D&D 5E Is there any hope for a evolutionary vs revolutionary Next?

[KidSnide]

Nope, but I don't remember a new edition announced so soon, which make me believe Wotc thinks that most 4E was a mistake (not bashing 4E here, just pointing what I think they think) not because of the ruleset, but because it split even more player base.

In fact, I think bad PR killed 4E... I could envision it as an alternative grid-combat-focused version of D&D, leaving along any other edition. I still think that, with proper PR, selling it as a "dungeon delve side version" of D&D it could live for years and years...

I agree that bad PR/community-relations hurt 4E, which is why I give WotC some credit for attempting a very different strategy in their roll out of D&DN. Obviously, we don't know whether it will work or not, but -- as a starting point -- it seems like a good idea to try an approach closer to the more successful Pathfinder roll out. (I.e. early announcement, extensive public playtesting, etc...)

-KS

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope it is both evolution and revolution. 4e is great. 3.0 was great. 2e was great for me. 3.5 was meh. Improvements were outweighted by directions i did not like (and ignored). I guess that would be the same with Pathfinder for me. I guess 1e people have a similar feeling with 2nd edition. There is improvement, but compared to the version before it seems like no real improvement.
Some people hat essentials. I believe, the more loose design constraints did the game very well. Other people disagree.
The 5e modular approach seems like a good Idea to me. Announcing it so fast was not trying to kill a good system. I hope, they don´t do the mistake and kill 4e. Why should they? Nothing to lose for them. Actually rereleasing older editions would be their best bet. Hey, they still have the 3.x srd somewhere on their homepage. Which is enough to play 3.5 forever.
If WotC is honest, and I trust them more than a bunch of armchair designers, they need to announce it right now. How should they make a public playtest, that runs a useful amount of time, if they announce it too late?
Even blizzard announces games years before finishing or giving access to playtests. So just chill. Look at the rules, and then decide which part are revolutionary and which evolutionary. I guess you will find most rules in 5e based in elder editions.

 

[Dausuul]

Descriptive words aside (revolutionary vs. evolutionary), this is the same argument we've had since day one.

Those who like 4E see the game as an improvement, and don't want to have the game changed away from the version they like.

Those who dislike 4E see the game as a mistake in direction, and want the game to back up and go a different way.

Are we done here now?

Not quite. Some of us see 4E as a grand experiment which produced some great successes, some abject failures, and some failures which show promise with further work. We would like to see the successes retained, the abject failures thrown out, and the promising failures sent back for another round of testing to determine what can be made of them.

 

[Sunseeker]

Nope, but I don't remember a new edition announced so soon, which make me believe Wotc thinks that most 4E was a mistake (not bashing 4E here, just pointing what I think they think) not because of the ruleset, but because it split even more player base.

I don't think we should think we think what Wizards may be thinking.

It's kinda like those claims about what the Founding Fathers really intended by the Fifth Amendment.

Unless Wizards claims a stance on why they're making a new edition other than that they need to make money, lets not think we think what they think.

 

[MacMathan]

Well, aside from your definition of "progress in RPG developments" about equating to my definition of something quite different, I think it's already quite obvious that 5e is intended to be a big jump away from 4e.

The jury remains firmly out on whether it'll end up being an evolution from one or more previous editions, or something entirely new built out of pieces of them all.

Lan-"Pathfinder is a direct evolution of the 3.x series, does it count as progress?"-efan

From my experience I think Pathfinder is definitely an evolutionary step forward. I would love to see a PF 2e some day where they were not (IMO) restricted by backwards compatibility.

Good point I did not mean to be insulting. I don't mean just what has happened to D&D in recent years but also all of the advancements IMO seen in other games by both large and small publishers. There are some great ideas that should be looked at. I feel that nostalgia sounds like a good thing to try to sell but it is very hard to define by its nature.

 

[MacMathan]

I view 4e as more of a failure to make 50 million dollars a year or whatever the target goal from Hasbro was than as a pure failure of design.

 

[Yora]

I frequently read that 50 million is not the profit target per year for Hasbro. 50 million is the amount of profit at which a product will get premium advertising and resources from Hasbro. Profits under 50 million get only regular advertising and resources.

 

[avin]

I don't think we should think we think what Wizards may be thinking.

It's kinda like those claims about what the Founding Fathers really intended by the Fifth Amendment.

Unless Wizards claims a stance on why they're making a new edition other than that they need to make money, lets not think we think what they think.

I've born in Brasil, so I couldn't comment on US founding fathers wishes and I don't think it's appropriate to you choose what I should think... unless I misunderstood what you said...

 

[Sunseeker]

I've born in Brasil, so I couldn't comment on US founding fathers wishes and I don't think it's appropriate to you choose what I should think... unless I misunderstood what you said...

My point was that since we're not Wizards, we shouldn't think we know what they're thinking. It's arrogant.