since he affirmed this in another post, I will just respond to it here...

That statement would be false. 1E, 2E and BECMI had exponentially more stuff for noncombat than 4E. Where 4E just gives a minimal paragraph, other editions give pages or even entire hardback volumes.

 

[Dausuul]

I would have preferred if they would've become a font for Hasbro. Fonts are awesome, especially with random tables attached:

You drink from the font called Wotc. Roll a D20:

1 Roll twice on the table

2-4 3d4 horned devils appear, playing "Highway to Hell" with an assortment of cowbells

5-8 you contract yellow mold. Roll d%: 1-60 you die (no save), 61-85 you die (DM acts like you have a save, but you really haven't), 86-100 you forced your henchman to drink first. He crumbles to dust while you nod and twirl your moustache. If you have no moustache, you too crumble to dust just because.

9-13 Your lips disappear. From now on, the only language you are able to speak is your alignment language and any kind of sign language. Lose the whistling nonweapon proficiency.

14-19 The font gives off an erie glow, reflecting ominous magical dwimmer radiance light mightily. Adjectives and pronouns slowly fill the room, forcing you to wade into other parts of the dungeon where grammar is more shallow.

20 The archmage Hevard Anton Sigmund Bernhard Ringo Oldenwood and his apprentice wizard from the seaside appear beside the font. Babbling random stuff about essential initiatives, they curse your spellbook in a most inconvenient fashion. You now can only read it while connecting it with a chain to the wall of your house. Page turning takes forever, and now and then a page will be totally illegible until you wait while shaking your fist. The two cackling wizards vanish in a puff of smoke, leaving you none the wiser.

I haven't laughed like that in weeks. Sadly, I must spread some XP around before giving it to Keefe again.

 

[fumetti]

Yeah, this is all true.

I have noticed a tendency amongst the people I play with (including myself) to limit themselves to the options that are on the sheet/cards in play. So, if I have a card the allows a "slide attack", then I may well play that; if I don't, I won't even consider it. (And, similarly, for "character development" options.)

But the truth is this: when we do this, we're choosing to limit ourselves. The game isn't doing it for us.

How many times have you pulled off the paved highway and driven through a field? In a desert, we see more paths. But on a highway, the path is clearly laid before us and so we go. This is just human nature, and 4E appeals to that nature.

It seems ironic that more game features would lead to a feeling of fewer options, but plenty of folks have that feeling. We get trapped in an endless morass of strategy options that, in the end, just seem to prolong the encounter.

Of course, all those extra HP also contribute to this problem.

 

[fumetti]

Which is why Hasbro should get out of the RPG business. It's not a good fit now and probably never has been.

Hasbro is simply too big. They think they can milk DnD the way they milk Star Wars--and it simply ain't gonna happen.

If they pulled off a movie franchise, they might make a killing with action figures...

But the rpg itself has a limited audience. And Hasbro doesn't put much energy into limited audiences.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I just don't get this conclusion. The proportion of combat-to-noncombat in 4E is VASTLY out of balance compared to earlier editions (esp. the further you go back). Even if you don't do a word/chart count, it is a simple mathematical fact...

snip

The word count is utterly irrelevant, the skill system covers all the basis I want it to cover, I was pretty disenchanted with thre 3.x skill system. The existance of the skill challange concept and the rituals and utility powers and the ability of the players to ,you know roleplay are; all I (and many others) require for rich noncombat encounters.

Now you don't agree, that is fair enough, nobody is stopping you playing your edition of choice but kindly stop stating as an unarguable truth that 4e does not support out of combat play.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The word count is especially irrelevant considering that every edition has had more effort put into the mechanics of combat then with anything else.

Besides, last I checked, 4e's word count had far more detail put into roleplaying and storytelling then 3e did. 3e's word count was almost entirely put into spells.