Monte Cook and 5e

[darjr]

he should buy a bicycle. not just cause I'm a bicycle nut, I am, he should because i have heard that bicycling and bike commuting in that part of the country is great. though he probably knows that

 

[Rogue Agent]

what ever it is I just hope that one rule from the 3e and 3.5 book doesn't make it in... "Fighters can't have nice things". (and before you say it isn't in there, I promis you it is, just between the lines.)

Well, that's not strictly true and-- (looks at user name) Ah. Right. Well, carry on.

In addition to that, 3e was also a massive hit because it was a much needed renovation of D&D in multiple ways, but especially the rules set.

Which, in a nutshell, is WotC's current predicament. 3E was a hit because there was a large population of dissatisfied gamers. It succeeded by largely implementing a bunch of stuff that AD&D players had been house ruling into their own campaigns for years.

With 4E, it's fairly clear that WotC's designers thought there was a similar body of dissatisfaction. In retrospect, it appears they were led astray by the specialized echo chambers of CharOp and organized play. They introduced solutions a significant portion of their player base didn't like for problems a lot of them weren't having.

As a result, the player base split.

Is anyone seeing significant dissatisfaction in the 4E player base? The closest I've seen is dissatisfaction with the online tools and dissatisfaction with Essentials. Neither of those suggests to me that a significant majority of 4E players are consciously or unconsciously hankering for a new edition.

There's significant dissatisfaction, of course, from former WotC customers who stuck with 3E. But that doesn't actually help you. The only way WotC could even hope to woo those players away from 3.5 or Pathfinder is to return to the classic gameplay of D&D 1974-2008. But that's the one thing almost guaranteed to alienate the existing 4E fanbase.

Therefore, I predict one of three outcomes from 5E:

(1) It will be a very moderate revising of 4E. If they make some minor tweaks and get rid of dissociated mechanics, they might be able to win back some of the 3E gamers they lost. If they repackage the core rules into a format which is easy for new players to pick up, they might have greater success in drawing in new players.

In this scenario, nothing really changes: You probably end up with a few players sticking around a vestigial 4E community, but most will make the switch. Heck, maybe the games are so inter-compatible that most people just swap material freely and it's only a few die-hards who really get up in arms about it (like the switch from 1E to 2E).

This is, IMO, WotC's best case scenario.

(2) They try to return to classic D&D 1974-2008 gameplay. On paper, it looks good. It looks even better when you say, "We'll return to 1974-2008 gameplay, but we'll try to incorporate all the stuff people like from 4E.)

The actual result would be a game that might have been a smash success in 2008, but is almost certainly a disaster now: Too regressive for 4E players; retaining too much of 4E to pull players away from Pathfinder.

(3) They push forward, creating something as radically different/advanced from 4E as 4E was from 3E.

This game might be great. Doesn't really matter. From a commercial standpoint, it's a disaster, too. Unlikely to appeal to a 3E fanbase already skeptical and cynical about WotC. Almost certain to split the 4E fanbase. Without an OGL to keep the 4E segment of the market alive, the players who stay loyal to that system simply exit the market. (Many are likely to leave the hobby, too.)

I really do hope that WotC can come up with some sort of magic rabbit that they can pull out of their hat. But, historically, new editions for RPGs which haven't resulted from significant, widespread dissatisfaction in the player base have usually had very bad receptions. The actual quality of the new edition is almost irrelevant in this, because what you're dealing with is a group of people with a deep emotional, experiential, and monetary investment in the existing product. Unless they already want a change, they are very, very unlikely to accept a change.

 

[Jhaelen]

Good analysis, I don't really agree with your conclusion, though:

Heck, maybe the games are so inter-compatible that most people just swap material freely and it's only a few die-hards who really get up in arms about it (like the switch from 1E to 2E).

This is, IMO, WotC's best case scenario.

If that's WotC's best-case scenario they can just as well forget about releasing a new edition. They'd be better off continuing what they've been doing in the past years: Polishing and updating 4e and maybe branching into a new entry-level version of the game like Essentials or Gammaworld.

If they want to sell high numbers of new rule (e-)books, they _must_ choose option three: A vastly different system that is to 4e what 4e was to 3e.

I'd buy it, too. Just not _yet_. It's too early for a reboot. I'm still having too much fun playing 4e. Ask me again in 5 years or so.

 

[jasin]

(2) They try to return to classic D&D 1974-2008 gameplay.

What is "classic D&D 1974-2008 gameplay"? That's a pretty huge span.

 

[GreyLord]

There's another option that seems to be overlooked above.

They create a modular game that can start off simple and played like OD&D of old, then scaled up with rules options until it's like 3.X, and additional options that can be added or taken away to make it be more like 4e if you wish.

Or a Modular system of D&D instead of one straight strong fiat.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What is "classic D&D 1974-2008 gameplay"? That's a pretty huge span.

You kill things and take their stuff!

More seriously, I think that he is referring to the way magic and roles work - which were fairly consistent until 4e.

*EDIT* But mostly - it is about killing things and taking their stuff!

The Auld Grump

 

[jasin]

More seriously, I think that he is referring to the way magic and roles work - which were fairly consistent until 4e.

Could you be more specific? Really, I don't see how 4E departed more significantly from 3E than 3E did from 2E (and my experience doesn't go back beyond that). Are you talking about Vancian/preparation magic?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Could you be more specific? Really, I don't see how 4E departed more significantly from 3E than 3E did from 2E (and my experience doesn't go back beyond that). Are you talking about Vancian/preparation magic?

Really? If you cannot see the difference then I don't think that I can make you see.

I could prepare a long diatribe, and be fair insulting in the matter. But, really, if you can't see then you won't. Take a few turns around these very forums - you have been here for a while. Did you really not see the literally thousands of posts on the subject?

Whether or not you like the game, the differences are fairly obvious. From magic, to the use of the encounter as the building blocks of the game, to the changes to healing (horrible changes, in my not at all humble opinion) - these things are pretty danged obvious.

They are why those who prefer 4e prefer it, and why those who do not like 4e cannot stand it.

The Auld Grump, among those who cannot stand 4e.

 

[Rechan]

Whether or not you like the game, the differences are fairly obvious. From magic, to the use of the encounter as the building blocks of the game, to the changes to healing (horrible changes, in my not at all humble opinion) - these things are pretty danged obvious.

Stating an opinion does not make it a fact.

You can say x is x but I don't have to agree. There is no objective truth about how alike the editions are. It's a matter of perspective.

They may be obvious to you, but to me they are pretty similar.

They are why those who prefer 4e prefer it, and why those who do not like 4e cannot stand it.

That discounts those who have played all editions, enjoyed them, and enjoy 4e too.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Stating an opinion does not make it a fact.

You can say x is x but I don't have to agree. There is no objective truth about how alike the editions are. It's a matter of perspective.

They may be obvious to you, but to me they are pretty similar.

Ah.

I think that you may find that you are in a small minority on that one.

If you cannot see the differences then I rather suspect that it is because you don't want to see them. They are fairly obvious to an awful lot of folks.

I am not saying that the changes are good or that the changes are bad - just that I don't like those changes, even a little bit. Others love those very same changes, and can wax eloquent on the use of powers and healing surges.

The games are not the same.

The Auld Grump, who remembers when 4e fans were boasting about how it was different....