Mongoose's "State of the Mongoose"

[Saracenus]

Y'know, I say that in 2012, WotC should put out collector's editions of each of the major rulesets, as one-book tomes (PHB,MM & DMG in one book), for D&D - 1E, 2E, 3.5E, 4E/essentials, BECM - maybe even OD&D. Leatherbound, no exterior artwork but lavish inside with "artwork of the day" gracing its inside and the best paper grade available today. Other than errata, use the original text of the edition. Let each edition lover have their equally lavish version.

Then in 2013, release 5E based on whichever book sells the best, as clearly, the fans will have spoken which way they want to go.

Um, I think the military calls this "recon-in-force."

However there are problems with your model.

1. You would have a massive tomb tome, bound in leather, with high grade paper. None of these would be cheap. That introduces bias, because there are plenty of folks who will not purchase these "super-deluxe" versions of the rules because the price point is too high.

2. Page count between editions would vary, meaning that earlier editions would edge out newer editions on price point (less pages = less cost). Again bias.

3. ROI. Sure the content has been written but you still have to devote resources (money, labor, time, etc.) and still get a return on investment. Not to mention the opportunity cost of producing new versions of older editions vs. what you could get by creating newer content that supports your current version or a brand new version.

In short, this is not a good idea at all. Its cheaper to do marketing surveys and customer studies to determine what direction would potentially be more profitable.

My two coppers,

 

[Morrus]

1. You would have a massive tomb,

Eeek!

 

[Razuur]

• 4E players don't like 3E/Pathfinder because it does not achieve certain goals (reducing cleric-dependence, balancing the classes, etc.).
• 3E/Pathfinder players don't like 4E because of the means the 4E designers chose (healing surges, AEDU universal power structure, etc.) to achieve those goals.

Not sure I can agree with this. It is more than simple rules - it is approach.

I respect both games, and think that they both have their audiences for different reasons. I refuse to believe that one is better than the other - it is subjective. They both cater to different audiences and preferences.

3e/3.5/Pathfinder is a flexible rules system. You could do SO much with it, as evidenced by the d20 boom. It was a kitchen sink type system that allowed the users to tailor it to thier own game. "Do with it what you will", here is a rule for everything, and it is a bit complicated, but it is your game to tinker with. Pretty much any style of fantasy could be recreated in 3e. We had Medieval Handbooks to Eberron. It also oes not require minis or grids or battlemaps. 3e allowed for a very diverse crowd of diverse styles. Hence how we hand a ton of different fantasy settings for 3e (Medieval, Oathbound, Eberron, Midnight, Conan, FR, Dragonlance, Nyambe, AE, etc), and also modern, spy, horror, sci fi, etc. It was a very flexible system. It attracted a very diverse and broad crowd. Something there for everyone.

4e is a specific implementation targeted to a particular audience - the tactical rules folks and MMO crowd. In is a toolkit of a differnt kind desinged to make GMing easy, and playing familiar. But Smeone decided -> "This is DnD". Certain core assumptions are made - battlemaps required, classes are X, this power does Y. And the "flavor" is really defined. Really great for those that love that particular flavor. But if it doesn't work with your setting, you don't accept the flavor, or the basic underlying assumptions about how classes work - then you go elsewhere. It does what it does REALLY well, but at the cost of diversity.

Now this is not an edition flame war (and I won't argue about it - they are both really well designed games), I think that both 4e and 3e/Pathfinder have their crowds and both are happy in their camp. People tend to be in one camp or the other - kitchen sink or core audience.

So when 5e comes along, I think it will be the most successful if it reaches the WIDEST audience possible. But I think they will keep it more niche, which will make certain folks happy, but exclude many others.

So I think it will have to be some trick to unite these very diverse groups. To be honest I am not sure if it is even possible, based on the the polarity of the positions. Add to that the fact that with the internet, older editions need never die, they can constantly change form and evolve. I am not sure if the fracture is "recoverable".

Thing is, I am not even sure I want to "reunite" under a 5e fold. I hear all of these discussions about 5e, and they scare me a bit. 4e broke my heart and left me behind - But I accepted it despite being really sad that DnD no longer worked for us. I wandered aimlessly until Pathfinder fell in my lap, and now I am all settled, and I am afraid that another edition will bring about muddy bloody the waters again. Cries about those that love it, cries (from 2 editions now claiming they were left behind). And where there was one, and then two, now there will be three - all bickering and arguing about which is the better system.

I just want things to stay the way they are for a while. Each happily in their own camps, playing and having fun. I am not ready for another edition war.

Maybe DnD broke up for a reason. Maybe it just isn't the generic fantasy game it used to be? Maybe DnD only worked in an age where there was no internet and everybody just kind of made it theirs.

I don't know. You 4e-ers, I am really happy for you that it works for you. Now that I have Pathfinder, I am satiated and feel I have a "home".

Did I mention that 5e scares me?

 

[Ampersand999]

I think from a financial perspective, Hasbro wants to see Wizards produce better in 2012 and 2013. So I think you'll get to see a 5th edition that will be much more open sandbox, thus I'm thinking it's going to be a two trails version: one trail involving what worked well in 3rd edition, and one trail with what worked in 4th edition. They won't combine the two or present a book on how to combine the two trails.

I also think to that end, you'll going to see maybe one grand book on Neverwinter, one on Eberron, a whole lot more about card, dice, and online add-ins. Maybe even revamp Dungeons & Dragons Online so that it could tie-in even more with the book counterpart.

(And maybe this time, either via Kindle or Stream or Apple iTunes, they get that pirate-proof eBooks that they wanted with 4th edition.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I see that there is no mention of the Pathfinder material that Mongoose was considering for 2011.... Ah well, I was hoping for a return of the Quintessential series.

A little more than a day after I wrote that I got an advertisement from Mongoose for Van Graaf's Journal of Adventuring - a Pathfinder supplement. One good thing about being a pessimist - most surprises tend to be pleasant ones.

I would still love to see the Quintessentials updated for Pathfinder - I think that Mongoose could do quite well with archetypes. And I world really like to see the Open Mass Combat system updated as well - most especially the naval combat.

The Auld Grump

 

[Stormonu]

Um, I think the military calls this "recon-in-force."

However there are problems with your model.

1. You would have a massive tomb, bound in leather, with high grade paper. None of these would be cheap. That introduces bias, because there are plenty of folks who will not purchase these "super-deluxe" versions of the rules because the price point is too high.

2. Page count between editions would vary, meaning that earlier editions would edge out newer editions on price point (less pages = less cost). Again bias.

3. ROI. Sure the content has been written but you still have to devote resources (money, labor, time, etc.) and still get a return on investment. Not to mention the opportunity cost of producing new versions of older editions vs. what you could get by creating newer content that supports your current version or a brand new version.

In short, this is not a good idea at all. Its cheaper to do marketing surveys and customer studies to determine what direction would potentially be more profitable.

My two coppers,

Yeah, my post was partly in jest, partly in reference to such works as the Vampire: The Masquerade 25th anniversary edition and the Tome of Horrors Complete works.

If they're well done, I think they'd see a good ROI; have you seen how popular the V:tM and TOHC has been?

 

[Dausuul]

Not sure I can agree with this. It is more than simple rules - it is approach.

That's why I included the caveat, "as far as the actual game mechanics go." This is what I have observed as far as what fans of each game object to in the rules of the other. There are also more general, philosophical questions, which I touch on later in the post.

I come at this from the point of view of somebody who runs 4E in preference to other editions, but has severe reservations about it. Early 4E saw the triumph of a philosophy I first saw creep into the game in 3E: the idea that "fluff" and "crunch" are separable, that you can focus on designing crunchy abstract rules and slap on some fluff afterward, and if the fluff kinda-sorta lines up with the crunch, it's all good. I blame Magic: The Gathering*.

The reason I run 4E is that they did do a really bang-up job with those crunchy abstract rules, and the resulting "skeleton" is very strong. Earlier editions had such clunky rules and horrendous balance that when I try to go back to them after 4E, they drive me up the wall in short order. But I am dissatisfied with 4E's handling of the details of the game world. I find it deeply irritating to run a combat where the wizard announces something like, "I deal 12 points of damage to these three stirges (pointing at minis), and they're immobilized until the end of my next turn," and I have to stop him and say, "Dude, what did your character do?"

My hope is that 5E can use the lessons learned from building that strong rules skeleton, but bring the "fluff" back into prominence. In a different thread, I comment that the flavor text of fireball (glowing bead streaks to destination, detonates in burst of flame) carries a ton of implied rules: You can use it to set fire to a barn full of hay, or generate a flash of illumination in a dark place, or signal an ally from miles away by firing it into the night sky. Flavor text is rules text. 4E forgot that** and 5E should remember.

[SIZE=-2]*No, actually, I really do blame Magic: The Gathering. The decision to put mechanics first and flavor second was one that the M:tG designers made many years ago, and it was right and necessary for that game. But that same idea seems to have bled over into WotC's RPG side, and in an RPG it's poison.

**Although, as I said, this started in 3E. 3E tried to codify all those implied rules as actual rules, resulting in monstrous bloat. 4E's approach was to decide, "We can't codify all those implied rules, so we're going to pretend they don't exist."
[/SIZE]

 

[Roland55]

I see that there is no mention of the Pathfinder material that Mongoose was considering for 2011.... Ah well, I was hoping for a return of the Quintessential series.

As for 5e.... I think 2013 may be on the money, for the announcement at least. Whether it will release in 2013 or 2014...? I dunno.

I also don't know if coming out with 5e will let them recapture their market. Folks are too entrenched in their mechanics at this point. The 3.X/Pathfinder players do not like the mechanics of 4e, and the 4e players wanted changes that were made.

I just don't see the two camps reuniting, arm in arm, as they dance, singing, through the streets. More like two folks that don't like each other at the same party.

If the game is similar to 4e, then I am not interested, and if it is like 3.X... well, I have Pathfinder.

I am sure that the other side of the aisle feels much the same. I don't think that WotC trying to go back to the 3.X architecture will work.

The Auld Grump, which is why we should arm both camps with thermonuclear weapons....

Well stated. Quite the conundrum.

But. It's the challenge that makes it all worthwhile, isn't it?

 

[The_Baldman]

SOMETHING is going on in those towers. What, exactly, it is, Sprange may not know any more than the rest of us. It would be an interesting time to be a fly on the wall of WotC, that's for sure.

There is actually only one tower and it's only 4 floors so not sure if it counts as a tower. It has a nice view of a parking lot and a strip club though.

 

[SSquirrel]

If they're well done, I think they'd see a good ROI; have you seen how popular the V:tM and TOHC has been?

Of course some might say they drove their original product into the ground after painting themselves into a corner, replaced it with a far inferior product and are now trying to return to the original b/c that was what sold better for them.

Seriously, use the rules themselves from the Revised era Vampire and other WoD games, reboot the world setting and update things and don't push the ridiculous overarching plots. The only good product from the whole NWoD line IMO was Changeling. The original Changeling needed serious help and they couldn't break it much worse and they went from lots of cutesy stuff to stealing children and the darker side of the myths.

I am close to completing my collection of both the original and NWoD Changeling as well as my 1st and 2nd Ed Mage (Revised never happened), so that makes me happy at least.